Far From Perfect

  • Law

  • Federal court is incrementally resuming in-person hearings in a phased approach and encouraging people who come to the courthouse to wear face covering. You can view the latest orders here.
  • Judge Boulware denied a request for an extension on time to gather signatures to recall the governor. [TNI]
  • There is a $21 million partial settlement in the Gragson fatal DUI case. [RJ]
  • The owners of a CrossFit gym plan to reopen in defiance of Governor Sisolak’s order. [Fox5Vegas]
  • The Nevada Independent published the results of its 2020 Judicial Race project. Jon Ralston explains why it isn’t what they originally intended in a separate post (also including a list of the candidates who did not respond). What do you think about it? It is a lot of information, but is any of it useful for determining who should be elected to the bench? What would you do to make it better?
58 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 18, 2020 4:39 pm

I imagine Cutter didn't want to answer the discipline question.

Gale answers in all caps throughout which makes for difficult reading.

Andrade used a newsletter for the writing sample.

Seems a lot of respondents don't keep track of their cases enough. Hardy didn't have an answer on reversals really.

Some of the questions about verdicts were odd.

That's all I had patience for, Gale's answers tuckered me out.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 18, 2020 4:41 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Almost forgot, Lilly-Spells references clients lying to her which I suppose is candid but not really something I would include.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 18, 2020 4:57 pm

Mandy McKeller and Dee Butler have some of the same answers…word for word. And neither one acknowledges they're running for family court which means they will likely never sentence someone to prison.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 18, 2020 5:13 pm

I don't do personal injury, so I guess I'm just clueless. But why is Gragson settling for $21 million? Is it just because he's a gazillionaire or something, and he's worried about an even bigger punitive damages award?

Wouldn't compensatory damages typically be much lower, like by an order of magnitude? How do you calculate? Loss of income, consortium, etc. I guess punitives could be all over the place. How common are they in DUI accidents?

People get killed in DUI car wrecks everyday, but I'd guess almost none of them get that kind of money.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 18, 2020 7:57 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

He was drunk and irresponsible. A young woman died. I think they said she was decapitated. Dead because of his actions. Her parents and family will never be the same. I'd pray for whoever had to identify her at the morgue. That image will never leave the poor soul's memory.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 18, 2020 9:14 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Assume a compensatory damage award of 6-8 million for wrongful death, 21 million is just about three times that. Not unheard of for a punitive award. He is paying part and his insurance company is paying part. Not surprising to me.

anonymous
Guest
anonymous
May 18, 2020 9:41 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

She left behind three young children as I understand it. Their claims, plus loss of consortium if there was a husband, plus any conscious pain and suffering she may have had, plus the claims of others who were injured, plus punitives. That adds up quick. Punitives are in part tied to his net worth and are not typically covered by insurance, hence the $12 million or so out of pocket.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 18, 2020 5:34 pm

Any one planning on taking a vacation this Memorial Day Weekend?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 18, 2020 6:12 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Yes, if the weather cooperates. I plan to go backpacking, staying away from established campgrounds. Trying to lighten my pack up so I want to try some new things.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 18, 2020 8:48 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Where are some good places to go backpacking for an overnight or two?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 18, 2020 9:03 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Is Cathedral Rock trail open?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 18, 2020 6:05 pm

Stoffel's position on the "primary critique of you by opposing counsel" – he complains about an opposing counsel doing EXACTLY what Stoffel has done in cases on behalf of his client. Of course, though, him doing it clearly was justified.

The answers by the public defenders running for family court seem geared towards why they should be a district court judge or a justice of the peace handling criminal matters, not why they're qualified to be family court judges.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 18, 2020 6:07 pm

Law offices are starting to reopen and get back to normal operating hours. Any firms ditching the remote work option and requiring in-office work already?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 18, 2020 6:45 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Not my office. I work for quite a large firm.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 18, 2020 7:31 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Black & LoBello had everyone to return to the office unless symptomatic or exposed to someone with Covid

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 18, 2020 10:57 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Firms that are requiring return to work when working remote is an option are shameful. I understand small firms with a few people but Black & LoBello – good grief. Minimally if a person is in a high risk category or over the age of 60 they should be allowed to continue to work remotely, if the job (such as lawyering) allows for working remotely. I personally cannot wait to be in the office at least a few days a week just to keep my sanity, or what's left of it, but there will be a resurgence of this virus and any death is sad – but I sure hope we have none in the legal community.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 18, 2020 11:10 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

The problem is that a large percentage of the working population has come to realize the shut down was never necessary. These redpilled people don't want to continue to live in a fake fear.

