- Quickdraw McLaw
- 36 Comments
- 199 Views
- Eviction moratorium extension means extra time to get aid disbursed. [TNI]
- If you weren’t paying attention, that new law decriminalizing traffic violations doesn’t go into effect until January 1, 2023. [Las Vegas Sun]
- The US Supreme Court is still churning out opinions. [SCOTUSblog]
- Not entirely Vegas specific, but here’s a good rundown of the Britney Spears conservatorship legal drama. [NY Times]
Re the comments yesterday re PPP:
Go to http://www.federalpay.org/paycheck-protection-program
Search by state (Nevada for Boyd ’13 grads)
Search by “Offices of Lawyers”
See which Nevada firms obtained PPP loans
Search by Arizona and “Offices of Lawyers” and see which firms with Las Vegas offices but based in Arizona received PPP loans.
Let’s just say some big players received 7 figure loans.
First question: In order to obtain PPP loan forgiveness is there a loss of income requirement, or can a firm simply obtain a loan and receive loan forgiveness irrespective of any loss of income?
Second Question: If there is no income loss requirement for PPP loan forgiveness, and there was no income loss and the firm took a loan (federal government subsidy) and added to the national debt, is the firm a freeloading POS? For example, if the firm received a seven figure loan and used the loan for payroll, but did not have any loss of income, and the loan actually ended up benefitting the partners, i.e. taxpayers end up paying a “bonus” to the partners. (Word on the street is that notwithstanding Covid, a lot of firms, were very profitable the past year.
Third Question: Assuming there was a loss of income requirement for PPP loan forgiveness will the state bar be looking into whether the firms that took PPP loans and received forgiveness actually had an income loss? See e.g. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 8.4(a), (b), (c).
Fourth Question: If you took a PPP loan and received forgiveness and did not have loss of income, and are simply a freeloader, what is your rational for doing so?
Fifth Question: If some well-heeled lawyers had to take home a little less during the pandemic in order to keep their employees should the taxpayer have been required to foot the bill because they elected not to do so?
First Statement: If you took a PPP loan, received loan forgiveness and did not sustain a loss of income, you are a freeloading POS.
Second Statement: If you took a PPP loan, received loan forgiveness, and received loan forgiveness, I am happy the taxpayers were able to assist you.
Discuss.
Sounds like you are just bitter that you didn't get in on the gravy train.
10:11-yes, some bitterness, or at least some level of indignation, is conveyed by 9:43. And it could well be for the reason you mention–that 9:43 did not get a piece of the action.
But have you considered that it instead may be that 9:43, like many of us, busted their ass their whole life, and delayed gratification and made many sacrifices while earning degrees, and then continuing to bust their ass for many years afterward, never relying on the government or anyone else to support or help support them?
I happen to fit that profile, as do a great percentage of attorneys in this town, although I have no particular resentment toward people who benefitted from various programs. In fact many of them deserved to benefit. And yes many did not deserve to benefit yet did so, but it's difficult to weed out or always detect and exclude the undeserving ones.
And that dynamic exists in all benefit programs, but we don't eliminate worthy programs because a few undeserving people play the system and slip through the cracks.
But if a lot of undeserving people get the benefits, then a program needs to be re-vamped, or in some cases even eliminated if it cannot be insulated or modified to prevent massive ill-use and exploitation.
And thus 9:43, like many others in a similar situation, may somewhat resent some people who exploited the benefits of said program and other programs. In fact "somewhat resent" is putting 9:43's diss-pleasure quite mildly as 9:43 refers to undeserving applicants as "pieces of—-"(although an abbreviation was used).
Now, although I don't have the same viseral reaction as 9:43, and don't know enough to conclude that the exploitation has become so widespread and that the program should be eliminated due to rampant miss-use, I do know that the dynamics offered by 9:43 do occur–I just can't speak to how rampant it is.
Love me some pre pre, I mean PPP long add posts.
So I clicked through about 10 pages of the referenced website (Nevada only), with each page having 50 referenced loans, so that apparently 500 law firm loans. The smallest loan was about $66K and 13 firms had loans in excess of $1 mil. The Arizona loans were interesting as well with one firm with a Las Vegas office getting $8 mil +, one with $4 mil, and a couple with $2 mil. I really like to know which ones had an actual loss of income v. those that were just sucking off the "gov'ment teet."
