The Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline filed a statement of formal charges against Judge Rena Hughes regarding a hearing that took place in June of last year. We talked about it on the blog in November 2016. Insert slowly turning wheels of justice joke here. [I-Team LasVegasNow]
Former vice cop and his wife deputy DA Liz Mercer appeared in court last week [I-Team LasVegasNow]
The names and salaries of a large number of state employees, including 50 in the AG’s office, have not been made public. [RJ]
The Hughes interaction with the child is a horrible look, as it over shadows that the mom was successfully alienating the child from her father. I don't like Hughes addressing the child without an advocate, but it doesn't mitigate the mom's mission to destroy dad's relationship with the child.
Guest
Anonymous
October 23, 2017 3:50 pm
If Judge Hughes' statements about Child Haven are translated correctly, she lied to this young lady. Child Haven does not have ANY cells. It is not like detention. It has child friendly cottages that are not locked. Moreover, the Judge does not have the legal authority to order a child to Child Haven absent abuse or neglect by her parents. Clearly she was trying to use scare tactics to get a child to comply with her decision. Not a very effective way to do so. To the contrary, she likely created emotional trauma for this child as well as a great distrust for the judiciary.
Guest
Anonymous
October 23, 2017 4:27 pm
Couple of comments on this story: (1) Terrible of Judge Hughes to address this child without anyone in the Courtroom and to try to intimidate this child. Ugly. (2) It does overshadow the fact that the mom was very well-documented as having alienated the daughter from the father, which is why the entire issue of the daughter refusing to go with the father came up in the first place. (3) This story is entwined with the battling Facebook groups, which could cause those sordid issues to raise their head as part of this story.
Guest
Anonymous
October 23, 2017 4:42 pm
8:27 is correct that we must not lose sight of the fact that the Judge was ultimately correct in transferring custody to the father based on severe parental alienation. Subsequently, it appears that caused the mother to agree to a shared custody situation, possible a 50/50 arrangement. And the father now appears to be receiving his child in a consistent manner, and it appears the child(who was so dead-set against seeing her Dad) is now adjusting fairly well and no longer views Dad as a medieval ogre. At least all of that is indicated by the record.
Therefore, the judge's very firm approach took a huge step toward solving the problem. However, as is often the case in the Law, the ends don't justify the means. Several major problems:
1. The child is berated on the record, without Mom present, without a Guardian Ad Litem, etc. I realize it's not procedure(although perhaps it should be, but resources don't allow for it) to appoint a GAL in all contested custody cases, but in a case this severe, perhaps it should have occurred. Or, the judge could have relied on the child interviews, without bringing the child to court for that most unpleasant show down.
2. These judges still won't learn, despite several recent Judicial Commission decisions, as well as NSC decisions, to fastidiously adhere to all notice and due process requirements concerning Contempt Of Court.
Obviously, the requirements were largely ignored here.
3. Likewise, at the contempt hearing, custody changed, and all due process and notice requirements were also ignored in this instance as well. Even if the judge had handled the contempt proceedings properly, and afforded all due process and notice, she was not permitted to expand the contempt hearing to a change of custody hearing. A new evidentiary date needed to be set for the Change Of Custody
4. And because custody was changed at a contempt hearing, it appeared that custody was changed as a punishment, via a contempt sanction, and that is never proper.
So, very proper result, but a complete disaster as to how she got to the result, IMO.
A valuable and costly learning experience, which will benefit her and other judges as well. Contempts can be tricky, and even complex. Many judges, and attorneys, even have difficulty distinguishing which contempts are criminal, which are civil, and which are quasi-criminal.
Also, often they are not even fully aware of what type of contempt they are dealing with–violation of a court order type of contempt vs. contempts surrounding disruptive behavior in court.For the type of contempt concerning disruptive behavior in court, they often place someone in custody, without issuing a specific order detailing the contempt, without setting a hearing, and often without even addressing how the contempt can be purged.
Judges should keep contempt cheat sheets taped to the bench. Study and restudy them every Monday morning for 10 minutes. Have the relevant statutes, case law, and required procedures/findings/scripts/etc right in front of you at all times, because contempt usually only happens when a judge is angry or at least frustrated, and that can be distracting.
Reading the comments from the anonymous commentators, I'm struck by how quickly and universally they all concluded that the mother caused the problem of the child's refusal to interact with the father through an overused and somewhat questionable doctrine of "parental alienation" syndrome.
