- Quickdraw McLaw
- 29 Comments
- 338 Views
- Lisa Rasmussen and Maggie McLetchie are representing couples suing Metro over excessive force at protest against police use of excessive force. [RJ]
- $100,000 bail for Douglas Crawford who is alleged to have exchanged legal services for sex. [RJ]
- Opinion: The race for Clark County DA is the most important contest on the ballot. [TNI]
- Nevada treasurer divesting public funds from companies with assault weapon ties. [News3LV]
- Elvis company backtracks and is now offering licensing deals to Vegas chapels. [RJ]
- Now that the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard trial is over [Fox5Vegas] and we have a nation full of defamation experts, do you expect to see more defamation cases in the near future?
Someone mentioned that the OBC was rushing to conduct an emergency suspension of Crawford. I see he has hearings on next week. Anyone know anything more about a pending suspension? Since he has not been convicted I am not certain if they can summarily suspend just based upon charges under SCR 111.
If he had sex with clients, they wouldn't need a conviction would they? The sex with employees would need a conviction though, right?
I think that's right. Bizarre thing is that not only did he get his law license back but he was one of State Bar of Nevada's CLE speakers for mental health/substance abuse/addiction credits. His CLE videos weren't bad.
Are you fucking kidding? He steals 400k. Is a thrice addict. An open sexual alleged predator,and LCL has him present CLEs? Way to go,BOGs,Dreitzer,and the Nevada Supreme Court. Way to protect the public=. Where's the media coverage?
Looks like SCR 102(4) is the path to emergency or temporary suspension.
4. Temporary suspension by the supreme court.
(a) Following a hearing and upon entry of a hearing panel’s recommendation for disbarment pursuant to SCR 105(2)(e) and served upon the attorney in accordance with SCR 105(3)(a), bar counsel may file a petition with the supreme court requesting the immediate temporary suspension of the attorney. The decision of the hearing panel shall accompany the petition.
(b) On the petition of bar counsel, supported by an affidavit alleging facts personally known to the affiant, which shows that an attorney appears to be posing a substantial threat of serious harm to the public, the supreme court may order, with notice as the court may prescribe, the attorney’s immediate temporary suspension or may impose other conditions upon the attorney’s practice. If a petition is filed under subsection 3 of this rule, a separate petition under this subsection must be filed with the supreme court as soon thereafter as possible.
(c) A temporary order may restrict an attorney in the handling of funds entrusted to the attorney or over which the attorney has the power of disposition, or, if appropriate, direct the attorney to establish a trust account in accordance with conditions prescribed in the order. When served on either the attorney or a depository in which the attorney maintains an account, the order is also an injunction against withdrawals from the account except in accordance with the terms of the order. An order of the supreme court that restricts the handling of funds by an attorney supersedes an order entered by the district court pursuant to subsection 3 of this rule.
(d) An order of temporary suspension precludes the attorney from accepting new cases but does not preclude the attorney from continuing to represent existing clients during the first 15 days after service of the order unless the court orders otherwise. Fees and other funds received from or on behalf of clients during this 15-day period shall be deposited in a trust account from which withdrawals may be made only in accordance with the conditions imposed by the order.
(e) The attorney may request dissolution or amendment of the temporary order of suspension by petition filed with the supreme court, a copy of which shall be served on bar counsel. The petition may be set for immediate hearing before a hearing panel, to hear the petition and submit its report and recommendation to the court within 7 days of the conclusion of the hearing. Upon receipt of the report and recommendation, the court may modify its order, if appropriate, and continue such provisions of it as may be appropriate until the final disposition of all pending disciplinary charges against the attorney.
Not that bizarre, 10:30. Probably more common than we realize. I know a lawyer that volunteers for Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers and leads bar sponsored AA events/CLEs that leads a life of sexual deviancy (clients, subordinate employees…his bologna pony knows no bounds).
There are people involved in family court who are desperately fighting for their children against abusive spouses and bad circumstances. They get desperate trying to navigate the courts and are easy prey for unscrupulous individuals who might take advantage of their desperation. In my opinion OBC cannot move fast enough to suspend Crawford.
Doug Crawford is actually quite effective as a family court lawyer. He certainly has numerous issues, and probably will never practice again, but he's better than the average family court lawyer.
I have been in Family Law for a little over 20 years. I have had many, not several, but many females that either offered or would have traded sex for legal services. I had one young lady slide a piece of paper across my desk that said, "Would you like a blowj** instead of money?" re fees. I'm not trying to virtue signal or say I'm a saint but I can think of nothing lower than taking advantage of people who would do anything to save their children. I would have felt below dirty and nasty. As an associated thought, and not to lessen the sinfulness of taking advantage – I also didn't want to be accused of anything and always had someone with me. Anyone that takes advantage of someone that comes to them for help – worst kind of person. Full disclosure – I try to be a good member of my Church (LDS).
This is heartbreaking. How do we even stop this?
10:20 back: 10:26 I would think there could be many things we could do. The one that pops to mind is that in family law we can do things "unbundled" meaning, of course, like ala carte i.e., not being retained. This is a good thing because we can help people little by little and they don't feel such a need to try to trade their bodies. But larger law firms don't like "unbundledness" and often try to fight it like trying to keep the unbundled attorney locked in a case (which increases the unbundled attorney's unwillingness to take these cases), they often criticize and make the litigants feel less to the point some clients have said (not understanding) I want a real lawyer not unbundled, etc. In short, if the large law firms (not all but some) would realize that unbundled is a step above Pro Bono and give them a break, it would take some pressure off of people with lower incomes – I'm sure there are many other ideas but that is one I have long worried about. Not to sound ingratiating or maudlin but it also starts with people like you realizing there is a problem and caring
There is a reason unbundled is not favored in that it leads clients to not understanding the limits of the limited retention and thinking that they have an attorney for all purposes. It also leads to attorneys with one foot in the litigation and one foot out of the litigation.
