- Quickdraw McLaw
- 42 Comments
- 499 Views
- Anyone have any insight on the new Las Vegas stadium lease agreement? [Las Vegas Sun]
- Richard Johnson is representing a tourist in a suit against Planet Hollywood over injuries he got trying to get away from a mannequin in his room. [RJ]
- Speaking of dummies, there is video footage of the man who bludgeoned a dummy. [Fox5Vegas]
- Doctor on trial testifies about his sleeping beauty fetish. [Fox5Vegas]
Supreme Court rules and grants AG's Petition for Writ of Mandamus against the State Bar on Vandyke and Trutanich. Sounds like the State Bar did a complete lay down job according to the Opinion.
http://nvcourts.gov/Supreme/Decisions/Unpublished_Orders/
Would you prefer that they lie and deny that they gave terrible advice on the front end?
But if they don't pass the July exam they're screwed. No pressure …
The NSC didn't give the advice, someone at the state bar did who may or may not even have been an attorney. The SG's reliance on obviously wrong advice was not reasonable. Read the opinion and the dissent. This just shows laziness and poor judgment by the SG. This guy shouldn't even be working for the AG's office, much less at his level.
The person who gave them the advice was an office worker, not an attorney. They had NO BUSINESS relying on that advice or not getting a formal opinion.
The dissent discusses a case where someone at the bar gave bad advice which was not part of that person's job duties to begin with, and the bad advice therefore could not be relied on.
Bigger issue is the abuse of the rule overall here, the main qualification of these two is that they are "Adam's pals," the rule is hardly being applied to attract the best and brightest to Nevada and neither one of them has done anything of note for Nevada.
They point for me comes from the Dissent where the SBN "did not oppose the relief requested by Petitioners." Well WTF is the SBN doing then? yes SBN, I as a licensed member of the Bar that pays your salaries want you to oppose relief in violation of the rules. No wonder the majority granted the relief; it was unopposed effectively.
You all are making too big a deal over nothing really. It's not like these guys aren't attorneys. Look, they went to law school, passed a bar, and have experience practicing over several years. Should they have taken the Nevada Bar, apparently yes; but who in their right mind would sit for the Nevada bar (and spend the time studying) if they saw a rule that said maybe you don't have to take the bar and then asked for clarification from the State Bar and were told that they didn't have to take the bar. No one would, except those weirdos who count the number of their state bar admissions as some type of honor or trophy.
These guys will sit in July, and this entire thing will be done.
Then we can move on to the next jab at AG Laxalt.
10:31– Honest question. Where does the rule say "maybe you don't have to take the bar"? Point to the language in the rule that you believe is in the slightest bit ambiguous?
@10:31 Thanks for giving us your input Adam Laxalt. But can you not be such a snowflake?
Cuck.
@10:43AM, is it concurrent for 2 years, or can you spread the time out over several years? Or can you cease to be employed and certified for the last day of a two year period, and then be rehired and re-qualify for another two years? We get paid to find ambiguities, nothing is so plain.
But that is not the issue here. They made a call to the State Bar regarding their requirements under the SCR, the State Bar gave them advice and direction, and they followed that advice and direction. Equity demands the result of the majority.
P.S., honest question 10:43AM, if these two guys were hired by anyone other than the uber-conservative AG Laxalt, would this even be an issue?
4:40– Honest answer. This has nothing to do with Laxalt and everything to do with 2 attorneys who failed to read the rule.
As you note, your perceived ambiguities have nothing to do with this case. Vandyke didn't leave employment. In reading SCR 49.8(3), the rule is clear on its face. The rule states that they "may" be certified, not that they must be certified, which is why the finding that certification should be compulsory is actually contrary to the rule. Furthermore there are no exceptions to the 2 year requirement: "In no event shall certification to practice under this rule remain in effect longer than 2 years." No event. Not ever.
The State Bar didn't give them advice; a clerical person answered their question (and according to the email answered it correctly albeit not completely). Not even an employee in the OBC. The email contains no advice. The email contains no direction. Equity demands that you look at the reasonableness of the reliance. The reliance in this case was ridiculous. I agree with the opinion above: the majority seemed to say that if SBN says its equitable, and the AG says its equitable, well then it must be equitable. The minority correctly points out that just because the parties agree on the result does not make it right.
Rule 49.8.  Limited practice for certain deputy attorneys general.
1.  Requirements.  Notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 49, an attorney who is admitted to practice law in any other jurisdiction, and who becomes employed by the Nevada Attorney General, may be certified to practice before all courts of this state subject to the conditions of this rule and to such further conditions as the court may hereafter direct.
* * * *
3.  Termination; renewal of certification.  Certification to practice under this rule shall terminate whenever such attorney ceases to be employed by the Office of the Nevada Attorney General. When an attorney certified under this rule ceases to be so employed, a statement to that effect shall be filed immediately with the admissions director of the state bar by the Nevada Attorney General. In no event shall certification to practice under this rule remain in effect longer than 2 years. An attorney certified by the state bar to practice under this rule who otherwise remains eligible to practice must annually renew the certification in accordance with Rule 49.12.
Get rid of the exception. To practice law or supervise lawyers or represent clients before tribunals in Nevada you must be licensed in Nevada and pay bar dues like everyone else. Period.
Agree – over the years they've added a lot of exceptions and built on to them–in house counsel; single governmental entity; federal public defender; rural county deputy da's and public defenders; clinical law school faculty; even, ironically, State Bar of Nevada lawyers. Wonder how many total fall into these exceptions.
