Mom of Las Vegas teen fatally beaten outisde high school files lawsuit. [RJ; News3LV]
Two convicted after ancient rock formations damaged at Lake Mead. [RJ]
Nevada Court of Appeals rejects petition to dismiss indictment of Dan Rodimer. [8NewsNow]
Jury finds Tupac murder suspect guilty in jail fight. [8NewsNow]
Lombardo disses Democratic voters, and has a raunchy message for detractors. [Nevada Current; News3LV]
With that story about the Governor’s choice of phrasing, what is your position on the use of expletives in the practice of law in Nevada? Are you regularly dropping f-bombs in the office? Do you share raunchy jokes with staff or clients? Is there any place in our business for colorful language?
Whenever something like this comes up, I always try to look at it in the lens of real consequences.
Did he lose any political capital within his own party? I doubt it, In fact it probably improved his image within the Nevada GOP.
Did he lose any political capital at working with Democrats? I doubt it. Everyone knows he is all talk when it comes to bipartisan overtures, this just verifies what everyone already knows.
Is there a single GOP donor who will withhold money based on this? No way, this is going in fundraising mailers.
That said Dems will fund raise on this as well. I’m sure my own inbox is already full of Democrats begging me for money. (I’ll probably fall for it).
Is there a SINGLE Nevada voter who will change their vote based on this? Not a chance.
So ultimately, this is just meat for us partisan hardliners to talk about. But at least it gives us something to talk about!
Honestly, this already got me thinking I might not vote for him next time. i thought he was more of a centrist but talking like this makes him look way more to the right and the stuff I don’t agree with. Him saying he would be like Desantis if he had the Leg is very problematic in my opinion. And to be clear it’s not the language he used, it’s the attitude.
Add me to the list of disappointed voters changing their mind. Maybe it’s just wishful thinking but why can’t we get sane conservative options in a purple state instead of conspiracy theorists? Protestors don’t matter, voters do and this voter is desperate for an adult to step up and show some real leadership instead of another corrupt sycophant parroting the party line.
I don’t think he is actually a true MAGA believer or a conspiracy theorist. Governor Lombardo is a tactical pragmatist, or at least sees himself that way. He thinks, perhaps correctly, or not, that to obtain the ring of power he must make at least a nominal curtsy to the crazy. He is not the only one to negotiate this bargain in the age of Trump. The problem is that I’m not aware of anyone who has done this successfully. Everyone eventually ends up being completely consumed by MAGA. In a different environment, Lombardo probably would have been a very good, very pragmatic (in policy) Governor. There isn’t much latitude for that kind of thing from a Republican Governor these days. Too bad, because I think he is very talented, very smart and otherwise a very honorable person.
9:17 AM here. The issue isn’t whether a particular statement builds or expends political capital. It’s the broader concession that people can get under your skin. Never let people know they are getting under your skin. I am surprised we are debating this as litigators. Never, ever let your opponents know you are on tilt. It’s like sharks with blood in the water. It’s the difference between Michael and Sonny. Hello?!!?!?
They’re not *supposed* to be religions. People should go back to being Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, Buddhist and Jewish instead of being recalcitrant partisan dickheads.
Joe Lombardo is a repug through and through. Bills he vetoed:
Gun control
Tenant protection
Debt collection consumer protections
Codification of the right to contraception
From the Indy: Gov. Joe Lombardo suggested attendees of anti-Trump protests that took place this Saturday in Nevada and nationwide, known as the “Hands Off” movement, were paid protesters. “That momentum and those crowd sizes isn’t because they’re pissed, because they want to make a difference. It’s because they’re getting paid. So don’t lose sight of that,” he said.
Question: how does one sign up to be a paid protestor? Asking for a friend.
I’ll bite– one inference is that politically active individuals who regularly exercise their right to free speech will continue to do so.
The second inference is that the GPS and tracking cookies on your cellphone give corporations too much of your personal information to sell to the highest bidder, who can use daddy’s money to purchase it and come up with “studies” like this.
Wouldn’t having attended previous rallies defeat the argument that this is fake? And what about the people we all know that attended and posted about it?
