Eglet Delivers

  • Law

  • A man represented by Robert Eglet is getting a $9 million settlement from Pizza Hut over a 2009 crash involving a delivery driver. [RJ]
  • Clark County is accepting applications until November 30 for those of you who want to be considered for appointment to a 1-year term on the Justice Court Department 1 bench. [RJ]
  • If you want to be a magistrate judge in Reno, applications are due by 12/29. [nvd.uscourts]
  • AG Adam Laxalt has finally announced that he is running for governor. [TNI]
  • So far, Aaron Ford and Wes Duncan will competing to be Nevada’s next AG. [TNI]
  • “Just give me a lawyer dog” is, apparently, not an adequate method of demanding your right to counsel in Louisiana. [Washington Post]
52 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 2, 2017 4:43 pm

The Louisiana Supreme Court is going to be overturned on that, no question. That has to be the most asinine decision ever. Anybody with any hint of common sense knows the guy isn't asking for a lawyer dog. Seriously? The cops knew it and the court knows it. How they came to that conclusion can only be explained by pointing out that it's Louisiana.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 2, 2017 4:54 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Or, that it was a per curiam decision and the "lawyer dog" was a single judge writing a concurring opinion. The question was whether "This is how I feel, if y’all think I did it, I know that I didn’t do it so why don’t you just give me a lawyer dog" was a clear invocation of his right to counsel. Because anything short of "I am invoking my right to counsel" seems to be too ambiguous for a wide variety of courts, I'm not too fussed about the LA court finding a conditional statement ambiguous.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 2, 2017 5:26 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

“Why don’t you just give me a lawyer, Dawg” is a clear invocation. Please.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 2, 2017 5:40 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Has to be clear, unequivocal, and unambiguous. At the very least, throwing in a conditional statement "if y'all think I did it," fails under the Davis standard. If he might be invoking his right to counsel, he isn't.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 2, 2017 5:54 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

It was the third time they interrogated him. Obviously they thought he did it.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 2, 2017 6:05 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

I read the article and believe that his right to counsel was invoked. If this goes to the USSC, it will be overturned. Those of us who love the Constitution agree that there was a violation here. All of this could have been avoided if the police officers had simply asked the defendant if he was invoking his right to counsel. That would have cleared up any ambiguity that the officers could have had. If he had responded that he was not, then they could proceed with their interrogation.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 2, 2017 6:12 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Unfortunately, it isn't whether you think he invoked his right to counsel, but if "a reasonable police officer" would understand that he was invoking. And if a reasonable police officer would understand that he only might have been invoking, they aren't required to ask clarifying questions. Blame SCOTUS. They're the ones who laid down Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994).

law.dawg
Guest
law.dawg
November 2, 2017 6:43 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Think he was asking for me?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 2, 2017 8:14 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

11:12AM, the Davis opinion deals with facts that differ from the LA case. The defendant in that case actually waived his right to counsel both orally and in writing. At several stages of the interrogation, the Naval investigators reminded the suspect of his rights and the opportunity to get counsel. When he stated to them that he might want to get an attorney, the investigators stopped questioning and asked for clarification from him. In the LA case, we do not know what steps the police took to make sure the suspect was read his rights, nor did they ask for clarification from him when he stated he might want a lawyer. It will be interesting to see how this SCOTUS this case when it comes before them.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 2, 2017 8:16 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

1:14PM, "it will be interest to see how the SCOTUS rules in this case when it comes before them."

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 2, 2017 8:33 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Any reasonable police officer would have and did know he was asking for a lawyer. The fact Tha they came up with the defense that he was possibly asking for a lawyer dog is ridiculous and they know it. Even an idiot would know he's not asking for a lawyer dog and the DA who wrote the brief asserting such should be sanctioned. How does that pass the red face test?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 2, 2017 10:03 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Although I disagree with 11:12's conclusion, it wasn't the "law dog" language that apparently confused the asshole cops, it was the "If y'all think I did it" language that convinced them that he wasn't sure about getting a lawyer. Total crap.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 2, 2017 10:36 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

3:03, if you read the article, that is not what was argued and that was not the basis for the ruling. Quite simply, would they have argued it the same way if the guy had said just get me a lawyer officer? Undoubtedly the answer to that question is no.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 2, 2017 4:50 pm

Applications are being taken for the Federal Magistrate position in Reno.

