- Quickdraw McLaw
- 37 Comments
- 456 Views
- Judge Navarro hints at possible mistrial in the Bundy case. [RJ]
- Gaming Control Board Chairman A.G. Burnett is stepping down to join McDonald Carano. [TNI]
- Here’s the Supreme Court order In re Discipline: Geraldine Kirk-Hughes.
- The Las Vegas WNBA team will be known as the Aces. [Las Vegas Sun]
That order re Kirk-Hughes is kinda BS. How many times does she have to be disciplined and how much money does she have to steal to lose her license permanently? I've dealt with her in the past. She is a liar and one of the most unethical attorneys I've dealt with. The fact that the judges, the Bar, and now the Supreme Court haven't done more to curtail her is astounding. Meanwhile the rest of us are being threatened with random audits and mandatory malpractice insurance. WTF
Honestly it is criminal what Kirk-Hughes has done. Which is why the Supreme Court crushes good attorneys and lets the Kirk-Hughes's of the world to skate time after time.
Totally inexplicable that this resulted in anything but disbarment unless the justices are getting campaign contributions from her.
Or don't want to be seen disbarring the African-American attorney and triggering her allegations of racism (which she drops frequently). Make no mistake. The Supreme Court has not gone soft; quite the opposite across the board. But this case is an extreme outlier and sends all the wrong messages to any attorney facing discipline: steal as much money as possible and do not cooperate with the State Bar because you will be disciplined the same regardless of cooperation.
Sad, but true. Race is the third rail of our society. 10:10 am will likely be excoriated for making this claim. But political correctness doesn't actually change reality, only perspective. Good luck with this bizarro world you've created, snowflakes.
Yes, we should notice who are endorse judges and give contributions to them. They get preferential treatment.
Got my effin' bonus this morning and the check is in the bank! The partners at this firm keep their promises!
What firm might that be? National, regional or local firm? Area(s) of law practiced?
Yeah, let's hear the details! How much did you get? Don't worry, you can trust us here. Think of yourself as being in a nest, in a tree of trust and understanding.
$1000. Fantastic bonus for a 7 year attorney working for Randy Tindale
35k – commercial litigation – 4th year associate – will be at about 1900 hours on an 1850 hour quota – and my hours are legit, they don't get cut
Spit-take
This is complete B/S. Kirk-Hughes has a history of dishonesty, and her unequivocal misappropriation of trust funds should have gotten her disbarred. Instead, as pointed out earlier, the Bar is going to want to perform random audits of any attorney's trust account. This is horrible.
To: 10:57:But most of these suspensions of several years essentially amounts to a disbarment, for all intents and purposes.
Although I did not see it reiterated in the NSC decision, if the State Bar discipline included reimbursement of substantial sums, that could be of critical importance as to whether the attorney ever returns to practice.
When an attorney is suspended several years, plus assessed hundreds of thousands of dollars in reimbursement which must be paid for readmission to ever be considered, that is invariably the kiss of death. Most attorneys are not trained in other areas, at least not in areas where they could even remotely approximate what they earned as an attorney. And if they are now deprived of their livelihood as an attorney, that effectively eliminates any possibility they will ever be re-admitted, as no substantive restitution will ever be made.
Again, I don't know if there is a restitution element in this case, but usually with the lengthy suspensions there is a substantial restitution requirement, and it is almost never met.
Anyone have a copy of the motion or opposition filed by Troy Clark recently in a negligent security case? A buddy just mentioned that there is one going viral as they completely misstated the law and got way called out. I am trying to get it, but if anyone has it please share.
I think the case is Case No. A-16-736675-C. I'll see if I can upload the Motion and file it.
Please!
I'm not @2:21p, but here's the links.
The Motion for Summary Judgment is here: http://bit.ly/2yj4erM
The Opposition, where the attorney says he was the lead appellate counsel in the case that's binding and it's different than what was cited, is here: http://bit.ly/2iVIj4H
These are Dropbox links.
Sorry, I'm 2:21pm. I meant I would upload it and share it, not file it. Had to step into a consult so 3:08 beat me to it. Thanks.
Page 7 of the Opposition is probably the best section to read of all the documents. It's quite a scathing rebuke of defense counsel. It also makes me appreciate Drummond's strategy in filing an Opposition instead of sending a Rule 11 letter and allowing defense counsel to save face. Drummond will likely accomplish two things by forgoing the Rule 11 route: 1) He can make the defense attorney look like a complete idiot in front of the judge, and 2) he will likely get some attorney's fees awarded for having to defend against the motion.
