Some of you have already been discussing in the comments, but here’s a story regarding James Pengilly facing suspension for telling opposing counsel to blow his brains out. What say you? Free speech or punishable threat? [RJ]
Nevada AG files lawsuit against YouTube. [RJ; News3LV]
Lawsuit filed against Campus for Hope: Why some residents are against the project. [KTNV]
Las Vegas attorney explains deportation process amid immigration debate. [KTNV]
Las Vegas TikToker arrested after ICE protest. [8NewsNow]
For criminal justice reforms, the 2025 legislative session was a mixed bag. [Nevada Current]
James Pengilly should have been suspended for 5 years and a day (or disbarred) for bringing a gun to a deposition, brandishing it and threatening to harm another attorney. But as far as saying, “blow your brains out” on a telephone call, I think the Bar is over reaching. As far as Dennis Prince, one can certainly tell why there was animosity between the two men. If Pengilly tried to bully Prince, he would have had his head handed to him.
Had he not previously displayed an effing firearm during a deposition, I would write this off to just having a bad day, or losing your cool, which can happen from time to time in this line of work. But this seems like a pattern of no self-control, and so maybe he should look for something else to do.
Guest
Anonymous
June 17, 2025 9:51 am
Free speech all the way. Whatever Pengilly is, this is horseshit.
That’s bs…what Penguilly did is equivalent to yelling FIRE in a crowded theater…definitely not free speech…especially after the Dennis Prince incident.
Explain how what Pengilly said or did has something to do with Dennis Prince. What exactly is that connection? What happened to Dennis Prince was sad, yes. But what does it have to do with Jim Pengilly?
leveraging your prior discipline to try to intimidate counsel, name calling, swearing and subtly threatening an opposing party.. opposing counsel gave him every opportunity to temper himself
This is a crock of crap if you believe the opposing counsel was not goading him every step of the way. Read the pleadings in the case before Judge Dorsey if you want to see this is entirely a case of pot calling the kettle black. Admittedly you have to pay PACER fees but I came out of the ones I read thinking Pengilly was actually the lesser jerk of the two.
YES! And the fact that Dorsey just recused herself now is suspect. Opposing counsel and she had worked together previously. She should have never been on that case to begin with. He needs to file a brief with the SC.
It was coarse, sure. But whether it’s “blow your brains out,” “knock yourself out,” or “do whatever the fuck you want to you since you’re clearly an unreasonable asshole,” it wasn’t a threat of violence. It doesn’t deserve professional discipline.
Disagree. Discipline for what was said in a meet and confer. The tenor of the m&c is relevant. Was opposing counsel newbie Milquetoast, or a jack hole? Furthermore, if OC demeanor is not relevant the Prince issue is not relevant.
Entirely relevant when you have two attorneys equally slugging it out and the attorney states in the OBC proceedings and again in the R/J that there was no intimidation and no backing down by any of the parties in the case. The meet and confer call was by all admissions almost 2 hours of haranguing.
What happened to Dennis Prince is horrifying, no doubt. But let us not forget how he treated his adversaries, he was a zero sum kind of guy. Add a personal interest/element to it and it was explosive. I do not at all mean to suggest he deserved it, because no one deserves that and so many lives were forever ruined as a result. But we are not talking about Mr. Rogers and to use his unfortunate death as a poster child for Pengilly and his poor choice in berating opposing counsel feels like a false equivalency. If I had to be the one to say it, so be it.
Oh, give me a break! After a 3 hour meet and confer with an opposing attorney who insensntly filed ridiculous motions and wanted to get the personal medical records from his client in a Breach of Contract case? Come on! And it’s “Pengilly”, not “Penguilly”.
Speech, was it intended and understood to be a real threat, or just used as an expression, like fuck off? If the former, then discipline is appropriate.
However, brandishing a weapon, is a crime and is a separate ground for discipline.
Your statement contradicts Pengilly’s own testimony at his first disciplinary hearing. Show, flash, brandish… whatever you want to call it: Pengilly admitted that he raised his shirt to show the presence of a firearm to a deponent and his attorney. He argued his lack of criminal intent and self defense even though *he* is the one who came armed to a deposition. He said he feared the deponent but then took a deposition in such a way to aggravate and instigate the deponent. He went looking for a fight.
So here’s the reality of your post. There were four people present in that room: Pengilly, the reporter, the deponent, and his attorney, and I’ve read the testimony of all of them. So unless you’re Pengilly still spouting his nonsense, you weren’t there. Enough with the lies.