You are citing Tony Seruga? The same guy this morning who said that Justice Amy Coney Barrett is going to be removed from the Supreme Court because she is involved in child sex trafficking as part of Catholic Charities? Even right-wing nutjobs think he is a right-wing nutjob.
Exactly. I don’t think less of him for complaining about online comments or using the F word. I think less of him for repeating the debunked garbage that people who show up to express their displeasure with anything MAGA are there because they are paid to be there.
Guest
Anonymous
April 10, 2025 10:01 am
i’ve been looking for a new opportunity over the last few months and have seen postings that imply they’ve hired people and are already looking for someone new. In today’s market is that an indication that it is a problem with the employer or more likely the employee?
Hard to say but I’d be concerned about a toxic employer. When people land a job, they typically stop looking. So if I see multiple recent hires who all jumped ship, I’d suspect odds they learned quickly something was wrong in the workplace. Are you able to track where the short-term hires moved to? That could provide some clues perhaps? Best of luck to you. It’s rough out there. Jobs are toxic and interviewing is tough.
I worked for a firm a few years ago that was owned by one guy. I, who had more experience than him, was basically running the entire shop while he was out marketing and digging up cases. Things started out fine, but turned very toxic very quickly. I heard that after I left, that firm then went through SEVEN different attorneys in a 2-year period for the single position that I had been in. Do you think that it’s the working attorneys’ fault or the owner’s?
Guest
Anonymous
April 10, 2025 10:15 am
Starting to look like Amy Coney Barrett is the new David Souter or at least twinsies with John Roberts
Expletives in the office (as long as they’re not directed to a coworker): Sure
To opposing counsel or the court: Never
In a filing: Yes, if quoting something. We’re all adults, and censoring the words used often lessens their impact. I worked on an egregious sex harassment case and if we had censored the language the defendant had used it wouldn’t have accurately conveyed how awful he was.
It is wrong to censor quoted expletives in court filings as it is a distortion of the truth and reality.
As to me personally, I do sometimes say “fuck” at work. I wish I did not. There are many people, including my mother and my kids, who would be disappointed to hear me say that word. I have tried not not, but obviously not hard enough.
When writing court filings with difficult language, I address the full quote as early as possible and establish that further censored language is done by the author, not the quoted party. So I’ll quote “mother fucker” one time and in a parenthetical I’ll put (“MF”). Similarly, If I need to describe a sexual assault, I will do so early on, then refer to it as a “SA”.
This isn’t distortion, it is meant to avoid creating a distraction from the legal issues.
Personally, I keep it real.
Sometimes you want the facts to influence the decision and even distract from the legal issues.
Meaning, if my client was the one using the inflammatory verbiage, I would redact/paraphrase and focus on the law. If it was the opposing party, I want this clown to be judged for his treatment.
My colleague had a TPO case a couple of years ago. The Judge asked the attorney to read the text messages that were filed in support of the TPO. It was quite graphic and this young attorney gave the Judge the opportunity to read the text messages himself by saying, “Are you sure Judge? it’s already part of the record.” Judge said, “Please read the texts.” Young attorney read the text messages and it said, “suck my dick” about 10 times and a dozen violent sex acts that the adverse party wanted to do to the applicant. Everyone in the court was red-faced. However, the point was made and the TPO was extended.
Guest
Anonymous
April 10, 2025 11:48 am
Question for all civil trial lawyers. My firm has had two cases go to trial over the last couple of months where expert witnesses were called. In both cases, the judges said that seeking to qualify an expert in a particular field before examining their opinions is no longer necessary. I have looked at NRS 50, the NRCP, and searched caselaw to see where this change was made. Can anyone point me to the change in law??
I want to know too! I had HEARD this years ago but never could find where. So one time I had a trial went through it and got “you don’t need to do that anymore.” Years later, a family court trial and I skipped it and the judge said “you haven’t moved to to have the witness declared an expert.” Or is it just the opposite of whatever I do?
You beat me to finding the cite, 1:34! The footnote is:
“In ruling on whether or not a witness may testify as an expert, the court must take care not to use terms such as ‘qualified as an expert’ or ‘certified as an expert’ when referring to the witness in the presence of the jury. The court should simply state that ‘the witness may testify,’ or sustain any objection to a request to permit the witness to testify as an expert. This will prevent potential prejudice by either demeaning or promoting the credibility of the witness.”