If I had a say at my office, I would let everyone but reception and mail room work from home as long as they want. Those 65 and over would be granted early retirement.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 18, 2020 11:58 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

I should probably be thankful for what I've got, but working from home during this shut down has made me realize how meaningless my work life is. I really hope the lock down lasts forever, so I never need to step foot in an office again.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 19, 2020 12:14 am
Reply to  Anonymous

@ 4:58, I agree completely.

anonymous
Guest
anonymous
May 19, 2020 2:09 am
Reply to  Anonymous

Ditto. If I had a little more money coming in, I could do this indefinitely. There’s got to be a way…

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 19, 2020 2:42 am
Reply to  Anonymous

Too early! A gradual return to the office and flex remote work policy makes the most sense since many in the legal field can accomplish their work remotely. I sympathize with employers that are not comfortable with remote work. With that being said, I think such a quick return could breed anxiety and dampen morale, particularly for the more vulnerable employees and those living with higher risk individuals.

I'm definitely not looking forward to returning to the office full time.. my coworkers are great but I'm so much more productive working remotely and I save hours daily without the commute, office small talk, etc.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 19, 2020 2:51 am
Reply to  Anonymous

Yes! Ditto. I am getting back so much of my life. No commute. No stupid endless interruptions. No needless interactions. No one cares if I want to get up, walk around the block with my dog, and then drop 100 pushups, and grab an apple and then hunker back down.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 19, 2020 2:52 am
Reply to  Anonymous

And if I never have to park downtown again all the covid madness will have been worth it.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 18, 2020 6:55 pm

Dear Mr. Ralston,

Those of us with over 20 years of experience can never respect a report of a questionnaire that inquires about discipline from the current Bar. The current BOG and OBC has the reputation of being as corrupt as they can possibly be. Notice to posting police, I am not saying they are corrupt but that they have the reputation of being corrupt which, at least in my opinion, is hardly debatable and evidenced by many posts on this very blog. Doubt me? Draw a diagram of the relationships between BOG members and OBC members. Thank you.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 18, 2020 7:07 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

11:55, concur, as well as the Nevada $supreme Court.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 18, 2020 7:26 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Concur. It is not a fair standard to use. But it is an EASY standard.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 18, 2020 9:20 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Judicial candidates are well-advised to appear for endorsement procedures which are conducted via interview process, but are generally advised against filling in questionnaires. And generally speaking, the endorsements worth having(major unions, law enforcement, etc.) are based on interview performance(or certain behind the scene mechanizations) but are rarely based on detailed questionnaires.

Organizations that lack the kind of numbers clout or influence of, let's say a trade union, do tend to send out detailed questionnaires, wherein some of the questions are not appropriate, while other questions may seem to unreasonably box in a candidate to a one size fits all approach to some very nuanced, multi-layered issues.

So, considering ethical restraints, and considering that complex legalissues are often reduced to the simplest of questions, there is a real risk of a candidate inadvertently providing a response that seems to indicate they will tend to rule a certain way on a certain category of cases.

It may not be improper to ask legislative candidates matters such as what do they think of collective bargaining, or what do they think of the penalties for this or that, etc. But those questions are often inappropriate to ask a judicial candidate as the only truly safe response is to commit to enforcing the existing law. Too many questions designed to solicit what such judicial candidates think of various existing laws, is problematic.

So, although judicial candidates are not strictly precluded from filling in and returning these forms, the devil may be in the details. The questions may be framed in a manner that they attract responses which may in fact raise ethical implications.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 18, 2020 9:37 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

2:20–Those are some of the reasons why candidates have far more to lose, and probably not too much to gain, by filling these in.

A few years back a District Court Judge, who was running for re-election, filled in a form from some conservative group designed to minimize government intrusion into our lives.

A question asked about gun ownership. This judge, who is a democrat, and who is reputed to have fairly liberal views, responded, and referenced some recent decision and indicated that there is no blanket second amendment right to private gun ownership.

Admittedly, I may not remember this matter, or the judge's response too precisely, but suffice it to say that the answer provided was not one which delighted this organization which is definitely Pro-Second Amendment.