Not that poster but I think the disagreement is over the comment “brandishing a weapon, is a crime and is a separate ground for discipline.” One poster is saying that the testimony was that he lifted his shirt and showed a firearm which is not brandishing because brandishing requires him to handle the weapon as opposed to showing it. The other poster is saying that show, flash or brandish is either the same thing or so substantially similar that it does not matter which of those Pengilly did.
No. The primary purpose of my post was to point out that the misinformation needs to stop. Page 1207 of the ROA. Pengilly admitted he showed a firearm to the deponent and his attorney. That transcript includes the testimony of all parties in that room. 10:31 was not there. Characterize the conduct however you want after that.
Ah I went back and read the posts and I know who 10:31 is now. I do believe this person was there that day as a staff member of the Pengilly firm but not someone who probably appeared in the deposition transcript.
Oh please… if someone was willing to testify to facts and circumstances that supported Pengilly’s first defense, he or counsel would have called her. They called one witness who admitted she had “no idea whether or not Mr. Pengilly actually pulled a gun.”
Guest
Anonymous
June 17, 2025 10:59 am
1. No not a threat. I fully and completely believe this is at worst a reprimand for being uncivil but 6+ years for the round trip on this one is ridiculous
2. With that said, SHUT THE HELL UP JIM! “Asked about the comment insulting Prince, Pengilly said, ‘I don’t know that I actually said that, but Dennis was an a———.” Still, what happened on the call was ‘completely unrelated’ to the shooting, he said.” Jim, you are not helping yourself in this matter. Take it from those of us who otherwise are on your side– get competent counsel to assist you with the Bar matter but otherwise say nothing.
Guest
Anonymous
June 17, 2025 11:12 am
I scanned the transcript of Pengilly’s discipline hearing. I was somewhat shocked to learn that OBC was able to call three other attorneys who essentially testified that Pengilly is a jerk and acted poorly in other cases. It was quite magnanimous of OBC to not call the other three attorneys who were going to do the same. From what I saw, no bar complaint was made in those cases involving the three attorneys. This seems like complete BS. I hope I never have to learn the rules that apply to a disciplinary hearing.
Other bad act evidence. I read the same. Jim denied state of mind and that this was all blown out of proportion. Bar counsel filed a motion, it was granted it, and then portrayed him as a bully across the board to demonstrate intent and absence of mistake or accident. The panel agreed finding intentional misconduct.
I’m not bothered by bad act evidence in this context. One problem with bad act evidence in a trial is that the jury might convict the defendant for being an asshole instead of for committing the charged offense. But here the basic complaint is that Pengilly is too toxic to be a member of our community, so his overall toxic character is relevant.
So he was sanctioned not for a bad act but because 3 attorneys do not like him. How many witnesses was Pengilly allowed to put on saying that they do like him. In other words this was a character trial with only one side being allowed to put on character evidence. Totally fair.
The panel is unqualified. There were multiple violations of some
statutes on their behalf.
Guest
Anonymous
June 17, 2025 12:06 pm
I have known Jim Pengilly for a long time, but have not seen him or talked to him in several years. He is certainly his own worse enemy, but this bar action is an incursion into free speech. Violating basic rules of civility is not a 5-year crime. People get less time for manslaughter. Jim is probably representing himself, and back in the day he was actually a brilliant lawyer, so I hope he is asserting and preserving his First Amendment arguments. He has experienced multiple personal setbacks, not the least of which is the loss of his daughter, all of which probably contribute to the place he finds himself in today. The most recent Nevada Lawyer highlights the importance of balance and cultivating mental health, although you have to be willing to accept help, and that is not Jim’s forte. I remember friendly gatherings where Jim and Dennis were both present and enjoying each other’s company, back when Dennis first started taking some plaintiff bad faith work. We were all young and excited about the work and our futures, and for a while everything seemed to be heading in the right direction. Sad how things change, whether because of spouses, fame, money, tragedy, or just general ambivalence. Hard to keep an eye on the ball, but its important to remember that if a client or judge or even practice goes sideways, you’re still surrounded by the important stuff if your friends and family can depend on you, and you on them.
I agree with a lot of what you said, but comparing this proceeding to a manslaughter conviction is bizarre. Practicing law is a privilege. You simply cannot compare temporarily revoking that privilege with sending someone to prison.
Tell at 57 year old lawyer that you are taking the next 6 years of his life away from him and perhaps you will understand its relation to having other rights taken away.
Not the same. Not remotely the same. And if you cannot demonstrate the character and fitness to maintain that privilege, the attorney should find something else to do for the next six years. Practicing law is a privilege.
There’s a big difference and you know that too. And if you think zealous advocacy requires being a dick to everyone, then I can see why this discipline upsets you. Blessed be.
