- Quickdraw McLaw
- 51 Comments
- 190 Views
This morning the Supreme Court is releasing the fiscal year 2017 Annual Report of the Judiciary. While there is lots to talk about in it, we know that some of you have been clamoring to see the numbers regarding dispositions of appeals, which confirm the lowest output of authored opinions in the last four years. So, here they are:
I recently used LCL and I am glad I did. The person I spoke with was really helpful. If you need help, this is a great resource. This can be an awful profession.
Agreed. This can be an awful profession. I've bounced around too much. Happy where I've landed for now; good work, decent people, good bonus yesterday. Still the bad days are more frequent than should be. "If I knew then, what I know now . . . ." Well, I don't know what I would have done but pretty sure nothing near the law.
I gave myself an anxiety disorder last year because of all the stress I was putting myself through. I ended up speaking to a therapist and a psychiatrist. I'm not a fan of medication, but I now take a low dose of anti-anxiety meds and it's helped me immensely. Once I find a way out of this profession maybe I'll be able to get off of it…
I too have a lot of anxiety due principally to the stress of the legal profession. I started taking anxiety meds a few years ago and they have also helped me quite a bit. Before that, I was self-medicating with a couple of different self-destructive behaviors, which is not at all uncommon among lawyers. If anyone is in doubt, talk to a medical professional. It can really help to manage one's stress level, which in turn increases quality (and hopefully longevity) of life.
Interesting topic today… I am feeling the same way. This profession demands too much… and to top it off, the Judges and Discovery Commissioner recently act like they were never in private practice, never celebrated a holiday, and never had a family. I feel that my family is starting to suffer.
I am one of those who clamored for numbers. And the numbers tell a woeful tale.
In FY 2014 (the last year before the COA was established), the NSC had a total of 2,481 cases filed and disposed of 2,375 cases. In FY 2017, the NSC (excluding the COA) received a total of 1,814 cases filed (2,785 total for all appellate courts minus 971 assigned to the COA). But the NSC only resolved 1,578 cases; almost 800 (797 to be exact) cases less than it resolved in FY 2014.
800 cases. Which, coincidentally, is about the same amount of cases assigned to the COA.
Now, if we were expecting more opinions to develop Nevada law, we didn't get those extra opinions. Between FY 2013-14, the NSC issued 96.5 opinions per year average. Yet in 2017, the NSC issued 91 opinions.
Is backlog going down? Not this year; there was a jump of 332 pending cases between FY 2016-17, bucking the trend of falling backlog in FY 2015 and 2016.
Thus, it appears that the NSC is allowing the COA to take the additional workload while the NSC reduces its workload by a similar amount.
My only other question is the age of the cases. That's not in this data, but given what we've seen posted here, I would bet that average case age has stayed constant or increased.
8:42 here. I was able to find the NRS 2.260 report, which lists (by my count) 157 cases over 90 days old. 1 from 2013, 1 from 2015, and the rest from 2016-17.
https://nvcourts.gov/Supreme/NRS_2_260_Report/
So here's a question: now that there are positions at the Supreme Court opening up, what can be done to put some pressure on the candidates to make sure that this concern is addressed? I've never been much into politics, but I'm becoming more aware of these issues that affect me and I'd like to try to do something about them. I'm assuming the candidates have campaign events where the public can ask questions? I know this makes me sound politically naive, but I'll concede that.
Here is my other question: Doesn't the Chief do a "State of the Judiciary" report somewhere? We should be present and ask these tough questions of the Court.
@10:07 – the CJ does do a State of the Judiciary address, it's held at the Assembly in Carson City when the Legislature is in session. It's a speech by the CJ; I don't believe questions are allowed.
The real travesty is that the COA only published one decision … one freaking decision in 2017!!! Since the COA has been castrated by the NVSC, and we can't even cite COA decisions, the COA should be a stand-alone criminal court that only hears criminal matters. It could be called the Supreme Criminal Court of Nevada, and the NVSC could be called the Supreme Civil Court of Nevada (or something similarly catchy). If the matter is criminal, it goes to the criminal supreme court and the civil stuff goes to the other court. They are co-equal and stay the hell out of each other's business. The way it is set up now is retarded.