Not to say that parents don't ever act in ways to try to disrupt and interfere with a child's relationship with the other parent, such behavior is not the cause of 100% of the dysfunctional parent/child relationships. There are generally 2 competing bases of causes of that dysfunction.. the already commented on "parental alienation", but the competing basis is the opposite side of the same coin and known as "parental estrangement". The manifestation of both syndromes is exactly the same, thus it can be difficult to distinguish one from the other. The primary difference goes to the cause of the dysfunction.
In the parental alienation model, the base underlining cause is actions by the favored parent to undermine and poison the relationship between the child and the disfavored parent. In many cases, this active undermining is further assisted by the reactions of the disfavored parent to the wrongful conduct by the favored parent which further reinforces in the child's mind the messages they are receiving from the favored parent.
The parental estrangement situation, while appearing to third parties the same as the parental alienation problem is quite different. In this situation, the dysfunction is not the result of acts and/or omissions by the favored parent but rather the child's reaction to the disfavored parents own actions and choices. Even in situations where the disfavored parent is in fact acting in the child's best interest, the child may perceive the actions to be wrongful and spiteful, thus respond by attempting to sever the parent-child relationship.
In handling these cases, whether as an advocate, counselor or judicial officer there are a couple of things that have to be kept in mind. First, the alleged "wrong, offense, injustice (or whatever term you wish to use) may not be factually accurate; Second, the child's perception regardless of the factual accuracy is that the alleged offense is in fact true (the child's perception of their world); Third, the child is reacting to their perceived world, not necessarily to the factual world; Fourth, the parties need to remain focused on addressing the factual misconduct when that is the cause, but more importantly correcting the child's perception of their world. Whether the disfavored parent actually did the alleged wrongful conduct is in many ways less important to a successful reunification than addressing the child's perception of their world is.
I agree with 9:42's contempt and due process observations in general. I disagree, however with their comment on direct contempt (contempt in the presence of the court e.g. disruptive behavior in court) and believing that one of the failings of the judges is the failure of addressing how the contempt can be purged. A purge clause is only necessary if the contempt is a civil contempt (intended to coerce behavior or action [violator has keys to their own jail cell]). A criminal contempt does not require a purge clause as it's intended purpose is to punish prior misbehavior rather than to force future behavior. In a criminal contempt, nothing the violator does in the future changes the punishment, thus no need for a purge clause.
9:42 here again. I realized I was wrong about the purge clause after I posted it. Contempts in the presence of the court are not the type to require purge clauses, although the civil contempts do require it.
But the problems with this particular case is that the problems were far more fundamental as to the defects–basic lack of notice and right to be heard. A judge can't simply indicate that they learned that the visits are still not occurring, and then simply issue a minute entry that Mom and child must attend court, and then when they do so, exclude Mom from the hearing and only speak with the child, and then hold Mom in contempt
and change custody as well(with no notice or due process on the custody matter as well.)
But, yes,thanks for catching the purge issue. You pay close attention to what you read.
All your comments about so-called alienation are quite sound and supported by the research. Yet, boiling it all down to its simplest form, if the judge thought Mom was the problem here, and was denying contact with little or no cause, and that child would adjust adequately to being transferred to Dad, then it was the correct result. However, you suggest that even if all that is true that it could be traumatizing to abruptly transfer child to Dad if child internalizes Mom's pain and hurt, and if child subjectively believes (even if erroneous) that Dad might harm her. yes, in such instances the transfer must be slow, and be accompanied by a therapeutic element.
How many times must a parent be admonished that they risk loosing custody? Once, twice, three… seven times? Can those admonitions be factored into her due process rights? Oh, and Mom did not have an attorney present because she stiffed him for over $10,000. The Mother caused each and every problem she now bemoans. The child was homeschooled but performing at sub-grade level. The child refused to get out of Mom's car to meet with the court appointed therapist (how much coaching did that take?). Then Mom hooks up with Steve Sansom and becomes energized by his BS anti-corruption. The parties are now in front of Judge Pomerenze and have an upcoming custody trial. Joint physical custody is on the horizon. All Dad wanted was to visit his daughter. Mom cut her own nose off.
Guest
Anonymous
October 23, 2017 4:47 pm
What a puzzling puff piece on Bob Nersesian.
"I'm a lawyer, I handle civil actions"
Okay Bob, way to go, how much did this "news" coverage cost?
Unlike most lawyer puff pieces, Bob's practice is interesting and novel enough to justify news coverage. I've met him a couple of times and he has some really fantastic stories from his cases. You'd be surprised how many casinos in town, to this day, wrongfully detain people or beat the shit out of them. It's enough that Bob has a successful niche practice in this area.