No surprise that they did not endorse the judge. But the point to all this is that it is clear that once the judge offered that response, that the judge had no chance of the endorsement from this group, and only harm could result form the judge filling in the form.

And harm did result. Senator Reid nominated this judge for a federal judgeship in the Obama administration, but Senator Heller(who of course was a Republican) effectively blocked the nomination, while directly referencing the response on the gun ownership issue.

But, under the category of silver linings, this judge eventually did receive a plum "promotion" for lack of a better word, and fairly recently. Those who keep up on the Nevada Judiciary know who I am speaking of.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 18, 2020 9:43 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

@2:37 just say Cadish

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 18, 2020 10:49 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

I adore Cadish. Super smart, high integrity, and genuine passion to do what is right. Unfortunately, she's a fairly standard issue liberal. I guess we'll see how it pans out at SCONV. I'd send her some books, but in my experience that never works. Well, since college. I did turn a few in college.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 18, 2020 11:24 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Judge Cadish is really bright and capable, although she seems to have some critics on this blog. But it may well be that a lot of the negative remarks about her are repetitions from the same couple bloggers. After all, her survey rating numbers are usually quite high.

However, I assume even Cadish supporters can reach uniformity of agreement that it was a lapse for her to fill in that form to begin with.

I realize that is an easy observation to make after the fact when we see all the fall out, but, as 2:20 indicates, she clearly had nothing to gain by filling it in.

First, as to her apparent answer on this gun ownership issue, that disqualified her form being considered for the endorsement of such an organization, if she wasn't already omitted from consideration due to generally being considered a left-leaning democrat.

And although she would not be expected to predict how this response would derail a federal appointment a couple years down the road, it can often be assumed that any documented positions not too supportive of gun ownership, will be fairly extensively and aggressively posted by organizations that are big Second Amendment supporters.

She never should have answered it, and her campaign manager should have ran interference from the get go and made certain that she avoided the questionnaire.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 18, 2020 11:30 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Sorry, not a Cadsh fan.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 19, 2020 12:03 am
Reply to  Anonymous

I'm sure she's smart, but I spent one morning in Cadish's courtroom, and after watching her roll her eyes at least 20 times, I decided I could never like her. Perhaps some of the eye rolls were warranted, but by the end I was totally sick of her attitude. My motion was small and uncontested, so I luckily got out of there without any snark.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 19, 2020 12:12 am
Reply to  Anonymous

4:30,Even if you're not a fan, hopefully you have a problem with how all this unfolded.

In 2013 she withdrew from consideration, after it had been bottled up for over a year since Obama first nominated her in Feb.2012.

What derailed her was a response from four or five years earlier(May 2008) in a questionnaire from a conservative group.

She wrote that reasonable restrictions may be imposed on gun ownership in the interest of public safety. Seems, on its surface, a fairly safe and measured response.

But the next question is what caused her the problems. It bluntly asked the candidate whether they believe there is a constitutional right to bear arms. She wrote that she did not believe there was a clear constitutional right to bear arms, or something close to that.

She may have written more and clarified her point right in the questionnaire. But if so, the organization possibly did not release the clarifying part to the media and/or the media had no real interest in reporting on her clarifying remarks. There was, I believe, an attempt by her to reference recent Supreme Court opinion to help explain her response. But it did not seem that the conservative wing of the media, or her opponents, had any real interest in that. In fact, no liberal based media outlets appeared to go to any trouble to seek out, and then report, the clarifications she wanted to offer.

Not sure what she was trying to say(e.g. such as the right is primarily for the purpose of a well-maintained militia, or whatever) because she never got a real chance. Guess allowing someone to expand and explain their answer guts the impact of the "Anti-Second Amendment" sound bite label.

There was no interest in nuance or meaningful dialogue. Instead, Senator Heller, a non-attorney(I believe), justified blocking her by making repeated overtures to voters and organizations that treasure Second Amendment rights.

No one cared about her 90% retention ratings. No one cared about her overall record. No one cared about allowing her the opportunity to clarify and flesh-out her response. No one cared that she was exhaustively vetted by the FBI. No one cared that the ABA found her "unanimously qualified"(which is a far cry from the findings they make as to several of Trump's federal judicial nominees, or some of the federal judicial nominees of past presidents–Republican as well as Democrat).

All that mattered was pandering to the base of those who believe there must not be any real restrictions on gun ownership.