Quickdraw McLaw
Guest
Quickdraw McLaw
November 2, 2017 5:01 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Thanks for the tip.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 2, 2017 4:52 pm

When I file a peremptory challenge, is the judge notified of it? Even when there has only been a Complaint filed? If they are notified, how are they notified? Do judges have a way to keep track of specifically which firms have filed challenges?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 2, 2017 5:37 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

I have filed a some challenges and after a couple w the same judge I stopped getting cases in that department. Made life easier for me and my clients. I can't prove it, but I got the feeling that the judge knew and put me on a list automatically recusing themselves from my cases to avoid getting more challenges. I also recall reading somewhere that the challenges are tracked by judge…the RJ poll maybe?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 2, 2017 6:55 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Yes. They get reports and stats are made public. The judges track it because the stats are published and used in "judging the judges" survey.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 2, 2017 7:03 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Don't kid yourself @ 10:37. Preemption fees are easy money for the Supreme Court. As an institution, they're not going to make it easy or cheap on you to bump a certain judge.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 2, 2017 7:10 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

How do most judges react to such notices? Anger or indifference?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 2, 2017 5:27 pm

Yes.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 2, 2017 6:08 pm

A notice to the preempted judge is automatically generated by the Clerk's Office

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 2, 2017 6:24 pm
Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 2, 2017 6:40 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Jesus do I hate JAM and her clueless musings. She literally has no idea about what she purports to opine.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 2, 2017 8:01 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Glad to see it go. Although no one should be spouting the bullshit the rule intended to regulate, IMHO the First Amendment is more important then the rule.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 2, 2017 9:17 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Good riddance. At least the bar had the sense to not adapt the Snowflake Rule as proposed by the hopelessly SJW-converged ABA.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 2, 2017 9:44 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

"For now, and perhaps forever, the state bar won’t pursue making harassment or discrimination misconduct because of all the 'what ifs' raised by opponents using the First Amendment as a weapon.

"Nevada lawyers who want to make racist and sexist remarks can just have at it. As some always have."

Wow. Just wow. It's hard to believe a JOURNALIST (!!!) wrote that. JAM apparently sees no problem with a state actor (NSC) punishing people for impolite/offensive speech. Is JAM really that fundamentally lost on the First Amendment?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 2, 2017 9:47 pm

I just completed the survey regarding random trust account audits. I hope you guys are doing the same!

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 2, 2017 9:52 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

I just did as well. I pretty much told them FUCK NO on random audits

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 2, 2017 9:53 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

I just finished mine.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 2, 2017 9:54 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Link?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 2, 2017 10:05 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

With some of the disasters recently, I think audits should be performed.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 2, 2017 10:08 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

If anybody didn't get the email, here is the text, in which they conveniently omit the fact that the cost of the audit would most likely be paid by the attorney being audited:

The State Bar of Nevada Board of Governors is considering implementation of a random trust account audit program. The purpose of this program would be threefold: (1) as an educational tool to inform lawyers about generally accepted trust account practices; (2) to detect minor trust account management errors early and prevent larger issues; and (3) to deter those lawyers considering intentional bad acts involving client funds.

The random trust account audit program is distinguished from a disciplinary audit conducted as a result of a client complaint or trust account overdraft notification. Conceptually:

Those attorneys who do not handle client money would be exempt from audit;
No more than 2% of all active attorneys would be selected for random audit per year;
If a lawyer is randomly selected, the trust account records from the entire firm would be audited;
An attorney or law firm would not be subject to audit more than once every five years; and
At the conclusion of the audit, the attorney/firm will be provided a written report with the auditor's findings.
Your opinions are important to us and the results will be shared with the Board of Governors and the Nevada Supreme Court. Your identity will not be revealed unless you choose to provide your name at the end of the survey.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 2, 2017 10:14 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

2% of attorneys would be selected for audit. But if an attorney in your firm is selected and handles client monies, the whole firm is getting audited at your expense. Another NSC/OBC proposal which shows why the whole lot need to be shitcanned.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 2, 2017 10:20 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

But, hey, their goal is to educate attorneys on best practices. Since the education will be directed at the 2% of attorneys audited annually, I'm sure that will be a lot of help.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 2, 2017 10:21 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Perfect opportunity for the community to weigh in on OBC and witch hunts, wastes of money, etc. I'm glad they're at least asking for our input.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 2, 2017 10:33 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Next thing Stan will be proposing is random disciplinary assessment hearings for 2% of the attorneys: (1) as an educational tool to inform lawyers about generally accepted ethical practices; (2) to detect minor ethical errors early and prevent larger issues; and (3) to deter those lawyers considering intentional bad acts. After that, we go to a Shirley Jackson lottery and just stone 2% of our membership to death every year.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 2, 2017 10:49 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