1. He was asked a good question, challenging question which could have elevated this interview somewhat above puff piece status. He was asked something to the effect that can it be assumed that based on what he does, that he does not have many friends among those who own and operate casinos. Instead of providing a snappy, confident, flip answer like "Yeah. They hate and fear me", he offers this plodding, laborious response(which to me rings a bit false) that the gaming industry holds him in high esteem, invites him to offer seminars and presentations on their premises, etc.
I have trouble fathoming how they would really benefit from extending such invitations, unless they simply think it is in their best interests to flatter and placate him.
2. He stressed his track record of successfully suing hotel security for roughing up patrons. But he then allows that he must decline many of these prospective clients because their cases are frivolous. And an example he offers of a supposedly frivolous case is one where security beats a guy up, but it turns out the guy stole a drink. Now if the guy stole a drink, but offers no resistance to being detained by security(either so they can escort him off the premises, or hold him for the police if that is their choice) why would it be justifiable to use extreme force and beat the guy up? In the example he used, the guy stole a drink, but is offering no resistance(if he was offering resistance it would be vital for Bob to include that fact in his example, and he did not).
If Bob is, as pretty much presented, the ultimate expert in cases of this sort, I'm surprised he would say that a guy who is brutally beat for stealing a drink, but who offered no resistance to being detained, has a frivolous case.
I know many non-expert attorneys who could work such case toward a decent settlement, or verdict if need be.
Bob is a blowhard. He thinks more of himself than he should. He holds himself in much higher esteem than most casino in-house counsel. But he takes cases that other people would not take so he is annoying.
I agree with 2:13 that it does not make sense that the casinos would regularly be inviting him to present seminars and instructional lectures on their premises.
They would not want a Plaintiff's attorney(who they may bitterly resent for creating a lot of expensive defense work the casinos must finance on cases which other Plaintiff attorneys would not accept), to be lecturing them on security matters.
Instead, the casinos will insist on training their security as they see fit, and if there are areas where substantive legal advice is needed, their in house counsel, or retained outside counsel, will do the instructing–not some Plaintiff's attorney who bedevils the casinos by litigating cases no one else will.
I also agree that if a patron steals a drink, but offers no resistance to being detained, and is brutally and senselessly beaten by security, that such does not sound like a frivolous case. Why does Bob, the apparent fearless crusader who will protect those who no one else would protect, deem that to be a frivolous case to accept?
Guest
Anonymous
October 23, 2017 6:00 pm
I enjoyed the Johnson post that was removed. It is true.
The people who laud them do so for two main reasons.
Some attorneys think it's advantageous to flatter a judge and compliment their (supposed) intellect and abilities, even when such attorneys actually believe the judge is not that wonderful.
In other words, insincere sucking up.
The other reason is that some attorneys(either naïve attorneys or relatively young or inexperienced ones who don't really understand the political process) actually tend to believe that for a judge to be appointed, or even elected, that the judge must be legally and procedurally solid.
To the above I would add that most attorneys in this city are not particularly sophisticated and so are not well-equipped to evaluate a judge's legal acumen. I don't mean that as an insult either. There is not a ton of really sophisticated work to go around here, so the number of lawyers practicing consistently at a high level probably numbers in the dozens. It's hard to evaluate whether a judge got some narrow issue right when you're not delving deep into those issues on a regular basis.
To:3:23:You really think a judge wrote 1:46? The people who become district judges are attorneys. So, if the pool of attorneys judges are selected from is not particularly sophisticated or knowledgeable, the judge chosen from such mediocre pool will likewise be of mediocre quality.
So, if this was a judge who wrote this, by insulting the attorneys they also insulted themselves.
I practice in muni, justice, and district. Henderson, NLV and Vegas.
There's not a good Judge on the bench at any level, especially the lower levels. That's the reason I'll always support appointment. It shouldn't be who raises the most money or has the most friends, it should be who is the most qualified and will do the best job, period.
So wait a minute. "There's not a good Judge on the bench at any level, especially the lower levels." So the Judges that were appointed (and then retained) are not good Judges? How is that a good argument for a pure appointment system?
Guest
Anonymous
October 23, 2017 6:08 pm
9:42 here again. In fairness, I have to clarify something. I stand by my comments concerning law and procedure, but I cant be certain my factual representations are correct. For example, my comment about the girl now adjusting with being with Dad is not based on a record review, as the case is sealed, but is based on grape vine.
