- Quickdraw McLaw
- 54 Comments
- 258 Views
- The end of a long midterm campaign season is finally here. Clark County results will be available here and statewide results available here after the polls close tonight at 7 pm.
- Do any of you do any election-related lawyering on election day?
- Any special plans to celebrate?
just vote, be part of the process.
Can anyone explain the "vote early, vote often" signs? Wouldn't that be illegal?
I'm irritated by the "vote early, vote often" signs, because I think there is a chance, albeit rather marginal, that some people will take that literally and think it's OK to vote more than once. (Yes, some people really are that dumb.)
But it's clearly 1A speech, so no, it's not illegal.
By contrast, a flyer or ads targeting certain voters that says something like "Election Day is November 8! Go vote on Nov. 8!" is obviously false and intended to deceive. I'd argue it's illegal under NRS 293.710 as a "fraudulent contrivance."
There was a minor issue along those lines by what's his name Dane here in vegas a couple years ago, but I haven't seen too much of that in Nevada personally. There have been some really egregious cases from other states.
Well, based on Ralston's early vote numbers, and the apparently massive increase in young voter turnout, it's going to be an enormous blue wave unless Republicans truly show up in force today.
The other wildcard is nonpartisan voters, who I think are more conservative than most people assume. If they show up in force, and break mostly conservative, the Republicans can still eke out some wins. Possibly even governor, but I'd guess mostly down-ballot incumbents.
Laxalt might have been able to win but for Bundy. Bundy will probably cost him the election. The Bundy family is a gift that just keeps on giving.
I do think Wes Duncan will win. He's a solid candidate and I think the attacks on Aaron Ford were probably effective.
Regarding Bundy and Laxalt, I can't stand either of them, so to me that would be delicious.
I agree regarding Duncan. I've never been a fan of Ford, but holy shit some of those ads really made him look like an idiot. Can't say what larceny is? How the hell did he even pass the bar or graduate from law school? Plus tax liens, etc., he ought to be toast.
But, if it's a blue wave, it might well carry him to AG, just like the red wave in 2014 carried Laxalt. Ford's ambitious and arrogant enough to think that if he gets elected he has a "mandate" from the people.
I would like to know, if Wes wins and Adam needs a job, do they just keep hooking each other up?
Good question. I hope Wes would have more sense than that and/or the party bosses pulling the strings will kick Adam to the curb if he loses. Send him back to DC.
Don't count on it. Duncan would find something for Domenici–err, Laxalt–to do, and vice versa.
We are so F'd if the democrats take over. Welcome to East California.
World's fifth largest economy by GDP and a $9 billion budget surplus. Yes, those are both terrible things to have.
That's nice. Maybe they can start paying their 1.3 trillion dollar debt.
And there is the problem – a budget surplus by the government of a state doesn't mean it's a great thing. A government that overtaxes more than it overspends is not a successful government. Having a budget excess means that the government overtaxes its citizens. It will have to spend those additional funds or it will become transparent to its citizens that it should not be paying as much in taxes. Not that those who voted for a huge gas tax increase against themselves would be able to figure that out though.
A budget surplus by itself is not terrible thing if it was the result of either unexpected economic activity or was intentional (e.g. creating a budget reserve for an anticipated future shortfall). If nothing changed from prior projections and it was unintended then I agree taxes are set too high, however, if the result of intentional planing to avoid needing an increase in the taxes in the near future I would say that it good leadership.
How come commentators are not addressing the CA debt of $1.3 trillion? I do not think that most Nevadans aspire to be Californians. The Nevada way of life and how we approach our societal issues need to be our own.
And our approach will be decided by Nevadans – the 3 million Nevadans who live in the state today, not the 300,000 Nevadans that lived in the state 50 years ago. Sorry if the state doesn't have the same groupthink it did in the 60s.
And don't pretend that the Democratic party holds a monopoly on deficits/debt. How has the GOP's implementation of its long-touted fiscal responsibility gone the past couple years? I'll give you a hint. It's not going well.
10:19, are you complaining that CA has a lot of debt and then complaining that CA has a current budget surplus? But isn't that how you shrink a debt? And if there is a debt problem shouldn't you commend the current government for dealing with it (or at least not exacerbating the problem).
