A Washoe County Commissioner is joining the mayor of Reno’s lawsuit (both represented by a cadre of lawyers at McDonald Carano) against an investigator accused of placing GPS trackers on their vehicles. [TNI]
Q&A with new Gaming Control Board Chairman Kirk Hendrick. [TNI]
Motion: Nick Carter’s counterclaim meant to “harass, intimidate” alleged rape victim. [RJ]
Not Vegas, but a former associate must repay law firm for failing to bill promised hours. [ABA Journal]
I wonder – if the firm really controlled case assignments and decreased assignments to the defendant attorney, how could he have met his billable requirement? Was D responsible for marketing too?
I wonder if such an arrangement could be considered to be a species of non-compete (because it discourages associates from leaving because of their "debt" to the firm) and is thus unethical because of its chilling effects on clients choosing their lawyers. See MRPC 5.6(a); NRPC 5.6(a). Win the contract suit, but lose the ethics case and get disbarred?
My experience with law firms, and it's been awhile, is that the ability of the associate to meet billable requirements is heavily dependent on the extent to which the partner sits there and sucks up all the gravy/easy billing.
According to Above the Law, this firm received almost 800k in PPP assistance, all of which was forgiven. Presumably, this money was used in part to pay its staff and associates for a slowdown in business during the pandemic, including the money the firm successfully sued its former associates to recover.
"come on, man"
-Joe Biden
Guest
Anonymous
February 24, 2023 11:12 pm
The problems with E-Filing and Odyssey should be a topic at the next Bench Bar Meeting. Also, the ability to do emergency filing when the system is down.
Guest
Anonymous
February 24, 2023 11:27 pm
Other than the fact it would cost a bloody fortune, and it is a trespass against property, how is putting a GPS on a vehicle different from somebody tailing a vehicle 24/7?
If a vehicle were tailing your car 24/7, you'd notice at some point. It's out in the open. And another person cannot physically tail another person 24/7. The tail-er would need a break at some point. I would think that anti-stalking laws would make this unlawful, but this is not my area so I'm just speaking out my law-hole.
Agree with 7:24, in that I understand why the investigator placed the GPS trackers, rather than resorting to a more traditional "tail and follow method."
But even the GPS tracking method seems like it was much more appropriate for like 2008, than today. Once one is suspicious it may be occurring, and hires a specialist to locate the trackers, as well as connect the dots as to who may be responsible, that is often not a difficult undertaking.
I have been informed that the more cutting-edge investigative firms, with the latest is specialized equipment, has far more effective, and far less detectable methods, than slapping trackers on cars. Obviously, I was told wrong based on the methods used by this investigator.
11:08, I had the same reaction, although admittedly I don't know what those more modern and sophisticated methods would consist of, as I am a no tech. guy.
In a sci. fi. movie the politician may be tracked with programmed drones, and other exotic equipment. But if that occurred in actuality, it would be prohibitively expensive, and the government would order it be shot down, while we decide what foreign regime to blame for it.
So, the question remains for you higher tech. folk-could the investigative firm have employed more effective, and up-to-date methods to trail these folks?
Be particularly cautious when dealing with investigative firms who claim to have specialized equipment or methods. Example: firms who claim to be able to get you bank balances, when what they do is contact the bank and fraudulently pretend to be the customer (a crime).
Guest
Anonymous
February 24, 2023 11:36 pm
Good news for attorneys in Nevada regarding that North Dakota case where the former associate must repay part of his/her compensation for failing to bill enough hours. It couldn't happen here. Such a contractual requirement would be illegal under Nevada law. NRS 608.100(2) reads: "It is unlawful for any employer to require an employee to rebate, refund or return any part of the wage, salary or compensation earned by and paid to the employee."
Larson Latham Huettl doing wonders for future recruitment efforts.
I wonder – if the firm really controlled case assignments and decreased assignments to the defendant attorney, how could he have met his billable requirement? Was D responsible for marketing too?
I wonder if such an arrangement could be considered to be a species of non-compete (because it discourages associates from leaving because of their "debt" to the firm) and is thus unethical because of its chilling effects on clients choosing their lawyers. See MRPC 5.6(a); NRPC 5.6(a). Win the contract suit, but lose the ethics case and get disbarred?
My experience with law firms, and it's been awhile, is that the ability of the associate to meet billable requirements is heavily dependent on the extent to which the partner sits there and sucks up all the gravy/easy billing.
According to Above the Law, this firm received almost 800k in PPP assistance, all of which was forgiven. Presumably, this money was used in part to pay its staff and associates for a slowdown in business during the pandemic, including the money the firm successfully sued its former associates to recover.
"come on, man"
-Joe Biden
The problems with E-Filing and Odyssey should be a topic at the next Bench Bar Meeting. Also, the ability to do emergency filing when the system is down.
Other than the fact it would cost a bloody fortune, and it is a trespass against property, how is putting a GPS on a vehicle different from somebody tailing a vehicle 24/7?
Other than the 4th amendment violation, sure, it's no different.
4th amendment doesn't apply to private parties… ConLaw 101
If a vehicle were tailing your car 24/7, you'd notice at some point. It's out in the open. And another person cannot physically tail another person 24/7. The tail-er would need a break at some point. I would think that anti-stalking laws would make this unlawful, but this is not my area so I'm just speaking out my law-hole.
Agree with 7:24, in that I understand why the investigator placed the GPS trackers, rather than resorting to a more traditional "tail and follow method."
But even the GPS tracking method seems like it was much more appropriate for like 2008, than today. Once one is suspicious it may be occurring, and hires a specialist to locate the trackers, as well as connect the dots as to who may be responsible, that is often not a difficult undertaking.
I have been informed that the more cutting-edge investigative firms, with the latest is specialized equipment, has far more effective, and far less detectable methods, than slapping trackers on cars. Obviously, I was told wrong based on the methods used by this investigator.
11:08, I had the same reaction, although admittedly I don't know what those more modern and sophisticated methods would consist of, as I am a no tech. guy.
In a sci. fi. movie the politician may be tracked with programmed drones, and other exotic equipment. But if that occurred in actuality, it would be prohibitively expensive, and the government would order it be shot down, while we decide what foreign regime to blame for it.
So, the question remains for you higher tech. folk-could the investigative firm have employed more effective, and up-to-date methods to trail these folks?
Be particularly cautious when dealing with investigative firms who claim to have specialized equipment or methods. Example: firms who claim to be able to get you bank balances, when what they do is contact the bank and fraudulently pretend to be the customer (a crime).
Good news for attorneys in Nevada regarding that North Dakota case where the former associate must repay part of his/her compensation for failing to bill enough hours. It couldn't happen here. Such a contractual requirement would be illegal under Nevada law. NRS 608.100(2) reads: "It is unlawful for any employer to require an employee to rebate, refund or return any part of the wage, salary or compensation earned by and paid to the employee."
Can you image if this was legal and you had worked at one of the brothels that was now trying to recover back pay?
The ladies wouldn't take that laying down!