The whole sealing of cases (in the absence of a pending criminal investigation or national security implications) is a completely different issue and is completely opposite to the concept of an open and transparent government (including the judiciary). That is a subject that could be discussed on its own merits in a different post.
Guest
Anonymous
October 23, 2017 8:23 pm
Does anyone have the charges filed by the Commission on Judicial Discipline against Rena Hughes? There is no link in the TV report or elsewhere. If anyone has a link to share or the complaint, it would be appreciated.
Guest
Anonymous
October 23, 2017 8:42 pm
Here are the Statement of Charges. Interestingly there is also a Statement of Charges against Jennifer Henry filed that same date.
Jen Henry was a little baby, sitting on her papa's knee
She picked up a gavel and little judges fee
Said "Gavel's gonna be the death of me, Lord, Lord
Gavel's gonna be the death of me"
Sometimes it's not so entertaining, but is quite disturbing.
But how they treat attorneys is always of interest because it affects attorneys' practices–sometimes dramatically. For example, when judges have a habit of berating attorneys in front of their clients, no good can ever come from that. That does not help an attorney's practice, to say the least.
I've never seen that 3:47. Thankfully, every judge I've been in front of has gone out of his/her way to tell my client how great of a job I'm doing (even when it's a gratuitous exaggeration at best). I'd be fucking humiliated to have the opposite happen. I always assumed the judges always said nice things about lawyers when clients came to court because they didn't want anyone causing delays by firing their lawyers, or creating an appealable issue based on attorney negligence.
Actually, I take that back. I had one judge beat the shit out of me for our position in a case. But that was after she denied our summary judgment motion and I figured the judge was trying to signal to my client that the company needed to dig into its pocket and settle because we were screwed at trial.
Granted, some of the judges are pompous egotistical asses, but some are actually hard working conscientious jurists trying to do the right thing under sometimes difficult circumstances.
Before always castigating the judge for embarrassing the attorney, you might want to pause to look at the attorney's work product and actions (whether that be yourself, opposing counsel or a third party attorney). Having practiced in this town for a very long time, it's amazing how frequently attorneys will appear completely unprepared, argue frivolous points (frequently contrary to existing law without even an argument for change in the law but rather ignorance of the existing authority), fail to file required documents timely, etc.
This may be a more common occurrence in Family Court, but a great number of instances, the attorney goes to trial having conducted little or no preparation, virtually no discovery nor any idea of the relevant facts of the case.
In any instance, it may very well be the judge, but not always…
Pomrenze going off on me once was great (I deserved it), but not as great as her going off on David Mann when I was present for another matter. Mann wasn't even present in the court, but was set to be. She had her bailiff call his office and when there was no answer, another attorney (also there on another matter) said "I just saw him upstairs in another court on another matter." She was not happy.
It was quite entertaining when Kephart busted my ass in his Justice Court. I was humiliated, but I have great respect for him now and I see why he did it.
Bulla busting my ass…if that never happened again, that would be great.
Yes. Generally a pretty nice fellow but I have seen him beet red.
Guest
anonymous
October 23, 2017 10:59 pm
Interestingly enough, it looks like all of the currently pending disciplinary cases are against Family court judges or masters. And of course we all remember the infamous incident involving Sylvia Beller that ended her career over there. I guess the theme that ties all of this together is that Family Court judges all must think that it is just a big free-for-all and that the ideas of due process and respect for Fifth Amendment rights just don't apply to them. It seems like they are just making up the rules as they go along.
The attorneys share the view because the judges show it time and time again. Plus, one can't get a consistent ruling from the same judge on two nearly identical sets of facts in the same month.
How? What would be the alternatives? Who would, instead, resolve these matters?
Guest
Anonymous
October 24, 2017 1:33 am
I find it interesting that the main detective in a case, Det. Chris Baughman, can sleep with witnesses and marry the DA who took the case to trial. Something stinks here! DA Mercer has nothing to hide, which I doubt, she should be made to give a deposition to defense attorneys.
That's because DA Mercer and Det. Baughman were having an affair while trials were going on. Now she is married to him. He used her like he did everyone else. She should be seeing a divorce attorney! Not to mention, he slept with hookers. She should be pissed.
The Hughes interaction with the child is a horrible look, as it over shadows that the mom was successfully alienating the child from her father. I don't like Hughes addressing the child without an advocate, but it doesn't mitigate the mom's mission to destroy dad's relationship with the child.