Sure, CA could cut taxes to try to minimize its surplus, but then you'd probably complain that CA isn't doing enough to lower its long-term debt. Can't win with some people.
Elimination of the SALT deduction will turn Calif into a Red state on the local level starting in two years. Hard to vote for candidates supporting wasteful social welfare programs when you actually have to pay for them instead of having everything subsidized by the rest of us.
Anyone watching oral arguments re: bar discipline of Luis Rojas? The attorney for the bar is making some pretty crazy arguments and is not persuasive.
I thought he should have only received an 18 month disciplinary term? Isn't that up? Shouldn't he be able to get his license back?
Luis had an 18 month suspension but as you may have heard, his legal assistant stole around $700,000 during his suspension.
This is what happened. Luis got suspended in 2015. While suspended, his former paralegal/office manager is alleged to have stolen $790,000 in a complex fraud. So this is a new Discipline case against Luis for that theft and allegations that he failed to supervise her. Who argued for the State Bar? Jason Dworin had been handling it but he is now out in the rurals as an assistant DA.
It was Dan Hooge, the new head honcho. He had literally no idea what he was doing up there. It was PAINFUL. It was like listening to a 2L argument. That is your new Bar Counsel.
Listen to Hooge's argument. It is painful. https://nvcourts.gov/Supreme/Arguments/Recordings/IN_RE__DISCIPLINE_OF_LUIS_ROJAS/
That hurt. I've heard better arguments *by* 2Ls.
I listened to it and thought he did a decent job. I thought both sides did a decent job.
I like him, but if that is what happened he is a moron and deserves whatever is coming. If he was suspended 18 months, and if it was at least in part for failure to supervise assistants who ripped off client money, and he was not able to correct the problem and then during his suspension the assistant ripped off even more money–to the tune of almost $800,000., we don't need the attorney still practicing.
I agree that the Bar has, in recent years, gone too far in disciplining trust fund problems where the problem was detected, the attorney then reconciled the balances and no client suffered substantive harm, this here is a serious problem.
But if attorney is suspended and at least part of the problem is an employee ripping off money, then if during that suspension the employee has the capacity to continue to rip off money I don't care how "complex" the fraud issue is. Attorney is entirely responsible.
T0:12:48–If you like him and that is your view on what should happen to him, I would hate to see what you think should happen to your enemies.
That said I agree with your view, providing that the assumption is correct that the people the assistant continued to rip off were Luis' clients. I didn't really follow it. During suspension there would have been very strict restrictions on disbursement of any funds received by Luis on behalf of his client. I have trouble seeing how he would have had almost $800,000. coming in from clients during the suspension period that some assistant would have had the ability to steal.
But perhaps someone will explain it to us.
Not the facts. Luis's prior suspension related to a felony conviction for lying on a loan application. Had nothing to do with supervision of legal assistants.
It may not make much difference. If he is suspended for fraud, and then during that period his assistant rips off that kind of money from Luis' clients(meaning that steps were not fully taken to prevent the employee from having access to client funds) it does not bode well. The Bar will view him as a continuing danger who should not handle third party money–and it is difficult to be in solo private practice and not handle client money
Once again, not the facts. Rojas was temporarily suspended on May 5, 2015. The theft of monies occurred between 2012 and when the employee fled on June 6, 2015. The thefts are not alleged during Rojas's suspension. In fact Rojas is the one who brought the evidence of the thefts to Metro. The complicated scheme was that she allegedly brought him legitimate checks and then would destroy them and replace them with duplicate checks for the same amounts written to her co-conspirators. There is no allegation or evidence that Rojas failed to supervise during the suspension.
To: 1:25, if that's fully the factual scenario, then why are they rigorously pursuing him and what is his culpability?
I suppose, from what you explain, is that he is culpable because the employee worked for him during that 2012 to 2015 period, and that Luis should have somehow detected that during that period Luis should have detected that she brought him legitimate checks, destroyed them and then replaced them with checks in the same amounts written to her co-conspirators.
He apparently finally detected it in 2015 and reported it, but I guess they expected that he should have detected and reported it earlier–like in 2012 when the scheme apparently commenced.