Perhaps it is just me but I thought it was the Attorney General of the state that interprets statutes and renders formal legal opinions for the state, not an employee of the SBN. Are these 2 individuals arguing that they as part of the Office of the Attorney General are incapable of reading and understanding a statute, but that an employee of the SBN is able to do so and authorized to issue an Opinion that should be issued by the Attorney General?
Even though it would be equally wrong in my opinion to rely on advice from staff counsel at the Supreme Court, at least that might be more reasonable since the ultimate decisions and regulation of the bar is by the Supreme Court. The SBN simply implements the directions issued by the Supreme Court and makes recommendations to it.
@6:10PM, you are now getting my biggest Anderson Cooper-esq eye roll. Of course this is about AG Laxalt.
9:59– Really? How so? You honestly believe that the SBN filed their Petition only because Laxalt is the AG? You believe that people are only commenting on this because Laxalt is the AG? Where is the evidence of that?
The only logical argument which might tie Laxalt to this is that Laxalt went outside of the State of Nevada to get a solicitor general (Vandyke) and Chief of Staff (Trutanich)from outside of the Nevada bar. Ketan Bhirud does not have this problem. So I will agree with you that if you are the person who hires people who require the exception, then it has something to do with your selection but not with your politics.
Our state supreme court is awful. With maybe 1-2 exceptions, it's a bunch of C students with political connections.
I can't think of a second exception.
We have one Justice who I would say is the exception to the rule. The rest are hacks who are not doing their job. Laziness beyond belief.
Welcome to the Real Nevada … we're not in Cali any more…
It would be one thing if they were just bad at their job. But they are incredibly slow and inefficient in producing their bad work product.
Dissent got it right. Unanimously though, no protection for the others in noncompliance at AG's office.
They should have had the foresight to get an email from a secretary at the State Bar with an ambiguous and obviously wrong interpretation of the rule.
Did they fire Kim Farmer for letting her staff give legal advice? I don't understand why the majority so easily finds that advice from a clerk justifies failure to follow a Supreme Court Rule, when employees of their own Clerk's Office, including the attorneys, are not allowed to give any guidance of any kind on any issue ever. They repeat the mantra of "read the rule" like robots.
I've called the NV Supreme Court a few times with questions about filings, deadlines, and procedural issues. While they usually tell me to read the rule, they will, in my experience, try to help out the best they can, which I appreciate.
Kim Farmer get fired? You jest! She is so Teflon that she must must have naked pictures of someone giving the Hardesty Hummer or the Double Douglas on someone's Cherry pie.
I have a few questions for anyone who is L.D.S. Someone posted today at 8:01 a.m.(but included under yesterday's postings for Thursday May 18) that he is L.D.S but that he sometimes disagrees with how his church handles resignations form church members.
He made it sound like a matter of somewhat severe significance that the resignations be formally accepted and approved by sect leaders. But no specifics were offered as to the vital importance of such undertaking. Yet he made it sound as if it is imperative that church leadership confirm and accept the written resignation. It was all made to sound a little cryptic yet vaguely ominous.
Since in this country, anyone (presumably) can abandon the religion they are practicing without any formal approval, why is in so critical that L.D.S church leaders act more diligently and conscientiously in reviewing and accepting these resignations? Why is acceptance or confirmation even necessary?
If someone leaves the faith without their resignation being formally approved by leadership, does a more unpleasant fate await them in this life and/or the after-life?
8:01 here.
If your records remain on the rolls even after you've abandoned the faith, you will receive frequent unannounced visitors from the Church. Many people find this understandably annoying. Additionally, if you're gay (and married) you could be subjected to a "Church court," even in absentia, where they formally excommunicate you.
The Church's position is that if you leave, your blessings and salvation terminates. I think God is a bit more chill than that. For example, I seriously doubt God will punish a person who leaves the Church because they are gay and want to be left alone.
The Church's position is also that as long as you're technically on the rolls, they are responsible for you. Thus, you'll get those visits, and follow ups and what not.
What he/she said. Nothing like taking my 12 y/o to collect fast offerings and having a door slammed in his face because the clerks didn't pull out the envelopes for the peeps on the no contact list…..
I loved that when I resigned from the church they had a copyrighted pamphlet they sent just for the occasion. Must happen a lot.
A purely practical question… If you want to leave the church and doing so causes the loss of blessings and salvation anyways, is there really any reason to care if they excommunicate through a trial held in absentia. I would think the end result is the same, you walk away and live your life as you want without their interference.
Excommunicating someone that wants to quit sound a bit like a Monte Python skit…. We wont allow you to quit, your fired….
It's the difference between being disbarred and voluntarily resinning your bar membership. In both cases, you're no longer an attorney, but one carries the stigma of wrongdoing.
I don't know how it is today but 10 plus years ago attempting to leave the "church" of scientology (capitals omitted intentionally) usually brought nastiness and/or death threats. The Constitution does not always matter.
I'm guessing you failed Conlaw if you think the 1st Amendment has a lot of importance in a situation without a recognizable state action.
I am laughing at the mannequin case. WTF? That is a stupid case to take.
I think they are going to dress a mannequin in a suit to defend the case.
Am I the only one thinking that the doctor with the sleeping beauty fetish should just get a mannequin?
What is wrong with a sex doll?
Sex dolls are great for practicing cpr.