BTW, I certainly do NOT agree with her when she responds that she does not believe there is a constitutional right to bear arms. But she insisted there was a lot more to her response, and that she wanted to expand and clarify on it, and to discuss a recent Supreme Court opinion.

But I guess it is much easier to ignore discussion, detail and analysis, as it is far more effective and inflammatory to merely condemn a nominee by saying they are Anti-Second Amendment.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 19, 2020 12:34 am
Reply to  Anonymous

Just for the sake of clarity, at the time the question was answered, it was before the US Sup. Ct. had ruled on the 2nd Am. question. Her answer was absolutely correct, in the technical sense. It may not have been politically expedient to acknowledge it, but at that time, the right to bear arms was understood differently than it was after Heller.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 19, 2020 12:35 am
Reply to  Anonymous

Look, it's unfortunate, although I think she'd make a bad federal judge in light of life tenure. But she's not even in the top 10 on the list of unfair character assassinations meant to derail judicial and political careers. The whole system is unfortunate.

As an aside, I'm friends with a very liberal politician in Nevada, who received the same survey. My friend responded "I support the Second Amendment" (what does that even mean?), and the NRA endorsed my incredibly liberal friend. I'm sure my friend's stance on guns is way more liberal than Cadish's. He was just smart enough to respond with political gibberish.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 19, 2020 1:43 am
Reply to  Anonymous

She was not opposed in the election for which the NVFAC sent her the questionnaire. VERY DUMB and ARROGANT to have filled it out. "There is no such right in the constitution." That is like answering to NARAL that :"abortion is ________." Typical of a know-it-all east coast snob type.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 19, 2020 1:59 am
Reply to  Anonymous

5:35 is spot on.

And much of 5:12's remarks, which are sympathetic to the judge regarding the unfairness she was subjected to, includes a strong undercurrent that one, no matter how qualified,is responsible for ill-advised decisions.

5:12 indicates(quite correctly) that it was counter-productive to answer the survey in the first place. And 5:35 indicates that if she insisted on filling it in, to simply say "I support the Second Amendment" and get out of Dodge.

And that statement(I support the Second Amendment) is so incredibly broad, to the point of being almost meaningless, so it is not even dishonest. If she just says she supports it, it could simply mean she supports what she understands it to mean, and with the restrictions she believes can be placed on it.

The judge may very well be more honest and honorable than 5:35's friend, but this is politics, not confession. This is a jungle where direct honesty is punished, and very broad, innocuous(yet ultimately not particularly honest or helpful) diplomacy is often rewarded.

We all bemoan the lack of honesty in politics, but considering the complexity of it all, we are all part of the problem on some level. For example, we will not vote for some guy who blatantly and directly says he intends to work to raise our taxes.

Certainly almost no republicans would vote for such candidate, and most democrats would not either. The democrats would instead expect him to say that he will laboriously exhaust all options before he considers any tax increases.

But if he were to say he already exhausted all other options, and that as a last resort taxes(in certain areas) must be raised, we will still reject that and not examine the supposed facts behind him exhausting all other options. Instead, even democrats will say he is a defeatist, is giving up, and he is going to saddle us with more taxes while we think he still needs to pursue other avenues and think outside the box a bit more.

The judge was tackling this from an intellectual, legal direction(much to her ultimate detriment) while 5:35's friend recognizes that in the shark-infested water of politics, there is almost no room for nuance.

Laughlin Constable Jordan Ross
Guest
Laughlin Constable Jordan Ross
May 19, 2020 5:34 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Discussions of prefatory versus operating clauses obscure an issue I never hear discussed. The biggest problem IMNSHO in interpreting the 2nd amendment, is that it's a run on sentence.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 19, 2020 6:05 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

10:34–depends on which half of this sentence someone wishes to focus on–the part before the comma, or the part after.

Those who support more restrictive controls will focus on the first part: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state…"

They will argue that citizenry militias are largely a defunct entity, and largely a product of Pre-1800 America, and therefore the purpose behind the amendment has long ago been rendered largely moot.

But the gun rights advocates will focus on the second half of the sentence:"…the right of the people to keep and bear arms will not be infringed."

I'm a gun owner, and always will be, but there are two arguments and discussions I will no longer have–gun control debates, and abortion debates.