If Judge Hughes' statements about Child Haven are translated correctly, she lied to this young lady. Child Haven does not have ANY cells. It is not like detention. It has child friendly cottages that are not locked. Moreover, the Judge does not have the legal authority to order a child to Child Haven absent abuse or neglect by her parents. Clearly she was trying to use scare tactics to get a child to comply with her decision. Not a very effective way to do so. To the contrary, she likely created emotional trauma for this child as well as a great distrust for the judiciary.
Couple of comments on this story: (1) Terrible of Judge Hughes to address this child without anyone in the Courtroom and to try to intimidate this child. Ugly. (2) It does overshadow the fact that the mom was very well-documented as having alienated the daughter from the father, which is why the entire issue of the daughter refusing to go with the father came up in the first place. (3) This story is entwined with the battling Facebook groups, which could cause those sordid issues to raise their head as part of this story.
8:27 is correct that we must not lose sight of the fact that the Judge was ultimately correct in transferring custody to the father based on severe parental alienation. Subsequently, it appears that caused the mother to agree to a shared custody situation, possible a 50/50 arrangement. And the father now appears to be receiving his child in a consistent manner, and it appears the child(who was so dead-set against seeing her Dad) is now adjusting fairly well and no longer views Dad as a medieval ogre. At least all of that is indicated by the record.
Therefore, the judge's very firm approach took a huge step toward solving the problem. However, as is often the case in the Law, the ends don't justify the means. Several major problems:
1. The child is berated on the record, without Mom present, without a Guardian Ad Litem, etc. I realize it's not procedure(although perhaps it should be, but resources don't allow for it) to appoint a GAL in all contested custody cases, but in a case this severe, perhaps it should have occurred. Or, the judge could have relied on the child interviews, without bringing the child to court for that most unpleasant show down.
2. These judges still won't learn, despite several recent Judicial Commission decisions, as well as NSC decisions, to fastidiously adhere to all notice and due process requirements concerning Contempt Of Court.
Obviously, the requirements were largely ignored here.
3. Likewise, at the contempt hearing, custody changed, and all due process and notice requirements were also ignored in this instance as well. Even if the judge had handled the contempt proceedings properly, and afforded all due process and notice, she was not permitted to expand the contempt hearing to a change of custody hearing. A new evidentiary date needed to be set for the Change Of Custody
4. And because custody was changed at a contempt hearing, it appeared that custody was changed as a punishment, via a contempt sanction, and that is never proper.
So, very proper result, but a complete disaster as to how she got to the result, IMO.
A valuable and costly learning experience, which will benefit her and other judges as well. Contempts can be tricky, and even complex. Many judges, and attorneys, even have difficulty distinguishing which contempts are criminal, which are civil, and which are quasi-criminal.
Also, often they are not even fully aware of what type of contempt they are dealing with–violation of a court order type of contempt vs. contempts surrounding disruptive behavior in court.For the type of contempt concerning disruptive behavior in court, they often place someone in custody, without issuing a specific order detailing the contempt, without setting a hearing, and often without even addressing how the contempt can be purged.
This is a good post. I was going to comment on this story, but you said everything I was going to say better than I could say it.
Judges should keep contempt cheat sheets taped to the bench. Study and restudy them every Monday morning for 10 minutes. Have the relevant statutes, case law, and required procedures/findings/scripts/etc right in front of you at all times, because contempt usually only happens when a judge is angry or at least frustrated, and that can be distracting.
Reading the comments from the anonymous commentators, I'm struck by how quickly and universally they all concluded that the mother caused the problem of the child's refusal to interact with the father through an overused and somewhat questionable doctrine of "parental alienation" syndrome.
Not to say that parents don't ever act in ways to try to disrupt and interfere with a child's relationship with the other parent, such behavior is not the cause of 100% of the dysfunctional parent/child relationships. There are generally 2 competing bases of causes of that dysfunction.. the already commented on "parental alienation", but the competing basis is the opposite side of the same coin and known as "parental estrangement". The manifestation of both syndromes is exactly the same, thus it can be difficult to distinguish one from the other. The primary difference goes to the cause of the dysfunction.
In the parental alienation model, the base underlining cause is actions by the favored parent to undermine and poison the relationship between the child and the disfavored parent. In many cases, this active undermining is further assisted by the reactions of the disfavored parent to the wrongful conduct by the favored parent which further reinforces in the child's mind the messages they are receiving from the favored parent.
