Groundbreaking

  • Law

  • Groundbreaking for the Raiders Stadium is today. [LasVegasNow]
  • Does AG Adam Laxalt’s no vote on the Steese pardon render him unfit to be governor? [TNI op-ed]
  • Attorney Paul C. Ray and the CCBA Community Service Committee will be handing out blankets to the homeless tomorrow. [PRWeb]
  • One of our readers wants to know where they can find out about the status of the proposed changes to the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure?
41 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 13, 2017 5:17 pm

Laxalt's "no" vote doesn't make sense to me from a self-interest POV. There HAS to be some kind of reason for him to have done this. Does he feel he needs the political support of the DA and prosecutors? Was he afraid of appearing to be soft on crime? It was such a poor choice that it's hard to understand or even imagine what kind of self-interest angle he was shooting.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 13, 2017 6:32 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

My belief is embodied in the quote in the RJ that he believed that he would get cover from Steve Wolfson's office writing a letter against a pardon. He was wrong. Stupid and wrong.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 14, 2017 4:31 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

The little dirt bag only did it so he could criticize one of the finest judges on the 8th District Court as a "liberal". He is not only dumb as meat, but he's got the political instincts of a fruit fly. This advertisement is sponsored by the COMMITTEE TO ELECT GOVERNOR TRUMP.

Particular
Guest
Particular
November 14, 2017 4:46 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Does anyone have any issue with Laxalt not reading the case and instead relying on Wolfson's office writing a letter before submitting his answer? I have no opinion one way or another about the case. I would actually have to READ the case.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 13, 2017 5:18 pm

Laxalt is unfit to be governor for the Steese vote and a lot of other reasons. One issue w Steese that isn't getting as much press as Laxalt's cruel vote is the DA's office. What in the holy hell is wrong with them? They destroyed that man's life and they still won't back off? Is getting a conviction so important? Has anyone in that office even read the rules for prosecutors? It really is disgusting. If the OBC is so hot to discipline attorneys, why don't they start there?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 13, 2017 6:34 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

The OBC should look first inside its own four walls, then at the AG's Office and then at the DA's Office. But who are we kidding? That will never happen. Absent an appellate record like happened to the Kephart that is so abusive that the NSC cannot turn a blind eye, prosecutors of all ilks are immune from scrutiny.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 13, 2017 5:51 pm

Lexis says 16.1 has been repealed, entirely, yet the ADKT 0521 seems to say 16.1 is only repealed as to domestic relations cases. Lexis is wrong, correct? 16.1 is still operative in all other civil matters, right?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 13, 2017 6:14 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

people still use Lexis?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 13, 2017 6:24 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

What do you (people) use?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 13, 2017 11:48 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Westlaw. The same as the rest of the civilized world.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 13, 2017 11:51 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Whenever someone tells me their firm uses something other than Westlaw I assume they're trolling me.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 14, 2017 3:10 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

We only use FASTCASE! *snort*

Lawyer Bird
Guest
Lawyer Bird
November 13, 2017 6:17 pm

The Compelling Discovery blog is a great resource and has been follwoing the 16.1 rule changes to some extent.

http://www.compellingdiscovery.com/?p=4736

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 13, 2017 9:09 pm
Reply to  Lawyer Bird

In the Family Law realm, most written discovery is useless b.s which accomplishes nothing but fee building. 85% is completely useless, form bank discovery, with oppressive, and largely useless, requests which very few people can possibly meet, and it only leads to more attorney fees when motions are filed before the Discovery Commissioner.

I've seen cases where it was clear the attorney was billing for discovery work completely performed by a secretary/paralegal. I saw billing where an attorney billed over $7,0000. for discovery(entries were for drafting, re-drafting, modifying the requests, etc.)and yet it was painfully obvious the attorney had zero involvement with any of this. In the case, the parties had no children, so all the issues concerned property and debt decision and alimony. Yet one-half of the discovery questions concerned the (nonexistent) children.

Of course the best one could expect of one of our judges, or Discovery Pro Tems, is that they would indicate the questions need not be answered which revolve around a non-existent custody battle.

