- Quickdraw McLaw
- 2020 Judicial Primary
- 20 Comments
- 346 Views
With primary ballots set to start arriving in mailboxes next week, it’s time to talk about some of the contested judicial primary races featured on that ballot. We welcome your comments on the qualifications of the candidates as well as any information you can offer to help voters make an educated decision. Just remember to keep your comments appropriate and try to avoid defamation.
For District Court Judge, Department 15, the candidates are:
- Adam Breeden
- Joe Hardy, Jr. (incumbent)
- Tegan Christine Machnich
What are your thoughts on the race in this department?
This is a tough race for Hardy. He will survive the primary. To win in November, he will need finances. Being condescending and unnecessarily heavy-handed hurts him.
Joe clearly has plenty of money. TV (for the primary!!) and loads of electronic billboards. I dont see any problem in his getting reelected.
I will throw money behind EITHER candidate who Hardy faces in the fall. Breeden is clearly better but I would fund a potted plant over Hardy.
Tegan for me, bye, Joe.
Anybody but Joe. I know Tegan, she would be great.
I saw that Hardy has a reversal rate of 38%. Obviously there are nuances to the same, but that seems really high to me. Limited experience with Breeden, but I am pretty sure that he could do much better than a 38% reversal rate. No experience with Tegan, so no opinion. The Clark County bench is not deep at all, and some are just flat out bad, if not condescending bullies.
Hi, this is Adam Breeden. Below is my standard introduction to this race for District Court Judge Dept. 15 for those who are unfamiliar with me or Judge Hardy:
To tell you a little more about me, Adam Breeden, I’ve practiced law here in Clark County for seventeen years and represented both plaintiffs and defendants. I graduated summa cum laude from The Ohio State University where I was awarded multiple scholarships and studied legal theory abroad at Oxford University, England. I then attended the University of Cincinnati College of Law which at that time was considered a top tier law school by US News & World Reports, the gold standard of law school ratings. While in law school, I was a member of the law review, was awarded a full scholarship/fellowship and I externed for a United States District Court Judge. I’ve won awards for my commitment to pro bono (free) legal services to our Community (Family Law, Veterans and Homeless assistance), served on the State Bar of Nevada’s Fee Dispute Committee, authored a published law review article on the Fourth Amendment and have been a courtroom litigator my entire career. I’m a member of the Nevada Justice Association and have been recognized by the National Trial Lawyers Assn., American Society of Legal Advocates, and been named a Top 100 Lawyer by MyVegas Magazine. Overall, I’ve been licensed to practice law in four different states and eleven different federal courts and handled matters in Nevada’s First, Second, Third, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Judicial Courts, Henderson, North Las Vegas and Las Vegas Justice Courts, the Nevada District Attorney Support Division, Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles, Nevada Workers’ Compensation system, the Nevada Court of Appeals and the Nevada Supreme Court. I’ve decided it is now time to put that background and those skills to good use serving this Community as a District Court Judge.
My Opponent, incumbent Joe Hardy, Jr., was originally a political appointee to judicial office after failing to win election in 2014. Unfortunately, in his short time in office he has an abysmal record of 40% error on appeal, equivalent to an "F" grade. I have seen him in court seemingly unprepared, struggling to find the correct decision, and willfully disregarding clear, controlling legal precedent. Nearly one in four attorneys believed he should not be retained in office during a recent Las Vegas Review Journal survey, equivalent to a “C” rating. He once erroneously entered a $3,000,000 verdict later overturned on appeal and once wrongly sanctioned an attorney $90,000+ which was also vacated by the Nevada Supreme Court. In perhaps his highest profile mistake, he ruled in favor of TitleMax when it was engaged in predatory lending practices against the public only to be unanimously reversed by the Nevada Supreme Court. In another high-profile matter he played politics from the bench and refused to enforce a gun safety ballot initiative that over 420,000 Clark County voters approved. He makes big mistakes on the bench, not small ones. I believe the residents of Clark County can do better than my Opponent and that is why I am running for District Court Judge in Department 15.
Breeden does plaintiff work for 2 years, then back to defense work and then the cycle repeats. He can’t last at any place in town, including his own firm.
Not sure where this comment came from. Mr. Breeden, since you formed your own firm, have you left your own firm? What would be different in your approach? I know why Hardy should not be retained but tell me why you should be elected?
"I’ve…handled matters in Nevada’s First, Second, Third, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Judicial Courts, Henderson, North Las Vegas and Las Vegas Justice Courts."
I believe this is the lawyer equivalent of the "FULL GINSBURG".
Only if he does it in the same day (which I guess is possible with social distancing).
That actually brings up a question– when RJC was open, I could juggle 2-3 hearings in a morning. How are you handling that issue when you can only be on one BlueJeans call at a time?