These audits are a terrible idea. Complete witch hunt. Fuuuuuck no

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 2, 2017 11:26 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

I responded and indicated that I do not trust bar counsel to be fair or to run the process fairly. I encourage everybody else to do so as well.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 2, 2017 11:29 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Who's paying for the audits? Will there be another fee so that we can achieve the apparent goal of having the highest bar dues in the country? Perhaps they could stop with the bar staff/governors paid vacations, which are disguised as bar conventions, to pay for the new audits?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 2, 2017 11:44 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

I completed it as well. Hope it is annoynamous.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 3, 2017 12:00 am
Reply to  Anonymous

I put my name on it. Screw them.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 3, 2017 1:23 am
Reply to  Anonymous

The parts about using this as "an educational tool" "to detect minor ethical errors early and prevent larger issues" is, IMO, not the way this will play out.

I bet the farm that there will not be too many cases where the Bar indicates something like "well the audit shows a couple hundred dollar discrepancy, but it appears to be an innocent calculation error and no client was harmed, you solved the problem, and thus no discipline will result. And here's our advice on how to rectify this to avoid any real problems in the future."

Instead, if there is any reconciliation problem whatsoever with the trust account, and even if it is innocent, no one is harmed, and the attorney corrects it, it will still result in a Bar prosecution. I am certain of it, and the recent track record on these trust matters, and the new policy on random audits, clearly establishes that only a fool would doubt that any trust issues whatsoever, even the most seemingly innocuous, can and will result in prosecutions. So, everyone best heed that.

Also, as to the part about "an educational tool" they are probably sincere about that, but not in the way we think. It is not a mere educational tool for the attorney with the minor trust reconciliation issue, as I believe they will still be prosecuted, but it is an educational tool for those not selected for audit that if they are audited in the future, and the reconciliation is off by 18 cents, they will be prosecuted as well.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 3, 2017 1:32 am
Reply to  Anonymous

These audits will be an educational tool in the same way that Scott Dozier's cocktail will be an educational tool as to whether it effectively works.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 3, 2017 1:40 am
Reply to  Anonymous

The audits will continue until morale improves.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 3, 2017 8:08 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Here is my favorite part:

"An attorney or law firm would not be subject to audit more than once every five years."

So can I volunteer for an audit so that I am free to do ANYTHING for the next 5 years with no fear?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 3, 2017 8:21 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Would not be subject to a RANDOM audit for 5 years but would remain subject to periodic audits anytime. Plus where did the magic number of 5 years come from?

Rule 78.5.  Maintenance of trust funds in approved financial institutions; overdraft notification.
(1)
(b) Every lawyer engaged in the practice of law in the State of Nevada shall maintain and preserve for a period of at least five years, after final disposition of the underlying matter, the records of the accounts, including checkbooks, cancelled checks, check stubs, vouchers, ledgers, journals, closing statements, accountings or other statements of disbursements rendered to clients or other parties with regard to trust funds or similar equivalent records clearly and expressly reflecting the date, amount, source, and explanation for all receipts, withdrawals, deliveries and disbursements of the funds or other property of a client, and make such records available to the State Bar for inspection upon request.

So we promise not to hit you more than every 5 years, at which time we are going to audit all 5 years. Diabolical.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 3, 2017 8:35 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Sorry the term "periodic audits" was meant to refer to the right of the SBN to audit upon any overdraft notice or complaint regarding accounting.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 2, 2017 11:40 pm

3 days, 19 hours, 50 minutes and 46 seconds until the Kirk-Hughes hearing in front of the Supremes. This will be Must-See-TV. Will be streaming this on the Big TV in the Conference Room.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 2, 2017 11:54 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

I think Janeen is arguing it for the OBC. Janeen is the most professional of the Assistant Bar Counsels. With that said OBC v. Geraldine is like hepatitis v. syphilis. You just want them to be banished to another dimension.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 3, 2017 4:33 am

Fuck the OBC. Fuck the BOGS. Fuck the NSC. Anybody who runs against them, other than a Johnson, has my vote.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 3, 2017 3:20 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Completely agree. Talk about a swamp that needs draining. How have these idiots managed to take a system that was not fantastic to begin with and make it worse, and then be proud of it?