For those of you not regularly practicing in family law, you should know there is a new child support formula. [News3LV]
A man accused of murder didn’t show up for court yesterday. [Las Vegas Sun]
Any predictions on whether the impeachment trial in the Senate is wrapped up this weekend?
Who do you have winning: Chiefs or 49ers?
And to follow up on a few things from the comments recently: does anyone know anything about Terry Coffing presenting an alternative disciplinary scheme? Also, are there really that many first years making $140K in Nevada?
1:16 back from yesterday. Those who criticized my post are just wrong. I spend all day thinking deep thoughts and writing world-class arguments (at least in my head). If I want to rant a little bit, in a stream of consciousness sort of way, then I will. Apparently, it had the intended effect as the OBC was discussed. To the haters out there I would say lighten up. This is a blog. I'm probably never going to take the time to write a lengthy, well structured argument in here. Blogs are good for rumors, rants, hints, and the like. Every once in awhile we do have a good discussion. But I'm saving my good arguments for court, and my wife even if the later is to no avail. You guys get my rants. So keep hatin'
Please, dude, rant away. Sounds like you have a brain, which is a miracle in this profession. Stop giving a fuck what judges and other lawyers think of you. This profession is made up of pure scum with a few exceptions. Be yourself!
I agree. This is laughable. Bill Gamage is running for, Heidi Almase's ex. Elect that!
Guest
Anonymous
January 31, 2020 6:39 pm
Jason Stoffel….I saw your campaign picture today in which you were seeking a law enforcement endorsement and wore your Clark County Bar Association name tag also. I know it is petty but you are not representing the CCBA in this interview or while campaigning; you are promoting and representing yourself. If you want to campaign go for it. But don't imply that you are representing CCBA while you are soliciting endorsements and money. Unseemly.
I am proud of my service to the Clark County Bar Association as the immediate past president of that organization. I have the express permission to wear my past president badge with the CCBA at events and especially at endorsement interviews indicating my commitment to serve and what I bring to the table running for Family Court Judge in Department T. Presumably, you did not know that and that is okay. The CCBA does not do endorsements. And yes, this is Jason Stoffel.
For those of you unfamiliar with Jason Stoffel, perhaps you should search for his appellate briefs on the Nevada Supreme Court website and check out his writing ability. I'll wait here for your feedback.
Who has time for this? Last time we played this drinking game, it was a hoax. We were drinking the opposing counsel's kool aid of trying to discredit an attorney for their own gain.
Jason– I appreciate your candor. As a past Board Member of CCBA, those name badges are given to board members in their capacity serving as a Board Member. You are not serving the CCBA when you are out campaigning for yourself. Your commitment to serve is shown on your resume and in your interview.
I share the concern expressed above. The issue is not your commitment to serve. The issue is the hat (or badge) that you are wearing when you go into interviews.
Guest
Anonymous
January 31, 2020 7:09 pm
Yes, the BOG created a disciplinary taskforce to review the current discipline system, as well as other state's disciplinary systems, to see if Nevada could implement a different system to address things such as the inconsistencies discussed yesterday. Don't know what, if any, progress has been made.
Guest
Anonymous
January 31, 2020 7:10 pm
Impeachment will be wrapped up this weekend. Regardless of which side you are on, not allowing witnesses for something of this magnitude is utterly ridiculous. If we can bring witnesses for a shoplifter's trial, we definitely should be able to hear them for something affecting the country. What happened to the Republican party? SMDH.
January 31, 2020 at 11:21 AM -May I gently suggest that your question should read "show where the lack of due process hurt you". I'm not aware of a criminal case where the defense asserted that there should be no witnesses called at trial since the grand jury already did so. But I'm hardly an expert of the subject.
Just sayin'.
Guest
Anonymous
January 31, 2020 10:08 pm
I wouldn't say 140k a year is common but I've certainly heard of a few firms with that base. Some are the bigger regional firms or national firms with small local offices, and one or two are just Nevada firms.
Guest
Anonymous
January 31, 2020 10:25 pm
I've practiced Family Law for many years. Personally, I resent that there are candidates running for Family Court who never handled a case in this area. And one or more of them may actually be elected.
Now I realize that virtually all political and judicial candidates are largely running to benefit themselves–perceived status, self-aggrandizement, getting out of private or public practice, steady paycheck and benefits, etc. They will claim they are running to "make a difference", "fix a broken system", or "give back to the community," but that is rarely true and is of course hogwash.