The parental estrangement situation, while appearing to third parties the same as the parental alienation problem is quite different. In this situation, the dysfunction is not the result of acts and/or omissions by the favored parent but rather the child's reaction to the disfavored parents own actions and choices. Even in situations where the disfavored parent is in fact acting in the child's best interest, the child may perceive the actions to be wrongful and spiteful, thus respond by attempting to sever the parent-child relationship.
In handling these cases, whether as an advocate, counselor or judicial officer there are a couple of things that have to be kept in mind. First, the alleged "wrong, offense, injustice (or whatever term you wish to use) may not be factually accurate; Second, the child's perception regardless of the factual accuracy is that the alleged offense is in fact true (the child's perception of their world); Third, the child is reacting to their perceived world, not necessarily to the factual world; Fourth, the parties need to remain focused on addressing the factual misconduct when that is the cause, but more importantly correcting the child's perception of their world. Whether the disfavored parent actually did the alleged wrongful conduct is in many ways less important to a successful reunification than addressing the child's perception of their world is.
I agree with 9:42's contempt and due process observations in general. I disagree, however with their comment on direct contempt (contempt in the presence of the court e.g. disruptive behavior in court) and believing that one of the failings of the judges is the failure of addressing how the contempt can be purged. A purge clause is only necessary if the contempt is a civil contempt (intended to coerce behavior or action [violator has keys to their own jail cell]). A criminal contempt does not require a purge clause as it's intended purpose is to punish prior misbehavior rather than to force future behavior. In a criminal contempt, nothing the violator does in the future changes the punishment, thus no need for a purge clause.
9:42 here again. I realized I was wrong about the purge clause after I posted it. Contempts in the presence of the court are not the type to require purge clauses, although the civil contempts do require it.
But the problems with this particular case is that the problems were far more fundamental as to the defects–basic lack of notice and right to be heard. A judge can't simply indicate that they learned that the visits are still not occurring, and then simply issue a minute entry that Mom and child must attend court, and then when they do so, exclude Mom from the hearing and only speak with the child, and then hold Mom in contempt
and change custody as well(with no notice or due process on the custody matter as well.)
But, yes,thanks for catching the purge issue. You pay close attention to what you read.
All your comments about so-called alienation are quite sound and supported by the research. Yet, boiling it all down to its simplest form, if the judge thought Mom was the problem here, and was denying contact with little or no cause, and that child would adjust adequately to being transferred to Dad, then it was the correct result. However, you suggest that even if all that is true that it could be traumatizing to abruptly transfer child to Dad if child internalizes Mom's pain and hurt, and if child subjectively believes (even if erroneous) that Dad might harm her. yes, in such instances the transfer must be slow, and be accompanied by a therapeutic element.
How many times must a parent be admonished that they risk loosing custody? Once, twice, three… seven times? Can those admonitions be factored into her due process rights? Oh, and Mom did not have an attorney present because she stiffed him for over $10,000. The Mother caused each and every problem she now bemoans. The child was homeschooled but performing at sub-grade level. The child refused to get out of Mom's car to meet with the court appointed therapist (how much coaching did that take?). Then Mom hooks up with Steve Sansom and becomes energized by his BS anti-corruption. The parties are now in front of Judge Pomerenze and have an upcoming custody trial. Joint physical custody is on the horizon. All Dad wanted was to visit his daughter. Mom cut her own nose off.
What a puzzling puff piece on Bob Nersesian.
"I'm a lawyer, I handle civil actions"
Okay Bob, way to go, how much did this "news" coverage cost?
Unlike most lawyer puff pieces, Bob's practice is interesting and novel enough to justify news coverage. I've met him a couple of times and he has some really fantastic stories from his cases. You'd be surprised how many casinos in town, to this day, wrongfully detain people or beat the shit out of them. It's enough that Bob has a successful niche practice in this area.
The piece caused me concerns in a couple areas:
1. He was asked a good question, challenging question which could have elevated this interview somewhat above puff piece status. He was asked something to the effect that can it be assumed that based on what he does, that he does not have many friends among those who own and operate casinos. Instead of providing a snappy, confident, flip answer like "Yeah. They hate and fear me", he offers this plodding, laborious response(which to me rings a bit false) that the gaming industry holds him in high esteem, invites him to offer seminars and presentations on their premises, etc.
I have trouble fathoming how they would really benefit from extending such invitations, unless they simply think it is in their best interests to flatter and placate him.