That's how Texas does it.
There is a new sheriff in town….
Take note: Bar matters more than DOUBLED before the Nevada Supreme Court. If you don't think the Star Chamber is upon us, it is upon us.
At this pace over a 10 year period, there would be 1,320 discipline matters that go before the NVSC. There are only 8,000 active practicing attorneys in Nevada. That is a crazy proportion!
Hardesty should take the fall for this. However honestly none of the Justices should escape unscathed. Cherry was Chief during the shitshow that has been 2017; he should not be allowed to go into retirement quietly. Nice man that has been part of terrible results.
Apply the law and do your job. That is all the NSC has to do.
Jesus Tapdancing Christ. 2014: 109 Opinions and 2256 Orders (2365 cases disposed). 2017: 91 Opinions and 1388 Orders (1479 dispositions). Productivity is DOWN 38% since adding the Court of Appeals. Same number of Justices doing LESS work but getting a palatial new building to make it more effective.
Is that the strip joint? I would like to see Eglet be the bouncer. Wait, he is.
The data and the analysis above does not account for the time it took the Supreme Court to implement new systems and interplay with the Intermediate Court of Appeals. It may be another 2-3 years before we see the true benefit of having an intermediary court of appeals. Additionally, we as lawyers should support the cause to have the Court of Appeals. The more we complain, the less likelihood of having additional judges. The Supreme Court should push the Legislature for additional Judges on the Court of Appeals. Although people may look at this data and complain about less productivity, we should give it a few more years to truly assess the long-term benefits of providing access to quicker justice. I personally have not looked at the data in depth, but upon cursory review it appears that there is an increase in filings, which also may in part be a reason why there are less dispositions–as staff attorneys at the Court are now spending more time with screening and have less time to help the Justices and Judges to write dispositions. Moreover, Justice Saitta's retirement and appointment of Justice Stiglich could be a cause of some "slowness." It takes time for new Justices and Judges to get in tune with appellate work. As district court judges (I know, Justice Pickering and maybe even Justice Hardesty were not judges before), these Justices had sole control and power over their courtrooms and docket. Working with other Justices/Judges (in considering the intermediary court), it takes time to acclimate. While the numbers show less dispositions, the long-haul should show greater access to justice. We need to keep faith.
Hardesty absolutely was a Judge before joining the Court. Pickering has been on the Court over 9 years; how much more of a learning curve would you advocate?
I do support the CoA. I support the fact that the CoA added an additional panel of 3 judges to the Supreme Court's 2 3-justice panels over this period which should have increased productivity by 50%; it decreased productivity by 38%.
Filings increased between 2014-2017 by around 11%. The number of appellate judges increased by 42%. The number of dispositions decreased 38%. Shameful.
I don't want additional judges; I want the existing Court to show me the same productivity and dedication to professionalism that they are demanding from attorneys in this state.
There is no faith to keep. Do your jobs, or give up your jobs. The Supreme Court wanted to push against attorneys; I for one am ready to push back. And don't come to me with your hands out for more money, better facilities, more judges when you have proven to be so wasteful with the additional resources which you asked for the last time. Don't come to me asking for additional funding for "Access to Justice" when the true impediment to access to justice is you, ladies and gentlemen of the Court.
This
@9:45
If there was an impact regarding the interplay with the COA, it would reflect the number of cases the COA decides. The data supports that. But I see no reason why it would reduce the NSC's productivity by 800 cases. I could see some reduction as, presumably, the harder cases would stay with the NSC rather than be sent to the COA. But not 800. That's indicative of a reduction in work ethic, not a learning curve / putting new systems in place.
Regarding Saitta's retirement; that may have had an impact, but that's why the CJ can step on a panel in the event of retirement. In reality, most of the work should have already been done, and the few items that had to be handed off to other justices does not even remotely come close to the 800 case shortfall.