You asked a serious (albeit loaded) question:
1: Yes and no. There was no income loss requirement for round 1. There was an income loss requirement for round 2.
2. No they are not. Round 1 was effectively a grant to keep money flowing through the economy and keeping people employed. No one knew where this virus was going as calamity was hitting. You cannot be a freeloading POS if you are doing exactly what the grants were intended to be which keeping the economy running and employees employed that would have otherwise gone to unemployment. You are gauging by June 2021 the policy decisions of a very conservative administration and businesses in Spring/Summer 2020 for payroll. To do otherwise in hindsight would be to punish the people who kept the economy open and working. Now if you lied on your applications in round 1 at all or about income loss in Round 2 at the time of forgiveness when required to produce document, then you are a liar and POS is a reasonable tag.
3. No the SBN will not. However they will be lying in wait should any of the firms be pursued by SBA or IRS just as they always are. This suggestion actually tickles the "mandatory audits" issue from a few years. The time and expense for the OBC to get involved in firm finances would be a nightmare. But if the Feds chase you and do the heavy lifting, OBC will gladly ring up firms of less than 5 people only.
4. Well this question requires assumption of the predicate that someone who took a PPP loan and did not have a loss of income is a freeloader which is not true. If you took a grant to keep the economy moving and people employed and did exactly what you were supposed to do, then you are not a freeloader. Our "rational" for doing so is that we were going to lay people off in Spring 2020 because things looked dire. We had to undertake overhead expenses preparing the firm to transition to remote practice. We weathered some dark and uncertain days. We were promised in Round 1 that if we stayed the course that our economic uncertainties would be helped. We did what we were supposed to do and lived up to our promises under the program. If you think playing by the rules is "freeloading" then attack the game and not the players. As for Round 2, once again Round 2 was based upon a snapshot of profitability which means that people who had a bad quarter could apply even if they ended up having a good year. Round 2 forgiveness is different in my mind but the program was and is the program.
5. Your question presumes a false narrative. Lawyers (and other industries) were not choosing between taking home less or taking home more. This question follows the preparation paradox fallacy which is because everything turned out relatively OK that all of these programs were not necessary. Perhaps the reason that things are OK is because we followed this path.
First Statement: Disagree for the reasons set forth above. You are presuming that loss of income was a requirement for a program that for Round 1 had no such requirement so long as expenditures were for the categories mentioned.
Second Statement: Redundant. However it presumes that losses of income were the only reasons for forgiveness when losses of income are not necessarily indicative of the most socially necessary expenditures. One could argue that rewarding those who worked hardest and most efficiently during the crisis served the greater good than only rewarding those who declined.
The term Gub'ment teet is a JOKE! PPP was us taking some of our taxes back. Period. Its not the taxpayers backs, its our backs. We produce and pay, produce and pay. Every year.
Fuck you Uncle Sam. I'll jump through your PPP hoops, but gimme my money back. PPP was not a loan, it was nothing more than a tax refund. Nothing more, nothing less.
9:43 here. 11:36 thank you for taking the time to respond in a substantive and thoughtful manner. You make some good points that require consideration. Unfortunately, I am a working stiff and need to do some work.
Re 12:00 – Who the heck do you think the taxpayers are? Its us. Who do you think will have to payback these loans, whether reasonable and appropriate, or fraudulent? Look in the mirror much?
12:00 wants to speak to the PPP manager right now!
1200 here.
I just got a fat tax refund. Don't really care about YOUR perspective. I sleep fine at night and to tell the truth, NOONE is paying that back ever.
Once you realize that there is no such thing as money, it changes your entire outlook. Its all fake, fiat currency is failing and will be a thing of the past in short order, along with the Federal Reserve.
Will somebody PLEASE explain to me why there are so many derogatory references to "Boyd '13" graduates in this blog? Every law school class has students who did well and students who did not. Indeed, every class has good students who ended up with lackluster careers and not-so-good students who had phenomenal careers. Whence the source of the vitriol directed to Boyd '13 graduates, which vitriol is SO unfair to the competent attorneys who graduated in that class?