No one ever changes anyone's mind about anything, and all that is accomplished is ill-will between the parties. There are thousands of other issues which are more productive to debate since people can be persuaded, or at least make certain concessions, because anger, emotionalism and moral views do not necessarily dominate the dialogue.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 18, 2020 7:30 pm

I need to call on the collective wisdom of this Blog. We don't do a lot of bankruptcy and were a party to a §341 Meeting via Zoom/telephone gone awry. We have 2 creditors in a Chapter 7. Trustee put everyone on hold for the 1030 hearings. At 1045. Trustee announced that he was running a little behind but would be with everyone shortly and put everyone back on hold. At 11:35 he announced his 1130 cases. When the creditors indicated that something had clearly been screwed up because every creditor on the telephone was left on hold and every creditor on Zoom was left in the waiting room, Trustee indicated that there was nothing that he could do and that he had already concluded the Meeting of Creditors.

What can we do because this clearly is not OK?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 18, 2020 11:07 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Did the creditors have any real issues? Chapter 7 is where creditor claims go to die.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 18, 2020 11:19 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

You can reach out to the US Trustee's office and request a copy of the 341 meeting recording for that date/time/case. If your questions weren't answered in the 341 meeting, then reach out to the US Trustee's office and complain that you weren't given an opportunity to ask questions at the 341 meeting. Their answer may be simply 'do a 2004 exam', but that requires a court reporter and costs money that you may not need to spend. Honestly, I've been doing bankruptcy for ~10 years now and haven't had that happen before because, of course, we only started doing phone/video 341s recently – so it is something new to me as well that what you described happened.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 18, 2020 11:53 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

My two cents: ask the trustee for an audio copy of the transcript of the 341 meeting of creditors (it actually comes on a cassette tape, if you can believe it). If you think the debtor has hidden assets, you can always just talk to the trustee and try to get him or her interested in going after the assets, or you can hold a 2004 exam and/or issue a subpoena or two. If you lead the Chapter 7 trustee to real money, he or she may go after it for you.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 18, 2020 11:55 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

4:53 here – I had not refreshed my page in a while, so did not see 4:19's post.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 18, 2020 11:57 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Thank you all. The answer is that we have no reason to believe that our questions were answered because we are now aware of a THIRD creditor who was left on hold and Trustee is saying "Oh well too bad the meeting is over." I like the tape idea. I hate the 2004 Exam idea but am afraid that is where we are pointed. Of course I believe the appropriate remedy is continuing the 341 Meeting and giving Creditors the opportunity to ask questions but I am not holding my breath.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 19, 2020 12:18 am
Reply to  Anonymous

Again just my two cents, but if you have any dirt on the debtor and/or can show there is a good chance the debtor failed to schedule non-exempt assets, your chances of re-setting the 341 would improve greatly. If you have anything like that, I'd make sure to mention it to the US Trustee when asking for another 341.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 18, 2020 7:58 pm

We need more civil disobedience. I stand with CrossFit.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 18, 2020 8:00 pm

MIA – Has anyone seen or heard from Judge Adair or Judge Cory? It seems like it has been many months, pre-Covid, since I've seen either of them. Did they retire?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 18, 2020 9:31 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Judge Cory is very much still around and still working.

anonymous
Guest
anonymous
May 18, 2020 10:13 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

I had heard that Judge Cory had been ill. I will miss him on the bench. Good guy.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 19, 2020 12:23 am

It looks like Letizia’s candidates are going after candidates for advertising sent out but Thomas’s people. There was a press release. This should be the topic of discussion for tomorrow! Let the crap start flying.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 19, 2020 2:58 am

Reminder: tonight the incredible story of one of our finest SCOTUS justices, Clarence Thomas. But for corona, I'd be hosting a watch party. Monday, May 18, 10:00 pm on Vegas PBS Channel 10.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 19, 2020 5:32 am
Reply to  Anonymous

Can't tell if you're joking or not.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 19, 2020 7:52 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

I watched it and almost cried. A real Mensch, unlike the completely repulsive, reptilian RBG.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 26, 2020 9:17 am

I have had a motion pending before the illustrious Judge Boulware for almost two years. He's a real piece of work.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 26, 2020 1:48 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

You should call chambers

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
May 26, 2020 4:50 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

And say what?

"Hey, tell Bouly to get off his arse and fulfill his Article III duties."

"Oh, yeah, or what?"

"I'm going post an anonymous review of his dismal performance on Las Vegas Law Blog and Yelp. So there."