At this point, I'm unpersuaded that additional judges would reduce the backload. The data has not proven that so far, and we should have seen measurable, if nascent, results by now.
FIRE HARDESTY
All Judges need to be held accountable for their time at work, which correlates to productivity… Not all, but MANY at ALL levels are not at work everyday, or put in an entire work day when at the courthouse. Go to the RJC on any given Friday, its a ghost town with few Judges and JEA's…
It's not just the RJC or only on Fridays. Check out the judge's parking lot, at both the RJC and Family Court, (have to view through the gate) on just about any afternoon. You will see many empty parking spaces, or spaces filled by others (Senior Judges, JEA's, etc.)
Calling bs– Physical location of a judge at RJC does not equate to whether said judge is working. I know that several judges that work at home. They have lives too. Don't be a Trump.
Trump works….
Twitter isn't work.
12:44– You have an argument to a point. Review of motions and briefs, as well as writing decisions, can be made from home. Judges serve public purposes also which may include legal organizations and public appearances for the administration of justice.
But Judges are given courtrooms and chambers, government spaces where we expect the government's work to be done. Dark courtrooms are wasted space. Hearings and settlement conferences are held at the RJC. Trials are conducted at the RJC. Courtesy copies are delivered to, and injunctions are issued from, the RJC. The place where judicial business is done is at the RJC.
If the teacher's parking lot of the local elementary school was half empty, and half of the classrooms provided were dark, on every Thursdays and Fridays, people would rightfully be up in arms. Their place for work is at their place of work.
Wasn't there a judge who was photographed at her son's (soccer?) game? Since she was being paid… doesn't that mean she was working?
@3:28 if teachers are at home, who is watching the kids? Isn't it a teacher's job to be in class and babysit? If a judge doens't have a trial, hearing, status checks, etc., does it matter if they work from home?
They all bail early. Gimme a break.
@4:01– Of course it does. Emergency Applications for TROs come in or Prejudgment Writs of Attachment or Orders Shortening Time. Those are not coming into their home; that judicial business is occurring at the RJC. Those matters require attention at the RJC. Their law clerk with whom they are coordinating is not coming to their home. As indicated, you ran for or got appointed to a job at the Regional Justice Center. If you wanted a job out of your home, resign and sign up for Etsy.
To: 4:01. But if they are not on the bench too much of the week, or in chambers too much of the week, the "working from home" explanation is more of a self-serving conclusion, rather than being something that was validly established.
We don't really know to what degree they are working on cases from home, even if it could be established what percentage of the time the judges are on the Odyssey system, etc.
Now it's true if they are in chambers, as opposed to being in court, we likewise don't know how productive they are. They could be doing just about anything. However, when not in court, being in chambers is far more preferable and justifiable than "working at home" for several reasons.
First, even though it is not known how much time in chambers is actually spent working on cases, it can be safely presumed a significant chunk of it must be spent on matters of the court.
Secondly, if on premises a judge can entertain pressing matters such as signing emergency orders, including signing orders from other departments that have a judge who is always "working from home."
Third, if in the future it needs to be established to the powers-that-be to increase court funding, either to obtain additional judges or other matters, the need can never be established if many judges appear to be lazy sloths who are hardly on premises and simply claim they are "working from home."
Fourth, "working form home" excuse by judges has always been, and will always be, a media nightmare that causes a public relations black eye to the whole judiciary(just ask Sobel,Vega and others how well it works to either reference working from home, or addressing family matters). Well, Sobel is deceased, we can't ask him, but you get the point.
Fifth,the average member of the public, many of whom are voters, always detest this apparent elitism. They feel they could perform a lot of their work, particularly computer-based work, from home but they still must get up early, drag their asses across the interstate(often clogged up with accidents) and finally arrive at their cubicle to be verbally berated by a supervisor.Tell these folks how they are getting the bang for their tax payer buck because some seemingly arrogant judge pronounces they work from home. Last time this happened I believe a judge was filmed still in his bathrobe fetching the newspaper out of the drive way at 11:00 a.m.