So, people running for judicial office purely for their own benefit, yet offering some lame theme that they are running so they can serve the public, is hardly anything new.
But, please, if you are going to run purely for self-serving reasons, while falsely claiming that your motivation is to "give back to" or "serve" the community, at least please have a little bit of experience in the court you are running for. And a similar problem(which happened in past elections when there were few if any Family Court openings) is attorneys who only practiced Family Law, running for an RJC seat.
If someone truly wants to "give back to" or "serve" the community, they should volunteer time at a soup kitchen. But it is not "giving back to" or "serving" the community to be given a cushy, steady pay and solid benefits, couple hundred thousand dollar per year salary, and a positon of status and recognition, to then greatly harm "the community" by making a complete hash of matters for the first couple years and flounder in utter incompetence while the new judge struggles with the intense learning curve.
And people who are arrogant enough to run for seats in areas they have zero experience, will never be humble when they win and will not burn the midnight oil to learn the subject matter. Instead, they will be deluded and believe they are great, and all-knowing, because they got elected and now a a bunch of attorneys suck up and tell them how great they are.
Just one example of what a farce it can be to elect judges.
And yes, for those who never practiced in this area, intensely contested
Family Law cases can be a lot more involved and legally complex than many think.
Guest
Anonymous
January 31, 2020 10:34 pm
Judge Linda Marquis had no background in family law but was an exceptional and hardworking attorney. She is also one of the best family court judges on the bench. One judge on the bench ran on the much vaunted 'family law specialist' and practiced only family law. That judge engaged in much publicized violations which resulted in discipline. Perhaps the better course is whomever is elected will have enough respect for the job and the experience (specialist or not) to do it well.
2:34, I respectfully disagree. I guess condescension reads as exceptional to some.
Guest
Anonymous
January 31, 2020 11:31 pm
Both 2:25 and 2:34 are correct. 2:25 points out that usually attorneys who never practiced in a given area do not do that well once elected.
2:34 points out a very notable exception to that rule, and also points out that sometimes specialists in an area win a seat in that area and then disgrace the positon and themselves.
But they seem to both agree, as do I, that if one wins a seat in an area they have little or experience, please have the commitment to buckle down and learn the area, learn it well, keep learning throughout their entire tenure on the bench, and do the bench proud.
That all said, I am with 2:25 that we have all had our belly-full of people who are purely out to serve themselves claiming they are running to "give back." Oh well, I guess that will always be the way of politics.
Guest
Anonymous
February 2, 2020 6:05 am
Interesting… they have increased child support and added six more seats to Family Court… at the end all custody cases fights are about child support.
It may not be entirely about the child support, but the money certainly plays a large part. Many times it is also a parent using the child as a pawn to hurt the other parent out of spite.
I do agree, however, if they could take the money out of the equation,there would be far less fights about custody with the kids being better served. I've had ideas for trying to accomplish that in the past but that's a discussion for another day.
I am curious about your ideas, 10:56. I have no professional experience with the issue, but it seems to me that the biggest "gripe" about paying child support is that it gets paid to the other parent, who may or may not actually use it to support the needs of the child. Has research been done into a system where the $ gets paid to a neutral 3rd party instead? Someone/entity who would have some kind of oversight of what the support payments are actually used for? I wonder if that would reduce the resistance to paying child support? Obviously wouldn't solve all problems, such as if payments are a real hardship, but it's something.
Guest
Anonymous
February 3, 2020 1:08 am
OMG! They got rid of the cap!!! No. Please, no. Getting punished even more. Child support is modern day slavery. Evil on every level. Horrible. Punishing those who make more than $10k/mo. I know attorneys making twice that living in poverty because of bloody child and spousal support. An abomination.
The expenses of a child do not know a cap, why should the duty to support the child? A better refinement of the law is not to place an artificial cap on the level of support but rather require a better accounting of the actual expenses related to the child. With modern technology of big brother monitoring (tracking of credit card, debit cards,electronic payments, etc.) such an accounting would not be overly burdensome.
A child is entitled to enjoy the lifestyle of both parents. With better, more accurate information the court would be better able to set appropriate support levels.
You smuggled a normative statement in here: "A child is entitled to enjoy the lifestyle of both parents." How exactly does a child have a right to take my stuff? I have a couple of beers, 90 seconds of elevated oxytocin and endorphins, and now a lifetime of painful payments? That's ridiculous.