You clearly never read the record. The issue was opposing counsel’s insistence that Opposing Counsel was going to tear apart Pengilly’s client’s medical records in a commercial litigation case. Pengilly defended his client against conduct that Judge Dorsey ruled was overzealous advocacy by the opposing counsel. In other words, substantively, Pengilly was right and defend his client against a bully. Sometimes the only thing that stops a bully is a bigger bully.
Until you have been in that situation or both situations, you candidly have absolutely no concept of how the same they really are. Practicing law is a privilege that courts have routinely held cannot be taken away without due process. Once again you are strong on opinions and weak on knowledge.
Guest
Anonymous
June 17, 2025 12:10 pm
yall remember when pengilly had that weird youtube video with his wife? it was creepy to watch.
His then-wife decided that she wanted to create a Real Housewives of Vegas pilot. It was cringey and poorly produced. However are we disciplining people now not only for free speech but for appearing on bad TV pilots? Kim Kardashian will never get admitted to the Bar if that is now the standard.
The last I heard she completed her apprenticeship program so I guess she can sit for the Bar. It took her 4 times to pass the Baby Bar so she may be in for a rude awakening.
The divorce case from 2017 is D-17-559992-D. It is sealed. Only the register of actions is available. A hearing is set for August 6, 2025 on one of the parties’ Motion for Emergency Spousal Support, Payment of Wages and Prior Divorce Trust Money and Divorce. Does not say which party filed said motion.
The “wife” filed the motion. She hasn’t seen it been involved in her children’s lives since 2017. She is unemployable, spent every last cent he had and earned, but continues to think she is entitled to money. She’s got quite the reputation. His first wife was ok.
James Pengilly should have been suspended for 5 years and a day (or disbarred) for bringing a gun to a deposition, brandishing it and threatening to harm another attorney. But as far as saying, “blow your brains out” on a telephone call, I think the Bar is over reaching. As far as Dennis Prince, one can certainly tell why there was animosity between the two men. If Pengilly tried to bully Prince, he would have had his head handed to him.
As much as I disagree with OBC these days, even a broken clock is right twice per day.
Had he not previously displayed an effing firearm during a deposition, I would write this off to just having a bad day, or losing your cool, which can happen from time to time in this line of work. But this seems like a pattern of no self-control, and so maybe he should look for something else to do.
Free speech all the way. Whatever Pengilly is, this is horseshit.
That’s bs…what Penguilly did is equivalent to yelling FIRE in a crowded theater…definitely not free speech…especially after the Dennis Prince incident.
Explain how what Pengilly said or did has something to do with Dennis Prince. What exactly is that connection? What happened to Dennis Prince was sad, yes. But what does it have to do with Jim Pengilly?
Read the Bar Complaint and you will see how it is connected.
leveraging your prior discipline to try to intimidate counsel, name calling, swearing and subtly threatening an opposing party.. opposing counsel gave him every opportunity to temper himself
This is a crock of crap if you believe the opposing counsel was not goading him every step of the way. Read the pleadings in the case before Judge Dorsey if you want to see this is entirely a case of pot calling the kettle black. Admittedly you have to pay PACER fees but I came out of the ones I read thinking Pengilly was actually the lesser jerk of the two.
YES! And the fact that Dorsey just recused herself now is suspect. Opposing counsel and she had worked together previously. She should have never been on that case to begin with. He needs to file a brief with the SC.
where do we read the bar complaint?
It should be attached to whatever the Bar submitted to the SC. Get on Pacer. I’ve seen it. It’s ridiculous.
It is NOT connected. That’s where you are wrong. It was proven in the disciplinary hearing. Get your facts straight and stop the rumor mill.
It was coarse, sure. But whether it’s “blow your brains out,” “knock yourself out,” or “do whatever the fuck you want to you since you’re clearly an unreasonable asshole,” it wasn’t a threat of violence. It doesn’t deserve professional discipline.
By the way, Pengilly is not wrong that the opposing attorney is everything that Pengilly portrayed him to be.
Irrelevant.
Disagree. Discipline for what was said in a meet and confer. The tenor of the m&c is relevant. Was opposing counsel newbie Milquetoast, or a jack hole? Furthermore, if OC demeanor is not relevant the Prince issue is not relevant.
Entirely relevant when you have two attorneys equally slugging it out and the attorney states in the OBC proceedings and again in the R/J that there was no intimidation and no backing down by any of the parties in the case. The meet and confer call was by all admissions almost 2 hours of haranguing.