This is going to reach crises if not adequately addressed. If I was the Chief Judge I would tell them that I don't really care that if, when not in court, they are napping on their chambers' couch, or watching t.v. in chambers,or whatever.As long as they are on premises.
And if they are on premises, regardless of whether they are always productive, it looks much better to the public, the legislature, the media, etc. And it actually is much better. For example, I can wake them from their nap to sign my orders shortening time, etc.
Good stuff 4:47. As an aside, you are dating yourself with the Sobel reference……..Who was the DC judge busted for buying illegal catus (cati?)
This will date me even more because Sobel's issues were from the early 2000's while the illegal cacti judge was in the mid. 1990's.
He was Justice Of The Peace Danny Ahlstrom. It seems like an odd thing, and not sufficiently proportionate, to justify driving a JP off the bench who had served for nearly two decades.He was, if memory serves, caught on tape admitting to purchasing federally protected cacti without following proper protocol. I don't recall if it was illegal across the board to purchase the cacti, or simply that it was permissible if proper procedures were followed.
I don't remember that they were stolen or that he knew they were stolen. I just remember it was not technically legal for him to own them(again, unless at least requisite protocol is followed), and he admitted on tape he knew he was not permitted to own them.
That said it all seemed like something of an over-reaction. He was apparently caring well for the cacti. Now I get that it was precluded by Law to own them, and there really can't be tolerance for a judge knowingly failing to abide by a law, even if the violation is seemingly innocuous and he is taking good care of the shrubbery. But, arguably, something short of complete removal from the bench and a criminal conviction, could have been accomplished.
We have judges abusing the Hell out of litigants and attorneys and hand cuffing them without following contempt mandates,and then slandering attorneys and litigants in prominent news coverage on a hotly contested case before them, and then exhibit no insight , remorse, or admission of any wrong doing–and then only drawing a two month suspension.
But Ahlstrom purchases cacti that he takes care of well, and he loses his career and gets a conviction. Now, I understand it was violation of a federal law, which really ups the ante. But I understand there was something else at work.
It was claimed by some that he was demeaning to a female witness who was employed by the F.B.I., and that may have contributed to the subsequent aggressiveness of how they pursued him.
But, admittedly, it being over 20 years ago, I may be miss-remembering some key factors. Perhaps someone else can weigh in and straighten out the matter.
The post at 4:47 will probably not be read by many because this poster needs some intense lessons in editing, brevity, etc.
But it's a shame if it goes unread on account of that because a lot of it(not all of it, but a lot of it) hits the nail on the head and eviscerates the argument that judges can justify being on premises very little because they claim to work from home.
On an unrelated topic, does anybody have any recommendations for bad faith attorneys involving a property damage claim? Thank you.
There aren't many good attorneys in town competent in insurance bad faith. I can think of maybe 5 off the top of my head. Plaintiff or defense?
Plaintiff
I refer to Dennis Prince if the case is high value. John Keating is good as well. I have a few other go-to defense attorneys I use to handle my bad faith cases if they aren't conflicted out. Again, there are only a handful in Las Vegas competent to handle these cases. Most personal injury attorneys think they know how to handle first party bad faith cases but they end up failing miserably.
Glenn Meier does decent work on bad faith.
What type of property damage? Just to a car, or under a HO or commercial property claim?
Ho
If you are still looking, please say as much and provide some method of contact. HO bad faith is what I do, though there are some conflicted clients.
Denton….
I am surprised at all the negativity about Judge Cadish. In cases that don't settle, one side wins and the other loses though with the passage of time that gets revised. She is smart, works hard, and is fair-minded and forthright. She would be a good justice and her winning this seat will be a loss to 8th JD.
I am 9:10 – I meant that as time passes people tend to forget the reasons they won or lost, only the fact of it, and it becomes easier to blame others for a loss.
The only positive of her winning is getting rid of her.
Denton….