I was in District Court for a law and motion calendar this morning. Mostly perfunctory stuff, and I won’t say which courtroom. As I was waiting to be called, I saw at least two attorneys (male) appearing by Zoom without even a collared shirt on, much less a jacket and tie. That just seems incredibly lazy and disrespectful to me. I rarely wear a suit jacket for remote appearances, and I may or may not have pants on, but at least I put on a dress shirt and a tie.
If I were a judge I’d turn into Kishner if someone appeared remotely in less than a suit. 1) It’s still court – it’s a privilege that you’re not forced to waste all day going down to RJC, but you need to treat it exactly the same as being there. 2) If we expect parties, jurors and the public to treat the judicial system as serious work that commands their respect and cooperation, then we need to treat it seriously ourselves.
I remember being mortified one time several years ago when I ran out the door for court and left my coat behind at home. It felt like one of those recurring dreams where you go to school in your pajamas.
I was in front of Commissioner Biggar one time in the old courthouse when Glen Lerner appeared in just an open collar shirt (no tie, no coat– this was during the phase when he probably did not fit any of his coats any longer). Biggar called him on the carpet for not meeting dress code. Next case up the smartass attorney (I do not recall who) piped up and said “When I forget my coat and tie, I call my wife because when I am in need, one call thats all….”
Just make sure you’re not using your phone in vertical mode – it shows a lot lower than your waist.
A few months ago an attorney was on zoom in his (fully visible) boxers.
Guest
Anonymous
December 17, 2025 11:54 am
I was in a ZOOM hearing this morning (once again I will not name the department but if you were in there you will know) where the moving party was a pro se who was admittedly elderly. The judge told the opposing attorney that she was inclined to allow the pro se party’s non-lawyer son to argue the motion for the pro se. I was shocked that a judge would right out of the shoot excuse and sort of encourage the unauthorized practice of law. Opposing attorney seemed so shocked that he put up a meek objection to what was clearly the court’s decision. I think I would have made a bigger stink that this is clearly against the law.
From a disability standpoint I could see having someone able to get help expressing themselves or communicating, but like supported decision making, it would have to have the guardrail of the communication not being substituted from the speaker versus being at the direction of the moving party (like having a statement and having someone help read it since that is faster than text to speech software). I did have a case where someone doing flagrant UPL had clients sign POAs so they argued they were their “attorney” by then footnoting/whispering essentially the “power of.”
I’m reminded of all the times judges have allowed random people to speak for a business when businesses do need to get actual counsel and can’t be pro se in that given situation.
It was appropriate. If the P was elderly, may had cognitive issues, or just needed help to explain his case, then it would be natural for his son to assist him.
Compare that to the so called “paralegals” who do give legal advice or financial advisors who are preparing wills and trusts for a fee. The real UPL offenders have little fear of prosecution. UPL is rampant in LV.
Q. If you saw real UPL, who or where, would you report it? If you don’t know, it proves my point.
I recall at some point Judge Navarro was taking UPL complaints. The DA (it’s a crime) and State bar won’t do a thing. Current bar counsel probably doesn’t get the same thrill taking down a notario as he does taking down a solo lawyer.
UPL Complaints–I am seeing a lot of out of state attorneys usually from California or California licensed appearing in depositions and meetings and not being Nevada licensed attorneys. It usually starts with “does anyone have any objection to the appearance.” In interest of expediency many will not object. Let’s just get it done is the viewpoint. But it is a problem and will only get worse. We have a cadre of foreign licensed attorneys, law grads and paralegals essentially functioning a full fledged lawyers. What is the answer. And wait till they start with that dumbed down bar exam. You won’t be able to tell who is a real attorney.
I have never experienced this or even heard of this happening. I would absolutely object to a non-Nevada attorney representing a party in a Nevada deposition, unless of course I could later use it to my advantage, like excluding the depo at trial or something. But, I’d put some sort of objection on the record.
UPL is a crime, 1st offense misdemeanor, by third offense gross misdemeanor. Someone said or implied that OBC does not have authority here and can only refer the case to the DA. Not exactly right.
” 3.  The State Bar of Nevada may bring a civil action to secure an injunction and any other appropriate relief against a person who violates this section.”
NRS 7.285(3)
Absolutely not. Standing up in a courtroom, presenting facts and making legal arguments for another person or party (whether your father, your LLC, your child, whatever) is the definition of practicing law. If you knew that your father was infirm and cannot represent himself, you have a duty to hire a lawyer who legally can represent your father. This is and was illegal.