What happened to Dennis Prince is horrifying, no doubt. But let us not forget how he treated his adversaries, he was a zero sum kind of guy. Add a personal interest/element to it and it was explosive. I do not at all mean to suggest he deserved it, because no one deserves that and so many lives were forever ruined as a result. But we are not talking about Mr. Rogers and to use his unfortunate death as a poster child for Pengilly and his poor choice in berating opposing counsel feels like a false equivalency. If I had to be the one to say it, so be it.
Oh, give me a break! After a 3 hour meet and confer with an opposing attorney who insensntly filed ridiculous motions and wanted to get the personal medical records from his client in a Breach of Contract case? Come on! And it’s “Pengilly”, not “Penguilly”.
Speech, was it intended and understood to be a real threat, or just used as an expression, like fuck off? If the former, then discipline is appropriate.
However, brandishing a weapon, is a crime and is a separate ground for discipline.
He was never charged with brandishing a weapon. Again….. Rumor mill. It’s so old. I was there that day. He did NOT show or brandish his gun. Period.
Your statement contradicts Pengilly’s own testimony at his first disciplinary hearing. Show, flash, brandish… whatever you want to call it: Pengilly admitted that he raised his shirt to show the presence of a firearm to a deponent and his attorney. He argued his lack of criminal intent and self defense even though *he* is the one who came armed to a deposition. He said he feared the deponent but then took a deposition in such a way to aggravate and instigate the deponent. He went looking for a fight.
So here’s the reality of your post. There were four people present in that room: Pengilly, the reporter, the deponent, and his attorney, and I’ve read the testimony of all of them. So unless you’re Pengilly still spouting his nonsense, you weren’t there. Enough with the lies.
“He was never charged” – did you miss that part?
So what???
Not that poster but I think the disagreement is over the comment “brandishing a weapon, is a crime and is a separate ground for discipline.” One poster is saying that the testimony was that he lifted his shirt and showed a firearm which is not brandishing because brandishing requires him to handle the weapon as opposed to showing it. The other poster is saying that show, flash or brandish is either the same thing or so substantially similar that it does not matter which of those Pengilly did.
No. The primary purpose of my post was to point out that the misinformation needs to stop. Page 1207 of the ROA. Pengilly admitted he showed a firearm to the deponent and his attorney. That transcript includes the testimony of all parties in that room. 10:31 was not there. Characterize the conduct however you want after that.
Ah I went back and read the posts and I know who 10:31 is now. I do believe this person was there that day as a staff member of the Pengilly firm but not someone who probably appeared in the deposition transcript.
Oh please… if someone was willing to testify to facts and circumstances that supported Pengilly’s first defense, he or counsel would have called her. They called one witness who admitted she had “no idea whether or not Mr. Pengilly actually pulled a gun.”
1. No not a threat. I fully and completely believe this is at worst a reprimand for being uncivil but 6+ years for the round trip on this one is ridiculous
2. With that said, SHUT THE HELL UP JIM! “Asked about the comment insulting Prince, Pengilly said, ‘I don’t know that I actually said that, but Dennis was an a———.” Still, what happened on the call was ‘completely unrelated’ to the shooting, he said.” Jim, you are not helping yourself in this matter. Take it from those of us who otherwise are on your side– get competent counsel to assist you with the Bar matter but otherwise say nothing.
I scanned the transcript of Pengilly’s discipline hearing. I was somewhat shocked to learn that OBC was able to call three other attorneys who essentially testified that Pengilly is a jerk and acted poorly in other cases. It was quite magnanimous of OBC to not call the other three attorneys who were going to do the same. From what I saw, no bar complaint was made in those cases involving the three attorneys. This seems like complete BS. I hope I never have to learn the rules that apply to a disciplinary hearing.
Other bad act evidence. I read the same. Jim denied state of mind and that this was all blown out of proportion. Bar counsel filed a motion, it was granted it, and then portrayed him as a bully across the board to demonstrate intent and absence of mistake or accident. The panel agreed finding intentional misconduct.
I’m not bothered by bad act evidence in this context. One problem with bad act evidence in a trial is that the jury might convict the defendant for being an asshole instead of for committing the charged offense. But here the basic complaint is that Pengilly is too toxic to be a member of our community, so his overall toxic character is relevant.
So he was sanctioned not for a bad act but because 3 attorneys do not like him. How many witnesses was Pengilly allowed to put on saying that they do like him. In other words this was a character trial with only one side being allowed to put on character evidence. Totally fair.
Exactly. He was railroaded.
The panel is unqualified. There were multiple violations of some
statutes on their behalf.