The SCT has a petition pending re adopting rules providing for unbundled services in certain kinds of cases, including family law. It just got filed and is open for written comments.
• ADKT 0597: At 3 p.m. Tuesday, August 2, the court will discuss proposed rules for a pilot program related to the unbundling of legal services in enumerated family court case types. The proposed amendments can be found in Exhibit A attached to the order. Also attached are a proposed notice of limited-scope representation (Exhibit B) and a proposed notice of completion of services in limited scope representation (Exhibit C). Written comments and requests to participate are due by 5 p.m. Friday, July 22.
Numerous attorneys have sex with clients.
Would a rule of professional conduct prohibiting sexual relations with subordinates be appropriate? (With the same exception for sexual relationships that predated the professional relationship).
Nah. Its covered by sexual harassment laws. No reason to declare it unethical as well.
A rule prohibiting attorneys from having sex with subordinates? Ridiculous.
Yes, it is ridiculous that Douglas Crawford was allowed to keep his license
Crawford stole almost $400k previously from clients to indulge his vices. That alone demonstrated a very low regard for the rights of others and the law. He should have been psychologically evaluated at that time and before he was handed back his bar card. And in my opinion, any lawyer who steals money from their client should never be allowed to practice law unsupervised again, if at all. I also hold the employees who knew that women were being secretly recorded in sex acts and remained silent for their own financial gain in low regard.
To be fair, he stole closer to $500k. When one adds the claims validated by Client Security Fund and the criminal case, the numbers were almost $500,000.
Judge writes letter to litigant/dad after mom kills the child. https://www.koin.com/news/oregon/divorce-judge-writes-letter-to-dad-after-mom-allegedly-kills-daughter/
Douglas
4:39-much of you say is actually true, and I can't take issue with the truth of much of it. So, my complaint is more with your tone, and what you cleverly choose to omit and choose not to clarify, rather than having a lot of major issues with the basic truth of your actual representations. Lets examine your four main points:
1. He was "allowed" to steal 500K. It is true he was not permanently disbarred for this, but was suspended for several years and made full restitution(which is quite rare at these levels). Had he been disbarred, he never would have made restitution and his victims would now be far worse off.
2. He was also "allowed" to assault women. This is the only one of your four representations which really appears to be substantially false. His earlier discipline involved the 500k. His recent problems do involve allegations of assault, but he is being aggressively prosecuted for it. So how is he being "allowed" to assault women.
3. After the discipline and suspension involving the 500K, he was teaching CLEs. Absolutely true, but his presentations were exactly about that very point–that his addictions lead him to steal the 500K. All states have CLE presentations from attorneys who encountered these types of problems, which almost derailed their careers, and in some case did derail their careers. They serve as cautionary tales for other attorneys who may be experiencing similar difficulties, plus where to seek help, etc.
4. "Judges and spouses are on board with this behavior." True that some may have(quite unwisely) been(or still are) his Facebook friends, but it is quite a leap to go from that fact to the conclusion that they applaud and support such deplorable behavior.
508, there is nothing wrong with 439's post. Crawford ever should have been allowed to get his license back,period.
5:08, spoken like a true bar counsel, I had a chance to look at Doug Crawford's facebook through my son's page. Very disturbing, predatory, and stalker like posts. I agree with all of the criticism aforementioned judiciary is getting. Judges should not be on facebook. You are. You are responsible for who associate with, and any interaction you have with Douglas Crawford. For me, the stealing 500k is enough for me to have nothing to do with him, and I am a judge. This is why I am not on social media. Finally, it is disturbing to me why anyone of my fellow judges thinks it is acceptable to be "friends" with someone who has such a demeaning, obsessive , object view of women.
7:48-Judge, I could be wrong, but I sincerely doubt that 5:08 is Bar Counsel. The post is not supportive of Crawford, but merely attempts to analyze and deconstruct each issue. I do agree with that post at least to the point that by him not being disbarred he as able to reimburse the 500K.
Also, since that earlier discipline was limited to financial matters, how come everyone now has a crystal ball and acts like it should have been obvious that he was going to sexual assault women years later?
Yes, judges and attorneys should not be his Facebook friends. It's highly undignified, quite distasteful and raises ethical implications, particularly if they actively participate in posting positive reactions to his slime posts.
But as a judge you are obviously very attuned to degrees of conduct. I for one do not believe that a lawyer or judge merely being his Facebook friend is remotely as bad as his Facebook friends who posts approving "likes" and supportive comments to his posts and photos of him with hookers or whatever it is.
But, yes you are correct that one should merely avoid friending people like that on social media, and then we never even have to address such issues.
5:08, your clarifications and explanations are not necessarily wrong, so I won't spend time deconstructing or analyzing them.
I just want to point out that the broader point that 4:39, and others, are making, is that his ticket should have been punched after the situation with the 500K, and that therefore none of these subsequent victimizations would have happened.
Yes, you are right as to the limited point that had he been disbarred the victims of the theft never would have received restitution.
Apparently, this was going on for years, including the cameras where staff could witness all this. Not sure why it took years for someone to come forward. But it could be because there is strength in numbers and it was the first time that several of them were willing to band together.