To:2:00:Or perhaps they unofficially took sort of a strict liability approach rather than attempting to directly connect the dots as to negligence or intentional fraud.
And the Bar does seem to often take that approach, i.e.: these are your employees, you are responsible, so we don't have to prove negligence or when you should have known this or that. Whatever you knew or didn't know, or how reasonably your actions were or were not in attempting to detect the fraud and take steps, you are responsible for all financial actions taken by your employees as to your client's
funds.
At least it seems to me that that such is the approach taken in certain cases.
They are pursuing him under the theory that every attorney has a responsibility for his/her/its/their Trust Account. The State Bar's argument is that he failed to determine that he was employing a felon and that once he discovered that she was a felon he failed to fire her and/or adequately supervise. Rojas has argued that the fraud was so complex that he never would have caught it until she fled the firm and deleted 19.000 emails and files and that ultimately he is the victim of the fraud.
As for why is the OBC pursuing him, because it is the OBC with an investigation that started under the Stan Regime. Attorneys are never victims of fraud, only perpetrators in their book. Even the Supreme Court (which has been none too friendly to attorneys) seemed flummoxed by the fact that Rojas appears to have been the one defrauded who is on the hook for the restitution and who did everything he could to bring it to light.
Need a recommendation (yes I am an attorney but I just do not know who to call after Cal Potter died). Metro misconduct.
Paola Armeni, I believe, if it is a civil rights issue.
What about Maggie McLetchie?
Call Mitchell Bisson at Callister and Associates. He does civil rights litigation, so I sent my last one that way
I thought McLetchie was a staff attorney for the LVRJ?
Not a staff attorney for the R-J. She's partnered with Alina Shell.
Is it really that hard to manage client funds as an attorney? Why are non-lawyers given so much access to client funds? Or any access for that matter? I guess that I just do no understand why it is almost all cases where a staff member steals funds involve solo practitioners with large volume practices.
"Why it is almost all cases where a staff member steals funds involve solo practitioners with large volume practices." That is a false narrative. It is a case of (and Justice Cherry has noted this) that the State Bar goes after solos with a vengeance and allows big firms (see the Koeller Nebeker incident) to go unchecked. Because who in the big firms are you going to suspend? All of the Partners? Whereas in a small firm (see Myers & Gomel) it is easy who to hit.
Based on turnout so far, I'm going to say that Laxalt wins governor. Cadish and Stiglich both win. Rosen is going to edge out Heller, and Tarkanian will take another L. Also, Mary Kay Holthus and Elana Lee Graham will win. Lots of democrats and uninformed first time voters + judicial race= increased advantage to female candidates.
In what universe does a person vote for Laxalt over Sisolak but not Heller over Rosen?
I love how you equate Democrats and uninformed voters with an increased likelihood of women getting elected. Thanks for that. Signed, a woman (if you didn't already guess).
Just stating the facts, m'am.
This comment has been removed by the author.
@ 4:17; In a universe where the voter wants a check and balance. In the Laxalt case it is unquestioned that the Democrats will control both houses on the Nevada legislature. Therefore, if you are looking for a check on their power and ability to engage in mischief, voting for Laxalt makes perfect sense.
Similarly, it is unquestioned that Trump will remain as President after the midterm election, thus if you are looking for a check on his power (especially on issues where Senate confirmation is required) voting for Rosen is the correct move.
We elected an AG with a criminal wrap, awesome.
You do realize that Laxalt also has a history. Y'know, the last elected AG.
Not like Ford. Don't think Lacalt had tax liens,either. This is going to be an interesting AG's office.
If you ask me, Laxalt's "criminal wrap" was actually worse than Ford's. Ford was arrested for public intoxication, for stealing some tires, and for FTAs. That doesn't put other people's safety in danger.
Both of them have acknowledged some wrongdoing and have said they are different people now, which is absolutely believable since they were so young when all the incidents happened. But saying Ford's history is a problem while completely ignoring Laxalt's is silly.
Well I'm pretty happy with the results, except for AG. I'm mostly blue, but I couldn't bring myself to vote for Ford.
Once again, Nevadans proves themselves to be among the stupidest sum'bitches in the nation. No, I'm not talking about the people who were elected. I'm talking about the questions that were approved.