Guest
Anonymous
April 10, 2025 1:37 pm
What kind of morons destroy rock formations? Like, c’mon man, you don’t have anything better to do?
I understand your concern but I can answer your question this way: 2, 3, 7, 8, 11, 14, 17, 18, 19, 23, 24, 27, 28, 32. The odds that it would have gotten any better than Eric Johnson (versus the odds where it would have gotten much worse) were against them (and frankly all of us).
I don’t know anything about the facts of this case, but can anyone shed any light on whether what part of this is actually collectible? I seem to recall a recent Claggett med-mal verdict where he bragged about hitting for $40m+ when, in reality, the amount attributable to unsettled defendants after applying the caps was around $5m?
It’s a bad faith case against a WC insurer. Colorado is one of only a couple of states that allow bad faith against WC. The company basically flat denied the plaintiff’s WC claim after he fell of a ladder at work and was in a coma. I’m not aware of nay caps on the case. Should be collectible after the appeals run.
Never let the haters know you see them, much less that they’re getting under your skin. You’d think the Governor would know this.
Whenever something like this comes up, I always try to look at it in the lens of real consequences.
Did he lose any political capital within his own party? I doubt it, In fact it probably improved his image within the Nevada GOP.
Did he lose any political capital at working with Democrats? I doubt it. Everyone knows he is all talk when it comes to bipartisan overtures, this just verifies what everyone already knows.
Is there a single GOP donor who will withhold money based on this? No way, this is going in fundraising mailers.
That said Dems will fund raise on this as well. I’m sure my own inbox is already full of Democrats begging me for money. (I’ll probably fall for it).
Is there a SINGLE Nevada voter who will change their vote based on this? Not a chance.
So ultimately, this is just meat for us partisan hardliners to talk about. But at least it gives us something to talk about!
Honestly, this already got me thinking I might not vote for him next time. i thought he was more of a centrist but talking like this makes him look way more to the right and the stuff I don’t agree with. Him saying he would be like Desantis if he had the Leg is very problematic in my opinion. And to be clear it’s not the language he used, it’s the attitude.
He’s no centrist. Not even close.
He is a Uniparty shill, make no mistake.
I am 10:01 and, if you in fact do not vote for him based on this, I’ll happily stand corrected.
Add me to the list of disappointed voters changing their mind. Maybe it’s just wishful thinking but why can’t we get sane conservative options in a purple state instead of conspiracy theorists? Protestors don’t matter, voters do and this voter is desperate for an adult to step up and show some real leadership instead of another corrupt sycophant parroting the party line.
I don’t think he is actually a true MAGA believer or a conspiracy theorist. Governor Lombardo is a tactical pragmatist, or at least sees himself that way. He thinks, perhaps correctly, or not, that to obtain the ring of power he must make at least a nominal curtsy to the crazy. He is not the only one to negotiate this bargain in the age of Trump. The problem is that I’m not aware of anyone who has done this successfully. Everyone eventually ends up being completely consumed by MAGA. In a different environment, Lombardo probably would have been a very good, very pragmatic (in policy) Governor. There isn’t much latitude for that kind of thing from a Republican Governor these days. Too bad, because I think he is very talented, very smart and otherwise a very honorable person.
His is, as was stated before, a Uniparty shill.
Governor Cop.
9:17 AM here. The issue isn’t whether a particular statement builds or expends political capital. It’s the broader concession that people can get under your skin. Never let people know they are getting under your skin. I am surprised we are debating this as litigators. Never, ever let your opponents know you are on tilt. It’s like sharks with blood in the water. It’s the difference between Michael and Sonny. Hello?!!?!?
The Governor is correct. You see it at all levels of government now. The Dems are the party of obstruction, obfuscation, and ossification.
Both parties are parties. They’re not religions.
They’re not *supposed* to be religions. People should go back to being Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, Buddhist and Jewish instead of being recalcitrant partisan dickheads.
Joe Lombardo is a repug through and through. Bills he vetoed:
Gun control
Tenant protection
Debt collection consumer protections
Codification of the right to contraception
Elect a cop. Get your police state.
better that the convicted criminal we have as NV AG
Did you mean the convicted criminal we have as President?