To your question, yeah I see UPL all of the time and call it out. Contract paralegals and notarios who ghostwrite pleadings and then mysteriously end up on the service list. It does not lessen how bad what the OP has reported.
All good academically. I had an estate matter recently where the father (opposing party) was infirm, they couldn’t find counsel ($$$$) and so the judge let the daughter speak. I did not object.
Unfortunately Power of Attorney gives a person zero authority to represent another person in court. Can give you authority to hire a lawyer for the person but not to represent the person. Likewise being a trustee does not give authority to a non-lawyer to represent a trust or its beneficiaries.
It’s sticky, but I don’t fully agree. The Court has held and the statutory annotations cite that UPL is a “case-by-case” determination and “exercise of legal judgment on the client’s behalf” is the key determining factor. A son helping to communicate the elderly pro se parent’s case to the court is not exercising legal judgment. But what the son actually says and does could come very close to the line. I’d say the court and opposing counsel have an ethical responsibility to help keep the pro se litigant and their spokesperson on the correct side of the line.
Guest
Anonymous
December 17, 2025 3:53 pm
Can we all agree Jessica Peterson’s comment in RJ about her poor judicial temperament was really, really bad? She just admitted she can’t control her temper in court. Wowza.
She did? Where did she say that? I appear in front of her ALL THE TIME. The only time she gets pissed off is when people are talking over each other or talking over her. My experience has been that she makes sure everyone is heard, that everyone’s rights are protected. She is kind to pro ses. I had a pro se opponent in her court a few weeks ago, and she bent over backwards to make sure they were accommodated, which I am/was fine with because due process also protects my client. I read that she said she was something like “not Ms. Congeniality.” Whatever that means. Her staff is super friendly and helpful. She is always accommodating with scheduling and OSTs. I just don’t get the negative reactions, honestly.
I was in District Court for a law and motion calendar this morning. Mostly perfunctory stuff, and I won’t say which courtroom. As I was waiting to be called, I saw at least two attorneys (male) appearing by Zoom without even a collared shirt on, much less a jacket and tie. That just seems incredibly lazy and disrespectful to me. I rarely wear a suit jacket for remote appearances, and I may or may not have pants on, but at least I put on a dress shirt and a tie.
I love it when attorneys are doing Zoom from their cars, looking like they are going to the car wash.
If I were a judge I’d turn into Kishner if someone appeared remotely in less than a suit. 1) It’s still court – it’s a privilege that you’re not forced to waste all day going down to RJC, but you need to treat it exactly the same as being there. 2) If we expect parties, jurors and the public to treat the judicial system as serious work that commands their respect and cooperation, then we need to treat it seriously ourselves.
It’s a fine line. If I can tell they’ve made an effort I’d let it slide. I wouldn’t go full Adam Ganz on them.
What does Commissioner Ganz do (since he is extremely casual under that robe)?
I remember being mortified one time several years ago when I ran out the door for court and left my coat behind at home. It felt like one of those recurring dreams where you go to school in your pajamas.
I was in front of Commissioner Biggar one time in the old courthouse when Glen Lerner appeared in just an open collar shirt (no tie, no coat– this was during the phase when he probably did not fit any of his coats any longer). Biggar called him on the carpet for not meeting dress code. Next case up the smartass attorney (I do not recall who) piped up and said “When I forget my coat and tie, I call my wife because when I am in need, one call thats all….”
I remember a different story where someone appeared in front of Biggar with a suit coat but no tie. Same treatment.
I think there was at least one summer though where all of the departments relaxed the coat rule.
Yamashita used to waive the jacket rule from Memorial Day to Labor Day.
Maupin let men appear without a jacket.
Someone once said that if you wear a tie and no jacket you look like a Verizon salesman and I have to say he wasn’t wrong.
Agreed. Jacket, no tie usually works. Tie, no jacket makes you look like a high school kid on the debate team.
One time in a hearing with Judge Hardy, a guy stood up to unmute (his home office set up was weird) and you could see he was in his underwear.
Just make sure you’re not using your phone in vertical mode – it shows a lot lower than your waist.
A few months ago an attorney was on zoom in his (fully visible) boxers.
I was in a ZOOM hearing this morning (once again I will not name the department but if you were in there you will know) where the moving party was a pro se who was admittedly elderly. The judge told the opposing attorney that she was inclined to allow the pro se party’s non-lawyer son to argue the motion for the pro se. I was shocked that a judge would right out of the shoot excuse and sort of encourage the unauthorized practice of law. Opposing attorney seemed so shocked that he put up a meek objection to what was clearly the court’s decision. I think I would have made a bigger stink that this is clearly against the law.