We have a Boyd'15 progressive at our firm. She is a real asshole. She missed the civility and ethics boat.
Asshole
Boyd 15 needs a legal clinic that lying to opposing counsel is unethical and how to make cogent arguments.
A (mostly) proud Boyd '15 here. Just wrapping up a dispute with another Boyd '15, and experienced a baffling amount of ineptitude and shadiness. Another post put it perfectly earlier this week: "Don't blame an idiot's law school for the idiot being an idiot."
Still shocked at some of the nonsense, but grateful for the anecdotes I got from the whole ordeal.
A local attorney held a dormant LLC in his own name for several years, which sat in default status. In response to COVID concerns in 2020, the federal PPP assistance was announced. Suddenly, attorney reinstated his LLC April 2020. Representing that attorney would work from his million dollar home address, B of A approved his PPP loan on May 1, 2020 to support his juicy payroll of one. Concurrently that week on May 3, 2020, B of A also approved $284,558 PPP assistance for the ID law firm where he is a partner, purportedly saving 22 jobs. Attorney even used that ID firm’s address as his LLC’s agent. Yes, vacations and expensive golf rounds followed. Legal or not, this seems like double dipping. Hard workers’ tax money paid for this sham, and I am glad that the new federal requirements include a hardship element. While local employees lost jobs or took pay cuts, this opportunist fleeced us. I am also glad this loan has not yet been forgiven, as it appears suitable for Inspector audit.
When individuals point out legal and ethical issues, they are not necessarily bitter losers. They are called lawyers.
10:29–True. I think 10:32 pretty much straddles the appropriate middle ground–The fact some undeserving and unqualified people manage to take advantage of programs(through false representations, or negligence by those reviewing the applicant's submitted material, etc.)does not mandate that a program should be eliminated.
But if fraud and abuse of the program becomes widespread, and the gaping holes in the program can't be plugged by swift and aggressive major changes to protect the integrity of the process, such a program may need to eliminated.
Reading and understanding the law, and figuring out how to apply the law to obtain the best possible result is not cheating and not unfair. It's what an attorney is supposed to be good at. Expecting attorneys to just forego an advantage available to everyone is like expecting a shark to ignore chum.
Can we talk about Britney? It's almost heartbreaking. What a messed up system.
It time. #freebrit
12:50-some observations:
1. The father, who is the guardian or conservator, as is often the case, is not merely being compensated a reasonable amount for services rendered, but appears to be benefitting to the tune of hundreds of thousands, or even as much as a couple million or more per year(if the various financial figures and percentages of the article are accurate.)
2. And in addition to that, he appears to have no particular management or accounting acumen, but is instead portrayed as an ignorant, relapsing alcoholic cracker hillbilly, chronic spouse and family-abusing ignorant red-neck who may have, at best, a High School education from some small Dixie hamlet.
Now, that may very well be a very harsh, and perhaps vey unfair and exaggerated view of the man(probably is), but that is how the article portrays him. And that is not merely based on quotes and input offered by others, but the author of the article essentially represents him in this manner, and pretty much indicates that he has these nefarious characteristics and that the matter is not even up for debate.
But it mat all be debatable and he is probably not nearly as odious as portrayed, but what is pretty uncontroverted, and fairly well-documented, is the seemingly obscene amount that he has been paid to essentially control Brittney's money.
3. Britney, at least currently, does not appear to be testing positive for anything that should not be in her system.
Plus, she appears to not currently have any diagnosed psychological or physical condition that would render her legally unable to control her own finances.
She might in fact, like a lot of grossly overpaid entertainers, spend the money quite foolishly, and save very little, but that is not particularly relevant, as she can well afford to waste millions if she wishes. If how foolish and impulsive she is with money were the basis to assign Guardians or Conservators to rich entertainers and athletes, then far more than half of them would probably have guardians.
4. And it's her money to waste and spend, not her (apparently) neer-do-well leeching, parasitic Dad(again, at least that is how the Times clearly portrays him).