GTFOH with that nonsense.
I mean, he literally was convicted of 34 felonies…
More nonsense. . . . .
#MAGA cuz we winning !!
If this is winning, what is it like to lose?
From the Indy: Gov. Joe Lombardo suggested attendees of anti-Trump protests that took place this Saturday in Nevada and nationwide, known as the “Hands Off” movement, were paid protesters. “That momentum and those crowd sizes isn’t because they’re pissed, because they want to make a difference. It’s because they’re getting paid. So don’t lose sight of that,” he said.
Question: how does one sign up to be a paid protestor? Asking for a friend.
Before you dismiss this stuff outright, analyze and explain the GPS data below:
https://x.com/TonySeruga/status/1908704326379593779
There’s no data there, just conclusions and second-hand claims about what the data purported showed. I call bullshit.
More data.
https://x.com/TonySeruga/status/1903677337406992400
“84% of the devices present had attended 9 or more Kamala Harris rallies, antifa/blm, pro-Hamas, pro-Palestinian protests, 31% had attended over 20.”
I’m not even sure what conclusions to draw from that.
“data”
What data?
I’ll bite– one inference is that politically active individuals who regularly exercise their right to free speech will continue to do so.
The second inference is that the GPS and tracking cookies on your cellphone give corporations too much of your personal information to sell to the highest bidder, who can use daddy’s money to purchase it and come up with “studies” like this.
Wouldn’t having attended previous rallies defeat the argument that this is fake? And what about the people we all know that attended and posted about it?
Logic is not their strong suit.
You are citing Tony Seruga? The same guy this morning who said that Justice Amy Coney Barrett is going to be removed from the Supreme Court because she is involved in child sex trafficking as part of Catholic Charities? Even right-wing nutjobs think he is a right-wing nutjob.
lmao c’mon dude. Conclusory statements on X, citing to some unknown black-box “very sophisticated algorithm” is not data.
You do realize that using a crackpot’s posting on “X” as a source doesn’t persuade anyone who is capable of critical reasoning, right?
Exactly. I don’t think less of him for complaining about online comments or using the F word. I think less of him for repeating the debunked garbage that people who show up to express their displeasure with anything MAGA are there because they are paid to be there.
i’ve been looking for a new opportunity over the last few months and have seen postings that imply they’ve hired people and are already looking for someone new. In today’s market is that an indication that it is a problem with the employer or more likely the employee?
Hard to say but I’d be concerned about a toxic employer. When people land a job, they typically stop looking. So if I see multiple recent hires who all jumped ship, I’d suspect odds they learned quickly something was wrong in the workplace. Are you able to track where the short-term hires moved to? That could provide some clues perhaps? Best of luck to you. It’s rough out there. Jobs are toxic and interviewing is tough.
Could be expansion. If you know the previous hires already left/got fired, that would be a red flag.
I worked for a firm a few years ago that was owned by one guy. I, who had more experience than him, was basically running the entire shop while he was out marketing and digging up cases. Things started out fine, but turned very toxic very quickly. I heard that after I left, that firm then went through SEVEN different attorneys in a 2-year period for the single position that I had been in. Do you think that it’s the working attorneys’ fault or the owner’s?
Starting to look like Amy Coney Barrett is the new David Souter or at least twinsies with John Roberts
Thank god.
Expletives in the office (as long as they’re not directed to a coworker): Sure
To opposing counsel or the court: Never
In a filing: Yes, if quoting something. We’re all adults, and censoring the words used often lessens their impact. I worked on an egregious sex harassment case and if we had censored the language the defendant had used it wouldn’t have accurately conveyed how awful he was.
It is wrong to censor quoted expletives in court filings as it is a distortion of the truth and reality.
As to me personally, I do sometimes say “fuck” at work. I wish I did not. There are many people, including my mother and my kids, who would be disappointed to hear me say that word. I have tried not not, but obviously not hard enough.
GTFOH
When writing court filings with difficult language, I address the full quote as early as possible and establish that further censored language is done by the author, not the quoted party. So I’ll quote “mother fucker” one time and in a parenthetical I’ll put (“MF”). Similarly, If I need to describe a sexual assault, I will do so early on, then refer to it as a “SA”.