But, in such instances, what the judicial officer should do, when dealing with fees is to say to the attorney "It appears you billed over $7,0000. for boiler plate discovery you had nothing to do with preparing. Had you had any involvement with preparing it, you would have modified it to the needs of this particular case, which, of course, includes that you would have eliminated all child custody questions. So, speak to your client about adjusting your bill."

But with an elected judiciary, I guess it's unrealistic to expect judges to take that approach very often. I do agree that judicial officers should, in general, not interfere with the financial contract between attorney and party, but when an attorney is requesting attorney fees from the other side for discovery disputes, and it is clear the requesting attorney billed thousands for discovery requests that he completely delegated to support staff(as evidenced by all the custody questions to a party with no children), and such discovery was simply printed out from a computer with few if any revisions, I would hope judges would be a bit more pro-active.

It's all such a grotesque, absurd waste. There was a study conducted where they asked domestic attorneys, as well as other civil attorneys, about cases where some holy grail document used at trial really turned the case in their favor, by really establishing their point, discrediting the opposing side, etc.

Then they were asked the source of such document.96% of the time their client provided it to them or the attorney obtained it through other channels not requiring participation of the other side, and 4% of the time they obtained it directly via subpoena. In only 0% to 1% of the case was the smoking gun document obtained through the discovery process.

Most good trial attorneys will tell you that only rarely was it effective to let the other side prepare their case for them and expect the other side to incriminate themselves by providing such documents. It's usually more important to be proactive and not expect the other side to provide info. harmful to them(even though, yes, they are required to produce it).

The study also dealt with situations where the smoking gun evidence was not documents per se, but contradictory evidence. In this sense, the study indicated depositions can be very effective. It demonstrated(which is no surprise) that when people are incriminated in court it is usually via inconsistency between depo. testimony and trial testimony–and not so much discrepancies between interrogatory answers and trail testimony. After all, interrogatory answers are really not a client's own words, but a version carefully crafted by(hopefully) skilled counsel.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 13, 2017 9:20 pm
Reply to  Lawyer Bird

To: 1:09:

I take issue with the statistics. I don't agree, nor would most trial attorneys agree, that 96% of the time a game-changing document was provided by their own client, and only the other 4% of the time via subpoena or discovery.

But, putting aside what I believe to be fairly faulty numbers, I agree with some of the general concepts you indicate are supported by the study. If this study was in recent years, and you can provide a cite to it, that may be most helpful. Hopefully, this "study" is not just something you concocted based on your own beliefs and opinions.

Now, as to the Family Court issue you discuss first,not representing clients in Family Court, I can't directly speak to the discovery issues, and billing abuses, you mention. But, from what I have heard anecdotally form colleague and others many times over the years, and considering what I consider to be a real ring of truth in how you describe it, I take no issue with your representations, although I'm sure others will. Family Law specialists will insist that you besmirched their noble profession, and that you are just venting about an individual horror story you encountered. But, from the outside looking in, your position sounds convincing to me.

Lawyer Bird
Guest
Lawyer Bird
November 13, 2017 6:19 pm
Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 13, 2017 8:05 pm
Reply to  Lawyer Bird

and even more specifically as to particular Rules:
https://nvcourts.gov/AOC/Templates/Documents.aspx?folderID=23814

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 13, 2017 11:54 pm
Reply to  Lawyer Bird

This has all the meeting minutes and the draft rules that have been thru committee and that will be forward to SCT for review and then final public comment.

Lawyer Bird
Guest
Lawyer Bird
November 13, 2017 6:43 pm

So this happened: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/13/us/politics/trump-judge-brett-talley-nomination.html

Trumps wholly unqualified Alabama judicial appointee is married to chief white house counsel (and failed to disclose same).

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 13, 2017 6:53 pm

On Friday a poster essentially asked if there is any completely unprincipled scum, who would be willing to be a totally useless "yes man(or woman)" and serve as Assistant Bar Counsel.