I have known Jim Pengilly for a long time, but have not seen him or talked to him in several years. He is certainly his own worse enemy, but this bar action is an incursion into free speech. Violating basic rules of civility is not a 5-year crime. People get less time for manslaughter. Jim is probably representing himself, and back in the day he was actually a brilliant lawyer, so I hope he is asserting and preserving his First Amendment arguments. He has experienced multiple personal setbacks, not the least of which is the loss of his daughter, all of which probably contribute to the place he finds himself in today. The most recent Nevada Lawyer highlights the importance of balance and cultivating mental health, although you have to be willing to accept help, and that is not Jim’s forte. I remember friendly gatherings where Jim and Dennis were both present and enjoying each other’s company, back when Dennis first started taking some plaintiff bad faith work. We were all young and excited about the work and our futures, and for a while everything seemed to be heading in the right direction. Sad how things change, whether because of spouses, fame, money, tragedy, or just general ambivalence. Hard to keep an eye on the ball, but its important to remember that if a client or judge or even practice goes sideways, you’re still surrounded by the important stuff if your friends and family can depend on you, and you on them.
Well said.
I agree with a lot of what you said, but comparing this proceeding to a manslaughter conviction is bizarre. Practicing law is a privilege. You simply cannot compare temporarily revoking that privilege with sending someone to prison.
Tell at 57 year old lawyer that you are taking the next 6 years of his life away from him and perhaps you will understand its relation to having other rights taken away.
Not the same. Not remotely the same. And if you cannot demonstrate the character and fitness to maintain that privilege, the attorney should find something else to do for the next six years. Practicing law is a privilege.
and free speech is a right
Red herring. There’s a lot more to Pengilly’s misconduct than the use of some “idiom.” Read the record. He’s a bully and a tyrant. Good riddance.
One person’s bully is another person’s zealous advocate.
There’s a big difference and you know that too. And if you think zealous advocacy requires being a dick to everyone, then I can see why this discipline upsets you. Blessed be.
You clearly never read the record. The issue was opposing counsel’s insistence that Opposing Counsel was going to tear apart Pengilly’s client’s medical records in a commercial litigation case. Pengilly defended his client against conduct that Judge Dorsey ruled was overzealous advocacy by the opposing counsel. In other words, substantively, Pengilly was right and defend his client against a bully. Sometimes the only thing that stops a bully is a bigger bully.
Bullies have to be either figuratively or literally punched in the face, hard, if you want to have any hope of stopping the bullying.
Amen. That’s exactly what happened.
Do you know him personally? Because I do. And I promise you, you’re SO wrong.
Until you have been in that situation or both situations, you candidly have absolutely no concept of how the same they really are. Practicing law is a privilege that courts have routinely held cannot be taken away without due process. Once again you are strong on opinions and weak on knowledge.
yall remember when pengilly had that weird youtube video with his wife? it was creepy to watch.
No please describe.
His then-wife decided that she wanted to create a Real Housewives of Vegas pilot. It was cringey and poorly produced. However are we disciplining people now not only for free speech but for appearing on bad TV pilots? Kim Kardashian will never get admitted to the Bar if that is now the standard.
Kim will never be admitted to the California Bar for other reasons.
Was she allowed to sit for the CA bar? What happened to mentorship thing to avoid law school?
The last I heard she completed her apprenticeship program so I guess she can sit for the Bar. It took her 4 times to pass the Baby Bar so she may be in for a rude awakening.
Is he still married?
The divorce case from 2017 is D-17-559992-D. It is sealed. Only the register of actions is available. A hearing is set for August 6, 2025 on one of the parties’ Motion for Emergency Spousal Support, Payment of Wages and Prior Divorce Trust Money and Divorce. Does not say which party filed said motion.
The “wife” filed the motion. She hasn’t seen it been involved in her children’s lives since 2017. She is unemployable, spent every last cent he had and earned, but continues to think she is entitled to money. She’s got quite the reputation. His first wife was ok.
His first wife was and is a saint.
Bro we need the link
It’s not a sealed case. Get on the portal.
Unfortunately, the video was deleted. No link. But it was entertaining, for sure. Google “Toddlers & Tierras Las Vegas”. They are on there too.
It is free speech, but at what point is it just one too many times?
Free speech has a limited amount of usage?
I’ll let you say that ONCE, ’cause you’re in love with her. But if you say it again YOU ARE NOT MY BROTHER.
Hahaha
When I saw the title I thought it was referring to my girlfriend vajayjay
Every OBC attorney IS a failed attorney, he’s not wrong.
That is absolutely correct.
Has anyone seen the videos on TikTok by Ron Israel’s daughter?
Yes, she seems incredibly unstable.