Has anyone else seen a judge allow this?
I have never seen that and I agree it’s shocking. That’s one of the most brightline, no-arguing-around it rules there is.
From a disability standpoint I could see having someone able to get help expressing themselves or communicating, but like supported decision making, it would have to have the guardrail of the communication not being substituted from the speaker versus being at the direction of the moving party (like having a statement and having someone help read it since that is faster than text to speech software). I did have a case where someone doing flagrant UPL had clients sign POAs so they argued they were their “attorney” by then footnoting/whispering essentially the “power of.”
I’m reminded of all the times judges have allowed random people to speak for a business when businesses do need to get actual counsel and can’t be pro se in that given situation.
It was appropriate. If the P was elderly, may had cognitive issues, or just needed help to explain his case, then it would be natural for his son to assist him.
Compare that to the so called “paralegals” who do give legal advice or financial advisors who are preparing wills and trusts for a fee. The real UPL offenders have little fear of prosecution. UPL is rampant in LV.
Q. If you saw real UPL, who or where, would you report it? If you don’t know, it proves my point.
I recall at some point Judge Navarro was taking UPL complaints. The DA (it’s a crime) and State bar won’t do a thing. Current bar counsel probably doesn’t get the same thrill taking down a notario as he does taking down a solo lawyer.
UPL Complaints–I am seeing a lot of out of state attorneys usually from California or California licensed appearing in depositions and meetings and not being Nevada licensed attorneys. It usually starts with “does anyone have any objection to the appearance.” In interest of expediency many will not object. Let’s just get it done is the viewpoint. But it is a problem and will only get worse. We have a cadre of foreign licensed attorneys, law grads and paralegals essentially functioning a full fledged lawyers. What is the answer. And wait till they start with that dumbed down bar exam. You won’t be able to tell who is a real attorney.
I have never experienced this or even heard of this happening. I would absolutely object to a non-Nevada attorney representing a party in a Nevada deposition, unless of course I could later use it to my advantage, like excluding the depo at trial or something. But, I’d put some sort of objection on the record.
UPL is a crime, 1st offense misdemeanor, by third offense gross misdemeanor. Someone said or implied that OBC does not have authority here and can only refer the case to the DA. Not exactly right.
” 3.  The State Bar of Nevada may bring a civil action to secure an injunction and any other appropriate relief against a person who violates this section.”
NRS 7.285(3)
Absolutely not. Standing up in a courtroom, presenting facts and making legal arguments for another person or party (whether your father, your LLC, your child, whatever) is the definition of practicing law. If you knew that your father was infirm and cannot represent himself, you have a duty to hire a lawyer who legally can represent your father. This is and was illegal.
To your question, yeah I see UPL all of the time and call it out. Contract paralegals and notarios who ghostwrite pleadings and then mysteriously end up on the service list. It does not lessen how bad what the OP has reported.
All good academically. I had an estate matter recently where the father (opposing party) was infirm, they couldn’t find counsel ($$$$) and so the judge let the daughter speak. I did not object.
Not sure I agree.
It could be easily overcome with a notarized POA for the purposes of making a case.
Just my $0.02
Unfortunately Power of Attorney gives a person zero authority to represent another person in court. Can give you authority to hire a lawyer for the person but not to represent the person. Likewise being a trustee does not give authority to a non-lawyer to represent a trust or its beneficiaries.
It’s sticky, but I don’t fully agree. The Court has held and the statutory annotations cite that UPL is a “case-by-case” determination and “exercise of legal judgment on the client’s behalf” is the key determining factor. A son helping to communicate the elderly pro se parent’s case to the court is not exercising legal judgment. But what the son actually says and does could come very close to the line. I’d say the court and opposing counsel have an ethical responsibility to help keep the pro se litigant and their spokesperson on the correct side of the line.
Can we all agree Jessica Peterson’s comment in RJ about her poor judicial temperament was really, really bad? She just admitted she can’t control her temper in court. Wowza.
Recognizing that you have a problem is half of the battle so kudos to her. Kishner was not even this self-realized.
She did? Where did she say that? I appear in front of her ALL THE TIME. The only time she gets pissed off is when people are talking over each other or talking over her. My experience has been that she makes sure everyone is heard, that everyone’s rights are protected. She is kind to pro ses. I had a pro se opponent in her court a few weeks ago, and she bent over backwards to make sure they were accommodated, which I am/was fine with because due process also protects my client. I read that she said she was something like “not Ms. Congeniality.” Whatever that means. Her staff is super friendly and helpful. She is always accommodating with scheduling and OSTs. I just don’t get the negative reactions, honestly.