2. He stressed his track record of successfully suing hotel security for roughing up patrons. But he then allows that he must decline many of these prospective clients because their cases are frivolous. And an example he offers of a supposedly frivolous case is one where security beats a guy up, but it turns out the guy stole a drink. Now if the guy stole a drink, but offers no resistance to being detained by security(either so they can escort him off the premises, or hold him for the police if that is their choice) why would it be justifiable to use extreme force and beat the guy up? In the example he used, the guy stole a drink, but is offering no resistance(if he was offering resistance it would be vital for Bob to include that fact in his example, and he did not).
If Bob is, as pretty much presented, the ultimate expert in cases of this sort, I'm surprised he would say that a guy who is brutally beat for stealing a drink, but who offered no resistance to being detained, has a frivolous case.
I know many non-expert attorneys who could work such case toward a decent settlement, or verdict if need be.
Bob is a blowhard. He thinks more of himself than he should. He holds himself in much higher esteem than most casino in-house counsel. But he takes cases that other people would not take so he is annoying.
I agree with 2:13 that it does not make sense that the casinos would regularly be inviting him to present seminars and instructional lectures on their premises.
They would not want a Plaintiff's attorney(who they may bitterly resent for creating a lot of expensive defense work the casinos must finance on cases which other Plaintiff attorneys would not accept), to be lecturing them on security matters.
Instead, the casinos will insist on training their security as they see fit, and if there are areas where substantive legal advice is needed, their in house counsel, or retained outside counsel, will do the instructing–not some Plaintiff's attorney who bedevils the casinos by litigating cases no one else will.
I also agree that if a patron steals a drink, but offers no resistance to being detained, and is brutally and senselessly beaten by security, that such does not sound like a frivolous case. Why does Bob, the apparent fearless crusader who will protect those who no one else would protect, deem that to be a frivolous case to accept?
I enjoyed the Johnson post that was removed. It is true.
Barney Rubble
The judges is this town are not that bright. It makes me laugh when people laud them as such.
The people who laud them do so for two main reasons.
Some attorneys think it's advantageous to flatter a judge and compliment their (supposed) intellect and abilities, even when such attorneys actually believe the judge is not that wonderful.
In other words, insincere sucking up.
The other reason is that some attorneys(either naïve attorneys or relatively young or inexperienced ones who don't really understand the political process) actually tend to believe that for a judge to be appointed, or even elected, that the judge must be legally and procedurally solid.
To the above I would add that most attorneys in this city are not particularly sophisticated and so are not well-equipped to evaluate a judge's legal acumen. I don't mean that as an insult either. There is not a ton of really sophisticated work to go around here, so the number of lawyers practicing consistently at a high level probably numbers in the dozens. It's hard to evaluate whether a judge got some narrow issue right when you're not delving deep into those issues on a regular basis.
Thank you, Judge. Only one of our "finest" would say this.
I want my money back.
To:3:23:You really think a judge wrote 1:46? The people who become district judges are attorneys. So, if the pool of attorneys judges are selected from is not particularly sophisticated or knowledgeable, the judge chosen from such mediocre pool will likewise be of mediocre quality.
So, if this was a judge who wrote this, by insulting the attorneys they also insulted themselves.
Judge, yes, or steering committee wrote that, Yamaha, yeah.
I want my vote back. Can we get rid of Bulla?
I practice in muni, justice, and district. Henderson, NLV and Vegas.
There's not a good Judge on the bench at any level, especially the lower levels. That's the reason I'll always support appointment. It shouldn't be who raises the most money or has the most friends, it should be who is the most qualified and will do the best job, period.
So wait a minute. "There's not a good Judge on the bench at any level, especially the lower levels." So the Judges that were appointed (and then retained) are not good Judges? How is that a good argument for a pure appointment system?
9:42 here again. In fairness, I have to clarify something. I stand by my comments concerning law and procedure, but I cant be certain my factual representations are correct. For example, my comment about the girl now adjusting with being with Dad is not based on a record review, as the case is sealed, but is based on grape vine.
My Bad for relying on hearsay.
Thanks for the clarification.
The whole sealing of cases (in the absence of a pending criminal investigation or national security implications) is a completely different issue and is completely opposite to the concept of an open and transparent government (including the judiciary). That is a subject that could be discussed on its own merits in a different post.
Does anyone have the charges filed by the Commission on Judicial Discipline against Rena Hughes? There is no link in the TV report or elsewhere. If anyone has a link to share or the complaint, it would be appreciated.
