- Quickdraw McLaw
- 46 Comments
- 294 Views
We recently had some commenters discussing the fact that some judges are off the bench quite a bit more than you might expect. That’s not to say that they might not be justified–you have to remember that they are government employees with certain benefits. Yes, some of them did have to campaign to keep their jobs. And by all means, Judge Bell should definitely take time to recover after getting hit by a car. But excuses aside, are our judges generally spending enough time in the courtroom? Which judges should be spending a little more time on the bench? Is there a minimum standard? Which judges make the best use of your time?
Do Clark County judges spend enough time in the courtroom?
If they spent enough time in the courtroom it wouldn't take 2 years to get a case to trial.
That has nothing to do with the Judges and everything to do with the attorneys.
While I agree with you in part I don't think judges do much to prevent the endless continuances.
If a courtroom is dark for a week then a trial that could be going is not going.
It's also a matter of allocation of resources. A better/enforced overflow would ensure that if 15 trial are ready to go that week, then 15 trials go. No more of this crap system where a judge has 4 trials announce ready and 3 get bumped 3-8 months down the road when next door another judge has no trial.
A judge's presence "on the bench" is not mutually exclusive with the amount of time and effort being spent on his or her case load. While in chambers, judges are reading law and motion practice, researching applicable case law and statutes, drafting orders, reviewing and signing orders submitted by counsel, meeting with detectives regarding search warrants, attending mandatory staff meetings, conduct judicial settlement conferences, etc.
Some departments have a significantly heavier case load than others. Some cases are much more complex than others. Judges have little control over whether or not cases end up going to trial because many of them settle on the eve of trial or even during jury selection. So, the time a judge spends "in the courtroom" is arbitrary and somewhat irrelevant with respect to the amount of work that particular judge is doing behind the scenes.
This poll is asking people to make generalizations that are unfair. AKA: wow, this is a really stupid fucking question. Perhaps there are a handful of lazy judges on the bench that might take off after their calendars, but the overwhelming majority of them work their asses off.
PS: Judge Bell's accident caused her significant injuries and everyone should commend her staff for holding down the fort while she is recovering. In her absence, a handful of already EXTREMELY BUSY judges have stepped up to the plate and volunteered to cover her mental health/drug court calendars, which is a major time commitment.
Hmmm…which Judge are you, 8:55?
The poll asks whether we think "judges spend enough time in the courtroom," not whether they work hard or often enough. Get down off your high horse and pay attention to the issue presented, your honor.
What does the amount of time spent IN the courtroom have to do with anything? Judges don't have much control over how long their law and motion calendars take – some days it takes 30 minutes while some days it takes 4 hours.
Judges don't control whether a case is tried or settled before or during trial. Most judges aren't even in control of the number of matters set on their law and motion calendars – the clerks office is. We all know that 99% of cases end up settling before trial … so, once again, explain to me how the amount of time a judge spends in the courtroom is at all significant or meaningful?
When judges routinely cancel, and/or reschedule their motion calendars, or simply remove hearings from calendar altogether, that affects the speed at which cases can be litigated.
And I disagree that judges have no control over how long their calendars take. Judge's should have control over their courtroom, and should be able to focus and guide the parties/attorneys along at a reasonable pace. Some judges either choose not to, or cannot exercise this control over their courtrooms, which also inevitably affects the speed at which cases can be litigated.
I notice that Judge Delaney is routinely 25-30 minutes late to her 9:00 a.m. calendar. I like Judge Delaney, but I think it is disrespectful to all the litigants who show up at 9 and have to just wait around. Why not just set hearings at 9:30?
Because then she'd be 25-30 minutes late to her 9:30 am calendar. Her clerks just need to tell her that her calendar is scheduled at 9:00 and tell all the litigants that the calendar starts at 9:30 am. That's what we do to my Grandma for family get togethers.
Over a third of a million dollars in salary dollars is tied up per department, considering JA, clerk, marshall, etc. Looking at the calendars until Jan. 5 the only thing those depts are doing is potlucking, lunching and yapping. A.k.a.: wasting our fucking money and dragging out cases unnecessarily. Overworked my ass.
As a former law clerk, I worked hard when needed, but I also spend a considerable amount of time lunching, yapping, and playing on the internet. I am usually a very motivated and driven person, but all of the goverment workers around me (the JEA, court clerk, marshall, administration, clerks office) put me in the bureaucrat mentality. I mean, my lunch plans were way more important than someone's multi-million dollar summary judgment motion or a Defendant's sentencing memo, duh!
Notwithstanding, I think most of the Judges and their respective departments are exceptionally hard workers. We all know who those Judges are, and we thank them for thier dedication. And, to the less than exceptional Judges, we all know who you folks are too, and we dread going into your courtroom because it's a crapshoot.
Times have changed! When I was a law clerk eons ago, I regularly worked 70 hour weeks and would skip lunch regularly to make sure every motion received the deep research and review the judge needed to render a just decision. It wasn't just me. On Saturdays it was standard operating protocol for law clerks to informally convene after spending pretty much the entire day briefing. One of us was a criminal judge law clerk! I mean, really, even criminal law clerks worked! I guess it's the millennial turn….that, combined with arrogant and lazy judges does not serve justice well….
@8:26 AM – Did you also walk 5 miles to work in the snow every morning? 🙂
Doug Smith wants me retire his debt. Awesome!
Let POS Smith pay for his own lies.