It's sad to me that this is what passes for entertainment in my world right now. I need to get out of the office.
Why do I care? This seems very routine in every way.
Give me a break. Drummond’s opposition is self-felating bullshit. The motion cites to Humphries at 7:13 and concedes it’s holding.
Defense counsel’s seems to be saying that their case is different from Humphries because this plaintiff committed the intentional tort of assault by waiving a gun around, as opposed to being only comparatively negligent. That difference may not matter to the rule 14 and 19 analysis. But it looks like they’re taking a shot in good faith.
Defendant should be arguing that plaintiff doesn’t even benefit from comparative negligence because plaintiff’s conduct was intentional. 41.141(5)(b). That kicks him out of NRS 41.141, back into the cold world of common-law contributory negligence. If the plaintiff is even 1% at fault for his own injury, he gets nothing.
@9:21 – Do you practice in Nevada? Nevada doesn't follow the common-law contributory negligence standard. There are only five jurisdictions in the country that still do: Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia, and DC. The only bar to recovery in Nevada is if the Plaintiff is 51% at fault for his own injury.
Yes, I practice here. I agree with what you’re saying as far as it goes. I think it’s a little simplistic though. Nevada derogates the common law of both contributory negligence and joint and several liability via NRS 41.141. If you fall into one of that statute’s exceptions then you're subject to the common law. That is why defendants are joint-and-severally liable in product defect, concerted acts, etc., under section 5, notwithstanding their right to several liability under section 1. (At least, that’s the rationale behind subsection 5.)
The language of section 5 makes that result most clear as it relates to the conduct of defendants. But the underlying rationale and plain language in the statute suggest that it works both ways, as it should. Notice the title, “When Comparative Negligence Not Bar to Recovery…,” implies that there are circumstances when plaintiff's recovery is still barred. Moreover, subsection 1, which is the only clause of the only statute that derogates the common law in Nevada, applies to recovery by a plaintiff whose conduct is merely negligent. There’s a good argument that if the plaintiff’s fault is worse than negligent, the softening protection of 41.141 would not apply, just as the softening to several liability does not apply to defendants whose conduct is worse than negligent.
I'm not aware of any case that says otherwise.
You two need something. Not sure what. You are missing something though. Yawn.
10:36, is that you Bremer Whyte? Whoever filed that ridiculous motion and now trying to defend it on the blog? I agree none of this is blogworthy! However, in addition to getting a life, you are just completely incorrect.
*Yawn* The only person who gives a rat's arse about Drummond's case is Drummond. The Opposition raises the Humprhie's case and distinguishes. Drummond just wanted an opportunity to toot his own horn on a case that didn't have the impact that he suggests it did.
I thought Dave Wall (when he was at Eglet) and that criminal lawyer friend of his from the County Prosecutors office argued Humphries. I remember one of the appellate lawyers at my firm watched them argue it against Kravitz. I am sure that was the case.
Well, that settles it. No one has greater expertise in this area than 1:18.
Who let this Drummond guy hijack the blog to brag about being dick?
Highly doubt that Craig is blogging or bragging here about motions or a case. Doubt he even cares or knows what is being blogged about. I am regularly at the RJC and know him decently well from seeing him in court on criminal matters and wouldnt describe him as a dick or like some other jerky lawyers that we all know. I read the motions here and all seems legal arguments about pretty boring stuff. Next topic or some good gossip please!! I dont read this blog for legal arguments, rather to get some good dirt!
Concur with 8:04, I know the guy well. Good dude. 4:30, not cool to name call and call people dicks all anonymously.
8:40, I’m sure he appreciates your anonymous support. Sorry, that opposition was a dick move.
8:04, No one is forcing you to read the thread. Move on. I’m sure you’ll find more Lawyer-Hot pablum soon enough.
https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/education/clark-county-school-employees-sue-teachers-health-trust/
Looks like the Teachers Health Trust debacle is going to get worse…
People of Alabama: I would never presume to tell you what to do, mostly for fear you would do the opposite, but most of you did the right thing tonight. The 600k+ of you that support a child molester: SHAME.
The whole point is that they are not capable of shame, much like the garbage they voted for.
The real shame would be Trump's agenda not getting passed because of this liberal nut job getting elected.