5. I would hope(perhaps somewhat naively) that the Brittney who is now close to 40, would control finances a lot better, and be more saving and sensible, than the 19 or 22 year-old-version of her earlier self.
But whether she is or not, she, like,most people, should control their own destinies.
You know what they say: Crazy inna head, crazy inna bed. "I'm not that innocent!"
My civil practice has intersected with guardianships a few times. Each and every time the guardian was a parasite at best, and a crook most of the time. Heart breaking. Institutionalized fraud and slavery. I have more respect for pimps.
1:50, I can't determine to what extent I agree with your observations since the article seems to omit critical info. that we need to know, and also appears to have a tendency to distort and dramatize certain cherry-picked "facts." (I guess that is a problem with so much journalism these days).
But I do know I really agree with you on one thing off the bat, and that is the article made her dad look like an absolutely reprehensible, totally exploitive, ignorant, abusing, alchy POS.
The article would have benefitted greatly from far more balance on that point–unless the author was unable to locate anyone to offer positive observations about the father, and/or that he was sincerely motivated to protect his daughter, etc.
A second thing I agree on, if the article is accurate, is that it would appear he is being compensate all out of any rational proportion to the (so-called) services he renders.
Now,whether B. Spears currently needs a guardian or conservator(probably not), she sure could have used one back when she impulsively married that no-talent back-up dancer, wannabe rapper, Kevin what's his face.
Gotta give K-Fed props,haven't heard one negative thing about the way he is rausing the kids.
I do a fair amount of guardianship work and can confidently say this would not happen in Nevada (since the reforms in around 2017).
Read the full transcript. It opens eyes as to the BS she is subject to.
2:14, yes, would not have happened since the 2017 reforms, but before the reforms we sure had a lot of horror stories.
Even back then, someone as high profile as this and with skilled attorneys, would have most likely succeeded in dissolving the guardianship, based on Brittney apparently being drug-free and suffering from no debilitating, or even highly compromising, psych. or physical condition.
But back then, pre-reform, there were a gazillion cases on a much smaller basis, where guardians paid themselves like $10,000. per month, did not pay the ward's necessary rent and living expenses, and still managed to remain as guardians status check after status check, annual accounting after annual accounting(to the degree those required procedures even occurred in a timely fashion).
And we all knew these type cases were occurring regularly for decades, with both public guardians and private guardians.
Yet when the RJ story broke, along with concurrent other news reports, and news broadcast reports, of individual horror stories, many of those in the attorney community,the judicial community, the legislative community, and those in the media, acted "Shocked. So shocked to learn that gambling is occurring on hotel premises in Las Vegas!"(to use an analogy, with proper citing to the movie "Casablanca")
It was all there blatantly to see for many years, for those who wanted to see it.
I'm a somewhat(actually, more than "somewhat") older attorney who must ruefully observe that some attorneys are so young to have actually been fans of Brittney when she was at her commercial and popularity peak early in her career.
In fact, there are also attorneys who are so young that they would observe that Britney's peak years(like when she was in her late teens and early 20's) would have been "before my time."
2:10,I hear you, as I'm so goddamned old that I remember when The Beatles split up when I was in fifth grade.
And my closest attorney friend, a decade older than me, was in his teens when The Beatles broke into America. He got hooked the moment he saw them on Ed Sullivan. I saw the broadcast as well, but being only 5, I didn't really get the impact.
I realize I'm off topic, but the discussion of Brittney got me thinking of entertainers who were really big when I was growing up.
2:16–Even more off topic: Why didn't those teenage girls shut up and stop screaming at The Beatles concerts so that the music could at least be faintly audible?
And, off topic even more, with modern sound systems, could matters be calibrated whereby The Beatles could have been reasonably heard even considering the sound wall of 40,000 screeching 16-yeaar-old girls?
Listen to these two! Freakin' Waldorf and Statler!
Hey, 4:02: Grumpy old men were not watching the Muppets in 1975 — that was only 45 years ago. We have no idea what "Waldorf and Statler" were. Google clued me in.
How would I find the candidate list for Melanie's JC10 vacancy appointment, does the county publish it? I believe the filing deadline was yesterday.