"I have a couple of beers, 90 seconds of elevated BAC while driving, and now I have to go to jail and have a conviction on my record? That's ridiculous."
Yes, momentary indiscretion can have lifetime consequences.
1:16 back from yesterday. Those who criticized my post are just wrong. I spend all day thinking deep thoughts and writing world-class arguments (at least in my head). If I want to rant a little bit, in a stream of consciousness sort of way, then I will. Apparently, it had the intended effect as the OBC was discussed. To the haters out there I would say lighten up. This is a blog. I'm probably never going to take the time to write a lengthy, well structured argument in here. Blogs are good for rumors, rants, hints, and the like. Every once in awhile we do have a good discussion. But I'm saving my good arguments for court, and my wife even if the later is to no avail. You guys get my rants. So keep hatin'
Please, dude, rant away. Sounds like you have a brain, which is a miracle in this profession. Stop giving a fuck what judges and other lawyers think of you. This profession is made up of pure scum with a few exceptions. Be yourself!
49ers will win.
You can quote me on Monday's blog.
@9:50
Absolute BS. Go CHIEFS!
Bill Gamage given 5 years probation. https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/courts/las-vegas-lawyer-gets-probation-for-stealing-from-clients-1947079/
That is all he gets, wow.
I agree. This is laughable. Bill Gamage is running for, Heidi Almase's ex. Elect that!
Jason Stoffel….I saw your campaign picture today in which you were seeking a law enforcement endorsement and wore your Clark County Bar Association name tag also. I know it is petty but you are not representing the CCBA in this interview or while campaigning; you are promoting and representing yourself. If you want to campaign go for it. But don't imply that you are representing CCBA while you are soliciting endorsements and money. Unseemly.
I am proud of my service to the Clark County Bar Association as the immediate past president of that organization. I have the express permission to wear my past president badge with the CCBA at events and especially at endorsement interviews indicating my commitment to serve and what I bring to the table running for Family Court Judge in Department T. Presumably, you did not know that and that is okay. The CCBA does not do endorsements. And yes, this is Jason Stoffel.
I am not going to waffle, voting for Stoffel!
For those of you unfamiliar with Jason Stoffel, perhaps you should search for his appellate briefs on the Nevada Supreme Court website and check out his writing ability. I'll wait here for your feedback.
Challenge accepted. #77804. Comment – he sure seems to like capital letters.
Who has time for this? Last time we played this drinking game, it was a hoax. We were drinking the opposing counsel's kool aid of trying to discredit an attorney for their own gain.
Jason– I appreciate your candor. As a past Board Member of CCBA, those name badges are given to board members in their capacity serving as a Board Member. You are not serving the CCBA when you are out campaigning for yourself. Your commitment to serve is shown on your resume and in your interview.
I share the concern expressed above. The issue is not your commitment to serve. The issue is the hat (or badge) that you are wearing when you go into interviews.
Yes, the BOG created a disciplinary taskforce to review the current discipline system, as well as other state's disciplinary systems, to see if Nevada could implement a different system to address things such as the inconsistencies discussed yesterday. Don't know what, if any, progress has been made.
Impeachment will be wrapped up this weekend. Regardless of which side you are on, not allowing witnesses for something of this magnitude is utterly ridiculous. If we can bring witnesses for a shoplifter's trial, we definitely should be able to hear them for something affecting the country. What happened to the Republican party? SMDH.
Show me on the doll where the due process hurt you.
January 31, 2020 at 11:21 AM -May I gently suggest that your question should read "show where the lack of due process hurt you". I'm not aware of a criminal case where the defense asserted that there should be no witnesses called at trial since the grand jury already did so. But I'm hardly an expert of the subject.
Just sayin'.
I wouldn't say 140k a year is common but I've certainly heard of a few firms with that base. Some are the bigger regional firms or national firms with small local offices, and one or two are just Nevada firms.
I've practiced Family Law for many years. Personally, I resent that there are candidates running for Family Court who never handled a case in this area. And one or more of them may actually be elected.
Now I realize that virtually all political and judicial candidates are largely running to benefit themselves–perceived status, self-aggrandizement, getting out of private or public practice, steady paycheck and benefits, etc. They will claim they are running to "make a difference", "fix a broken system", or "give back to the community," but that is rarely true and is of course hogwash.