But the salary and benefits were not mentioned, and I am too worthless and lazy to research it or make any inquiries of my own. So, does anyone know?

Lawyer Bird
Guest
Lawyer Bird
November 13, 2017 7:01 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Congratulations, you just passed the interview with flying colors.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 13, 2017 7:12 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Agreed!

He or she should be hired on the spot.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 14, 2017 3:49 am
Reply to  Anonymous

Bonus points for the misused comma.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 13, 2017 8:39 pm

Depends on experience. They reserve the right to pay you as little as they can convince you to take. Call the Ethics Hotline and ask the person on the other end of the telephone how much they make.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 14, 2017 1:43 am
Reply to  Anonymous

10:53 here again. As I told you, I am a completely worthless, lazy slug who lives off the hard-working efforts and significant sacrifices of others(and some would say that is essentially one of the platforms of the political party I belong to–the Democratic Party).

Therefore, if it's not too much trouble, could you please make the phone calls and inquiries and post the requested information?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 14, 2017 7:33 am
Reply to  Anonymous

Are your parents paying your mortgage?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 14, 2017 5:17 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Mortgage??? I am one of 5 Boyd grads living in a hostel!!!!

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 14, 2017 8:55 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

To: 11:53.I still live in their guest house, so I have no mortgage yet. But, yes, if I had one, Id be asking them to pay it and support my sluggish, worthless ass.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 14, 2017 9:00 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Dear sleep deprived…Dear Keurig smasher…Dear Alabama citizen…Dear Russia…

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 14, 2017 9:06 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

This tidbit of idiocy is brought to you by Stone Cold, Moonpie wrestler, in love with Laxalt, Steve Bannon.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 13, 2017 8:44 pm

Anyone attend the Ninth Circuit arguments at Boyd today? Anything interesting coming out of it?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 14, 2017 2:08 am

9th Circuit (Pasadena) laughing at Nevada superpriority arguments (6:33). The contrast with state court is remarkable because the same case may get summary judgment in State Court. Justices incredulous that attorney thinks his client can buy property for $5,000. Ouch. Well played by Bank's attorney. Haha.
https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_video.php?pk_vid=0000012505

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 14, 2017 2:34 am
Reply to  Anonymous

Perhaps the most cringe-worthy dressing down I've seen in a while.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 14, 2017 3:52 am
Reply to  Anonymous

The Justices tell counsel to watch oral argument. They should probably be aware that their questions are just as clearly results-oriented, not reason-based. If he is "weaseling" (their words), they are disingenuous.

NB: I have no interest in the case, and couldn't even tell you who represented who. Could be Troy Fox. Could be Double Kickstands Guy. Probably not BK Hottie, though.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 14, 2017 3:37 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

The judges should watch the tape and be ashamed. Snide ridicule 3 against 1 was just nasty, not productive. Why did they have oral argument at all given Bourne Valley except to preach and preen?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 14, 2017 5:15 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Incredibly nasty. These judges should be completely ashamed.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 14, 2017 5:24 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Well on the other hand, it was Luis Ayon who has been having some issues since he left his partners. Check his cases in front of the EJDC and Nevada Supreme Court. He has not been on top of his cases.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 14, 2017 10:21 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

The judiciary needs a reality check. Except for the Feds, you are elected. You work for the people. You can easily be removed and replaced.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 14, 2017 11:27 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

That was fun to watch. They wanted him to be honest and direct in his answers to their questions. He tried to weasel himself around the answers.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 14, 2017 3:30 pm

When I first started practicing some 25+ years ago there were stereotypes for the various legal specialties. Family law = bottom of the barrel/unintelligent. Criminal defense attorneys = sleazy and sloppy. Civil defense attorneys = boring and stuffy. Plaintiff personal injury attorneys = horny and sexist (males) and slutty (females). I went to Court this week and noticed things seem the same, generally speaking. Thoughts?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
November 14, 2017 5:11 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Not sure in which court you were able to see all of those stereotypes in one place. With that said, for every example in support of your stereotype I can offer an example contrary to the stereotype.