Here are the Statement of Charges. Interestingly there is also a Statement of Charges against Jennifer Henry filed that same date.
http://judicial.nv.gov/Discipline/Pending_Charges/SOC/
I'm more interested in the hearing master who was charged the same day. Seems she got a little too full of herself.
http://judicial.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/judicialnvgov/content/Discipline/Pending_Charges/FSOC_Henry_%202016-142-P.pdf
Not the same day. Exactly 1 year later.
Jennifer Henry's SOC was the same date (10/10/17) as Rena Hughes's SOC.
Didn't Henry used to hear Guardianship?
Who in the he'll is Jen Henry?
Jen Henry was a little baby, sitting on her papa's knee
She picked up a gavel and little judges fee
Said "Gavel's gonna be the death of me, Lord, Lord
Gavel's gonna be the death of me"
Can I use this?
Put it to music. Anybody have any Lewis and Broke a wine?
Why is it always entertaining to go to certain court rooms to see how some judges treat attorneys? At least you guys are consistent.
Sometimes it's not so entertaining, but is quite disturbing.
But how they treat attorneys is always of interest because it affects attorneys' practices–sometimes dramatically. For example, when judges have a habit of berating attorneys in front of their clients, no good can ever come from that. That does not help an attorney's practice, to say the least.
I've never seen that 3:47. Thankfully, every judge I've been in front of has gone out of his/her way to tell my client how great of a job I'm doing (even when it's a gratuitous exaggeration at best). I'd be fucking humiliated to have the opposite happen. I always assumed the judges always said nice things about lawyers when clients came to court because they didn't want anyone causing delays by firing their lawyers, or creating an appealable issue based on attorney negligence.
Actually, I take that back. I had one judge beat the shit out of me for our position in a case. But that was after she denied our summary judgment motion and I figured the judge was trying to signal to my client that the company needed to dig into its pocket and settle because we were screwed at trial.
Granted, some of the judges are pompous egotistical asses, but some are actually hard working conscientious jurists trying to do the right thing under sometimes difficult circumstances.
Before always castigating the judge for embarrassing the attorney, you might want to pause to look at the attorney's work product and actions (whether that be yourself, opposing counsel or a third party attorney). Having practiced in this town for a very long time, it's amazing how frequently attorneys will appear completely unprepared, argue frivolous points (frequently contrary to existing law without even an argument for change in the law but rather ignorance of the existing authority), fail to file required documents timely, etc.
This may be a more common occurrence in Family Court, but a great number of instances, the attorney goes to trial having conducted little or no preparation, virtually no discovery nor any idea of the relevant facts of the case.
In any instance, it may very well be the judge, but not always…
Pomrenze going off on me once was great (I deserved it), but not as great as her going off on David Mann when I was present for another matter. Mann wasn't even present in the court, but was set to be. She had her bailiff call his office and when there was no answer, another attorney (also there on another matter) said "I just saw him upstairs in another court on another matter." She was not happy.
It was quite entertaining when Kephart busted my ass in his Justice Court. I was humiliated, but I have great respect for him now and I see why he did it.
Bulla busting my ass…if that never happened again, that would be great.
Has Timcan Williams ever gone off on anybody?
Yes. Generally a pretty nice fellow but I have seen him beet red.
Interestingly enough, it looks like all of the currently pending disciplinary cases are against Family court judges or masters. And of course we all remember the infamous incident involving Sylvia Beller that ended her career over there. I guess the theme that ties all of this together is that Family Court judges all must think that it is just a big free-for-all and that the ideas of due process and respect for Fifth Amendment rights just don't apply to them. It seems like they are just making up the rules as they go along.
Ding Ding Ding.. give that reader a prize!
But in all fairness, its not just the judges, the family law bar in large part shares the belief that rules and laws don't apply to family law cases.
The attorneys share the view because the judges show it time and time again. Plus, one can't get a consistent ruling from the same judge on two nearly identical sets of facts in the same month.
this is one of the reasons that attorneys and judges should be removed from the divorce and custody process.
How? What would be the alternatives? Who would, instead, resolve these matters?
I find it interesting that the main detective in a case, Det. Chris Baughman, can sleep with witnesses and marry the DA who took the case to trial. Something stinks here! DA Mercer has nothing to hide, which I doubt, she should be made to give a deposition to defense attorneys.
That's because DA Mercer and Det. Baughman were having an affair while trials were going on. Now she is married to him. He used her like he did everyone else. She should be seeing a divorce attorney! Not to mention, he slept with hookers. She should be pissed.