So, people running for judicial office purely for their own benefit, yet offering some lame theme that they are running so they can serve the public, is hardly anything new.
But, please, if you are going to run purely for self-serving reasons, while falsely claiming that your motivation is to "give back to" or "serve" the community, at least please have a little bit of experience in the court you are running for. And a similar problem(which happened in past elections when there were few if any Family Court openings) is attorneys who only practiced Family Law, running for an RJC seat.
If someone truly wants to "give back to" or "serve" the community, they should volunteer time at a soup kitchen. But it is not "giving back to" or "serving" the community to be given a cushy, steady pay and solid benefits, couple hundred thousand dollar per year salary, and a positon of status and recognition, to then greatly harm "the community" by making a complete hash of matters for the first couple years and flounder in utter incompetence while the new judge struggles with the intense learning curve.
And people who are arrogant enough to run for seats in areas they have zero experience, will never be humble when they win and will not burn the midnight oil to learn the subject matter. Instead, they will be deluded and believe they are great, and all-knowing, because they got elected and now a a bunch of attorneys suck up and tell them how great they are.
Just one example of what a farce it can be to elect judges.
And yes, for those who never practiced in this area, intensely contested
Family Law cases can be a lot more involved and legally complex than many think.
Judge Linda Marquis had no background in family law but was an exceptional and hardworking attorney. She is also one of the best family court judges on the bench. One judge on the bench ran on the much vaunted 'family law specialist' and practiced only family law. That judge engaged in much publicized violations which resulted in discipline. Perhaps the better course is whomever is elected will have enough respect for the job and the experience (specialist or not) to do it well.
2:34, I respectfully disagree. I guess condescension reads as exceptional to some.
Both 2:25 and 2:34 are correct. 2:25 points out that usually attorneys who never practiced in a given area do not do that well once elected.
2:34 points out a very notable exception to that rule, and also points out that sometimes specialists in an area win a seat in that area and then disgrace the positon and themselves.
But they seem to both agree, as do I, that if one wins a seat in an area they have little or experience, please have the commitment to buckle down and learn the area, learn it well, keep learning throughout their entire tenure on the bench, and do the bench proud.
That all said, I am with 2:25 that we have all had our belly-full of people who are purely out to serve themselves claiming they are running to "give back." Oh well, I guess that will always be the way of politics.
Interesting… they have increased child support and added six more seats to Family Court… at the end all custody cases fights are about child support.
It may not be entirely about the child support, but the money certainly plays a large part. Many times it is also a parent using the child as a pawn to hurt the other parent out of spite.
I do agree, however, if they could take the money out of the equation,there would be far less fights about custody with the kids being better served. I've had ideas for trying to accomplish that in the past but that's a discussion for another day.
I am curious about your ideas, 10:56. I have no professional experience with the issue, but it seems to me that the biggest "gripe" about paying child support is that it gets paid to the other parent, who may or may not actually use it to support the needs of the child. Has research been done into a system where the $ gets paid to a neutral 3rd party instead? Someone/entity who would have some kind of oversight of what the support payments are actually used for? I wonder if that would reduce the resistance to paying child support? Obviously wouldn't solve all problems, such as if payments are a real hardship, but it's something.
OMG! They got rid of the cap!!! No. Please, no. Getting punished even more. Child support is modern day slavery. Evil on every level. Horrible. Punishing those who make more than $10k/mo. I know attorneys making twice that living in poverty because of bloody child and spousal support. An abomination.
The expenses of a child do not know a cap, why should the duty to support the child? A better refinement of the law is not to place an artificial cap on the level of support but rather require a better accounting of the actual expenses related to the child. With modern technology of big brother monitoring (tracking of credit card, debit cards,electronic payments, etc.) such an accounting would not be overly burdensome.
A child is entitled to enjoy the lifestyle of both parents. With better, more accurate information the court would be better able to set appropriate support levels.
You smuggled a normative statement in here: "A child is entitled to enjoy the lifestyle of both parents." How exactly does a child have a right to take my stuff? I have a couple of beers, 90 seconds of elevated oxytocin and endorphins, and now a lifetime of painful payments? That's ridiculous.
"I have a couple of beers, 90 seconds of elevated BAC while driving, and now I have to go to jail and have a conviction on my record? That's ridiculous."
Yes, momentary indiscretion can have lifetime consequences.
10:50 is satire, 8:21. Flew over your head.