I enjoy this blog, sometimes its informative, sometimes frustrating , and usually entertaining. But I do not think it should be a forum for DIRECT campaigning. Adam I appreciate the fact you are transparent in your post, and I was already voting for you, but please don't turn this blog into a campaign rally.
I think 12:48 has a point but only to a point. The post stated "We welcome your comments on the qualifications of the candidates as well as any information you can offer to help voters make an educated decision." Anonymous blog posters state that they do not know one or some of the candidates and want to know more about them, their positions and what will set them apart. Tegan previously posted and introduced herself. I frankly welcome candidates who will directly address campaign issues and questions.
Hardy's RJ Poll rating was a 77%, and if that is a "C", well it depends how you look at it.
The RJ moderator of the debate did suggest that it is a "C', and Mr. Breeden seems to have picked up on that and incorporated it into his mantra.
But the fact is that even thugh this RJ moderator made that statement, his colleagues on the RJ, who were the reporters assigned to actually analyze and report on the survey and provide the analytical articles as to the
results, have in the past indicated that these retention numbers are not to be looked at in the same manner as some high school multiple choice exam(by which standard, yes, a 77% would only be like a C+.)
Instead, past articles suggested it is far closer to a job approval rating for a politician, wherein the essential call of the question is the same as the RJ Judicial Survey–is this person doing their job well enough to keep it. Answer yes or no.
And by that standard, a 77% is very high.
Now, that said, since we know that Hardy is not one of the most beloved or highly rated judges, perhaps a more fair and balanced approach would be to view these RJ retention scores as being somewhere in the middle between a school multiple choice exam and a job approval survey concerning some politician.
Perhaps it is unfair to pigeon hole it into any extreme.
But to simply say a 77% score on that survey is a "C" ignores all other details about the survey. One key point it ignores is the overall "adequacy score", synthesizing like 12 different factors, wherein Hardy performs better than he does on his retention score(as most judges do, as there is usually some real separation between the retention score and adequacy scores, further pointing up the limitations and flaws of the survey).
It also ignores that 77% is pretty good when compared to the fact that the average retention score was like 69%.
It also ignores that the survey(although a helpful tool in some sense) is not even remotely scientific and usually only a few dozen people rate a judge. Plus, people are far more likely to weigh in if they don't like someone, than they are likely to weigh in if they do like someone.
I'm not taking up for Hardy. If Ms.Teagan wants to paint him as an undeserving political appointee, fine. If Mr. Breeden wants to discuss Hardy's reversal rate, that certainly appears to be a fair barometer of evaluating a judge's performance.
But attacking someone for a 77% on that survey, wherein we attorneys are now so brutal that many judges seem happy and relieved to avoid falling below 50%, is an absolutely BS, intellectually dishonest approach ,IMO, and I bet Mr.Breeden knows it. If he doesn't know it, then, IMO, perhaps his cerebral and analytical skills should likewise be called into question.
And, also, what of his political acumen? It is hard enough to motivate attorneys, and others, to support and donate to a campaign to defeat a judge who merits an "F" or "D" score. Good luck getting people inflamed enough to contribute to defeat someone even if they do validly score out as a "C+"(which, as discussed above, he probably grades out higher.)
Hardy(77%) scored quite a bit higher than the average judge(69%). People concentrate on removing and defeating horrible judges. They leave mediocre ones(who compromise thee majority of the bench) alone and unscathed on most occasions.
So, Breeden is well served to stick with the reversal rate(which he appears to suggest makes Hardy a "D" or "F" judge), and other valid concerns, rather than focusing on a 77% retention rate, wherein even if it is to be viewed as Breeden and the RJ moderator suggest(although I think they are wrong, for the above reasons and others) still looks like a C+
11:06–77% is not great, nor is it bad, although I don't profess to know whether the scores are more akin to how we grade a public school exam, or more like a job approval survey for politicians.
But I think focusing in reversal rates is valid and may be the way to go in this race.
I doubt the reversal rate, as noted above, is meaningful. ARe they looking at published opinions or published AND unpublished? If just published, then it's meaningless.
It`s all appealed cases resulting in a decision, published and unpublished. It`s 80+ cases. We all know that all bad decisions don`t get appealed and some appeals that may get overturned get settled. Also, many criminal appeals are "easy" appeals to be affirmed. If you consider that his error rate is pretty bad.
Joe Hardy will likely win this race. He has deep roots in the community, and is well known. I think, but am not certain, that he has more money to spend than his opponents. Tegan is intelligent and competent, but I don't see any reason why she should win this race
In order to be a judge, you need a qualification greater than "my daddy who has the same name as me, but who is the 'Sr.,' well, he is in politics (and so was my uncle!) and he had the political connections to get me one of those appointments." I despite dynastic politics, especially when the next generation is a mediocrity.
Check his LinkedIn where he asks everyone "to help me keep my dream job!" I really don't care if it is your dream job because you are really bad at it.