This isn’t distortion, it is meant to avoid creating a distraction from the legal issues.
11:02 AM here. I agree that’s not a distortion. That’s a smart approach and one I will adopt. Thanks for sharing.
Personally, I keep it real.
Sometimes you want the facts to influence the decision and even distract from the legal issues.
Meaning, if my client was the one using the inflammatory verbiage, I would redact/paraphrase and focus on the law. If it was the opposing party, I want this clown to be judged for his treatment.
Facts are facts, get them before the court and the public. Don’t censor. The author of the salty language live with their choice of words.
My colleague had a TPO case a couple of years ago. The Judge asked the attorney to read the text messages that were filed in support of the TPO. It was quite graphic and this young attorney gave the Judge the opportunity to read the text messages himself by saying, “Are you sure Judge? it’s already part of the record.” Judge said, “Please read the texts.” Young attorney read the text messages and it said, “suck my dick” about 10 times and a dozen violent sex acts that the adverse party wanted to do to the applicant. Everyone in the court was red-faced. However, the point was made and the TPO was extended.
Question for all civil trial lawyers. My firm has had two cases go to trial over the last couple of months where expert witnesses were called. In both cases, the judges said that seeking to qualify an expert in a particular field before examining their opinions is no longer necessary. I have looked at NRS 50, the NRCP, and searched caselaw to see where this change was made. Can anyone point me to the change in law??
I want to know too! I had HEARD this years ago but never could find where. So one time I had a trial went through it and got “you don’t need to do that anymore.” Years later, a family court trial and I skipped it and the judge said “you haven’t moved to to have the witness declared an expert.” Or is it just the opposite of whatever I do?
Roll with the punch. But you might wish to make a record, by asking the Court to accept the testimony as that of an expert in the field.
Mulder v. State, 116 Nev. 1, 13 (2000). In particular, see footnote 2.
You beat me to finding the cite, 1:34! The footnote is:
“In ruling on whether or not a witness may testify as an expert, the court must take care not to use terms such as ‘qualified as an expert’ or ‘certified as an expert’ when referring to the witness in the presence of the jury. The court should simply state that ‘the witness may testify,’ or sustain any objection to a request to permit the witness to testify as an expert. This will prevent potential prejudice by either demeaning or promoting the credibility of the witness.”
What kind of morons destroy rock formations? Like, c’mon man, you don’t have anything better to do?
Idiotic, low rent, low education, disrespectful, I’m the main character morons.
Cult members.
Just heard that Patrick Kang, Esq. and his law firm obtained a $15,000,000 verdict against the Cosmopolitan in a slip and fall at the Chandlier Bar.
Any details? Case number? Plaintiff’s name?
https://www.reviewjournal.com/business/casinos-gaming/california-woman-wins-15m-judgment-against-strip-casino-hotel-3349956/
Why wouldn’t Cosmo file a peremptory challenge against Eric Johnson? Weird
why would they
He was the judge in the case where Cosmo was hit for $160 million
Because he’s one of the few decent, fair, and experienced judges left on the bench.
I understand your concern but I can answer your question this way: 2, 3, 7, 8, 11, 14, 17, 18, 19, 23, 24, 27, 28, 32. The odds that it would have gotten any better than Eric Johnson (versus the odds where it would have gotten much worse) were against them (and frankly all of us).
exactly
That’s old news…..Claggett just hit $144,000,000!
$145,260,000.00 including $60,000,000.00 in punis. Against a Berkshire Hathaway owned insurer.
I don’t know anything about the facts of this case, but can anyone shed any light on whether what part of this is actually collectible? I seem to recall a recent Claggett med-mal verdict where he bragged about hitting for $40m+ when, in reality, the amount attributable to unsettled defendants after applying the caps was around $5m?
It’s a bad faith case against a WC insurer. Colorado is one of only a couple of states that allow bad faith against WC. The company basically flat denied the plaintiff’s WC claim after he fell of a ladder at work and was in a coma. I’m not aware of nay caps on the case. Should be collectible after the appeals run.