Yep, you've donated once but what have you done for him lately? He needs to retire his debt then he'll turn around and retire as a judge, take his pension, and come back as a senior.
He won fair and square. Blame the voters.
Off-topic, but I would like to talk about the appointment of Lawrence VanDyke as Nevada's Solicitor General. Here's the LVRJ story about him – http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/conservative-montana-lawyer-named-nevada-solicitor-general.
It doesn't look like he's been admitted in Nevada. I can't understand why our new Attorney General would not hire a Nevada attorney for this position.
Because an establishment man who lost his Montana Supreme Court election bid needed a place to land.
It looks like he has just about the same amount of experience as Laxalt (in other words, almost none): http://www.greatfallstribune.com/story/news/local/2014/10/26/colleague-questions-vandykes-experience/17947963/. Laxalt says that VanDyke is "a premier U.S. Supreme Court appellate attorney," but I don't think his name is on a single U.S. Supreme Court opinion. I looked up his name on the U.S. Supreme Court's website. There was one case involving gun rights in which his petition on behalf of Montana was denied; and there was another case involving a claim of religious liberty, for which he represented the Respondent Department of Labor, but that petition was also denied. In my book it takes more than one cert. petition and one brief in opposition to be a "premier U.S. Supreme Court appellate attorney." There are already dozens of deputy A.G.'s with far greater experience, and Nevada law licenses, on the Attorney General's staff.
To summarize what I've heard about our esteemed Attorney General-Elect, if you're a Sage Grouse, you've got reason to worry over the next four years; if you commit fraud of any sort, or kill anyone via medical malpractice, you can rest easy — your professional licenses are safe.
Stay classy, Nevada voters.
I'm not thrilled about appointing an unqualified political hack to such an important position, but I guess to the victors go the spoils. Still, wasn't there an unqualified political hack from Nevada he could have tapped?
(Oh, and to anybody out there who had any lingering illusions that hard work and merit would get you anywhere in the legal profession…..suckers.)
I wish Laxalt would be a little more discreet with the cronyism. I'm embarrassed for Nevada.
Some people in Montanta do not give favorable references – http://mtcowgirl.com/tag/lawrence-vandyke/
Christ on a cross…
"Lawrence VanDyke, named Wednesday as AG-elect Adam Laxalt's solicitor general, is not just a reliable social conservative like his new boss but once did a fellowship with a group that believes in 'complete and total dependence upon God for everything.'"
http://www.ralstonreports.com/blog/adam-laxalts-new-solicitor-general-was-involved-controversial-group-dedicated-creating-network
A couple of weeks ago I was telling my wife how good we have it in Nevada. Our state government doesn't go crazy like other places, banning early voting or trying to rewrite textbooks, but then I read that shit… Thank God we're leaving in a few weeks.
Totally right. The fact that any lawyer would dare to actually practice his faith, and then be so brazen as to associate with other lawyers who believe in God? Unacceptable. I mean, the guy must be a freak show.
Gotta love the God Squad when they pop up. They never ever heard of or just ignore separation of Church and State.
Yeah, I'm with 12:11, I think there's a crucial difference between I practice my faith and I like to talk to other lawyers who do too, and let's all get together to figure out how we can use our PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE (INCLUDING MY GOVERNMENT JOB) to spread the gospel and advance a biblical agenda. Slight problem with the second one.
Well said 12:33
Bigger question at play here: Does he need to sit for the bar exam? I suppose so.
Good Lord, Laxalt is a joke — He cares so much about Nevada that he promptly surrounded himself with two critical hires who either aren't licensed here, or who have never practiced here in any meaningful way. The AG'S office is being run via clown car.
He's going to have to sit for the bar. Nevada has no kind of reciprocity or admission by motion, and SG or no, a Nevada resident attorney is not going to get unlimited PHV admissions in either state or federal court in a way that obviates the bar exam requirement.
That is an insult to clowns!
Careful – invoking the word "clown" will cause the Shark Pimp to unleash a torrent of words upon you because the word is sexist. Oh wait, Laxalt is a man. Nevermind.
Au contraire, mon frere. Check out SCR 49.10 Limited practice of attorneys employed in government or as in-house counsel.
Clown shoes, clown hat, ass hat, Laxalt. Clown shoes, clown hat, ass hat, Laxalt. Our new state song.
Shark Pimp objected to Fiore being called a circus, not a clown. She's both; but that's beside the point. Details count.
5:21 you win the internet for catching that mistake
While I am a dedicated aficionado of the word clown, I think picking up the point about the complete lack of reciprocity in this state that December 11, 2014 at 4:06 PM touched on would far more productive. Nevada is one of the few states without even a modicum of reciprocity except for a rarely used narrow exception for public agencies in very isolated rural areas on the borders of the state.
umm, what about Harry Reid appointing a federal judge for Nevada who isn't licensed here? I think both should be licensed but it seems like it doesn't matter to our pols
4:14: That rule only permits in house counseling of clients and transactional work. It explicitly does NOT permit court appearances, which is kind of important for a solicitor general, whose job is mainly to argue and file briefs before the Nevada Supreme Court (as well as federal courts). Kind of hard to be a good SG if you can't even file briefs.
…or argue on behalf of the state in court.
We know that there are 25 judges who read the blog.
These job approval ratings for judges mirror the Miley/Friedberg election results.
Wait, giving Friedberg 10 percentage points too many.