- Quickdraw McLaw
- 59 Comments
- 432 Views
A few years ago, some commenters were discussing the fact that some judges are off the bench quite a bit more than you might expect. Now, it’s become a yearly tradition for us to discuss this topic each December. So, are the judges generally spending enough time in the courtroom this year? Which judges should be spending a little more time on the bench? Is there a minimum standard? Which judges would you commend for making the best use of your time? Which judges are always late and don’t respect your time?
There is no reason why I should wait 4 hours for a hearing. Period.
I just read the mandatory insurance article in the latest edition of NL. I don't think it should be mandatory, but I also don't think it's a big deal either. But viewed in the context of all the other Bar/NVSC activities, it just feels like another example of the Bar sticking it to members. The standards for the bar exam have been lowered further glutting the market, yet OBC complains there are too many attorneys. Then there's the random audits, which it appears they are plowing forward with in spite of what must have been overwhelming negative feedback. Why have the powers that be taken such an adversarial position against practitioners in recent years?
Because they do not care. The Nevada Supreme Court has allowed Hardesty to be the bully on the Court and has compelled the OBC to bring in Hunterton who knew nothing about lawyer discipline and thus the State Bar now emphasizes harsh over proportionate in dealing with lawyers. Our Bar Dues are high and getting higher without any increase or improvement in services. CLE Dues went up. And yet when you ask the BoG what is getting better, the answer is nothing. Just more expensive and less efficient.
From exempting themselves from CLE on down, there really is a "Them v. Us" attitude on the Court and in the State Bar right now. Nothing short of cleaning it all out will suffice.
10:32 AM–Well said about mandatory insurance and lowering of the bar standards. The lowering of the bar standards will only flood Nevada with more folks from California who can't pass the bar in California. This was largely due to the efforts of the Boyd law school Dean. Making malpractice insurance mandatory will only increase rates by putting more demand on the insurance product. It will also drive many out of the practice when it drives up the cost of overhead. According to the Nevada Lawyer article, there are only three states requiring malpractice insurance. So it is a very very small minority. I was chatting with a long time practitioner who informed me he never has had malpractice insurance and believes he never needed it.
This the sign of the times we live in. Be proud of your OBC, NSC, and Bogs. They created this mess.
I just finished the malpractice survey that I received from the SBN. We really need some new people at the BOG. Any BOG incumbent you are on notice you aren't getting my vote.
Holy hell this is a biased survey. It's got loaded words, slated questions, and a clear agenda. Fuck you, BoG. Fuck you.
Have you seen the Access to Justice survey that the State Bar is passing around? Most biased, worst written survey I have ever seen. Basically asks people at 2x the poverty level if they would like more free legal services; say yes and we will provide them. If you ask someone if they want something for free, do you think they might say yes?
Mandatory insurance benefits only the insurance companies who can subsequently overprice their product because you don't have any choice whether to buy it. IMO, you'd have to be a fool to not carry at least some level of insurance in this day and age. However, forcing attorneys to buy it is a ridiculous artificial influence on the market which will inevitably lead to higher prices. The fact that nobody on the BoG understands basic economics is a travesty.
@3:36; The same thing can be said about certain unnamed interest groups and political parties. There is no such thing as a free lunch… someone ultimately has to pay for it.
There is a new sheriff in town and his name is…
Stan with Jim Hardesty's hand up the back of his shirt.
I think it's time that Eighth District did away with automatic oral arguments for every motion. Motions should be decided on briefing unless parties request and court grants oral argument. Would elevate the practice in my opinion.
I would like to agree with you but cannot. If the Judges actually read the pleadings. I would agree with you. Gonzalez could dispense with oral argument because she actually reads all of the documents herself. Bell could dispense with oral arguments because she actually reads everything. You want Doug Smith dispensing with oral argument? It would be a coin flip in Chambers.
And in many (maybe most) of the courtrooms, your issues will be decided by a first year lawyer.
Hardy and Crockett read their briefs as well.
Denton, Denton, Denton.
There are a couple of reasons why dispensing with oral arguments is not practical…
1) For those old enough to remember… This was proposed many years ago and the reaction from the bar was that if the judges adopted such a practice (like done in Reno) that the Bar would replace the judges.
2) That would require the bar to actually custom draft pleadings that were complete and accurate rather than boilerplate in nature.
3) It would also require the bar (or litigants in pro per) to file complete and timely responses.
4) It would preclude the Judge from clarifying/obtaining answers to questions that they perceive raised but unanswered by the pleadings.
Lighting the menorah….Denton, Denton, Denton, Denton
Judges have the option of deciding the motions on the pleadings under EDCR 2.23. So if they have oral argument, thats cause they want it. so go bitch at the judges, big babies
Dude, your post is 12/07 at 12:07. What is the point of oral args, or ego trip, or for Cadish to show her sparkling sense of humor on the record.
There are a couple of points of oral argument..
1) To allow the party to explain what the issue truly is about as a large number of attorney's fail to properly focus the pleadings on the actual issue but rather cut an paste from prior pleadings without actually reading what they paste.
2) to allow the parties to provide any update of the facts that may have occurred since the filing of the pleadings
3) To allow the judge to obtain clarification of the issues, obtain answers to issues relevant to the issue but not addressed, or to flesh out the record
4) To hear from parties (normally pro per) that don't understand the need to file a written response but want to be heard by the court.
All that being said, I would like to see a system developed with tentative rulings posted at least a day prior to the hearing so the parties can notify the court that they are accepting the tentative ruling and the hearing be vacated. To discourage refusal to accept the tentative without good cause, an award of attorney fees for attending the hearing should be on the table if the party refusing simply rehashes the pleadings and lacked good cause for the hearing.
Denton…Denton…Denton
While we are analyzing the clown circus that is the State Bar of Nevada, LRIS has absolutely gone to shit. Five years ago, LRIS had good leads, was well run and annually was making large donations. Admittedly the referrals were not all fantastic but it was a pretty good program for $50 annually. Now nothing is coming out of it. No leads and I never even hear about it to know that we even have an LRIS program in this state.
If they don't get the calls how can they refer the leads. The internet is making this program obsolete. Only leads they get are rejected cases attorneys know suck and refer to state bar. If you have a niche area of law go tall with lawyers who do other practices. I do PI and always want good referrals for family law, probate, employment, criminal etc that wknt steal my PI client years later if thwy get hurt gain.
Actually incorrect. The Internet was around 5 years ago and the Program had tons of leads, in fact had so many calls that our firm was turning away LRIS leads. LRIS never was fantastic for PI but was pretty good for real estate, landlord/tenant, small business disputes. However you are correct that the program is not getting any leads because the State Bar stopped advertising it so people do not know that it even exists any longer. State Bar killed the program. Yet when Judges bitch (especially in Family Court) that all of these pro se's are showing up, they should ask the State Bar why its referral network was choked off.
NSC unanimously affirms the backpack recording case.
http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseView.do?csIID=38209
Factually this was a bad case for them to use as a vehicle for the decision. I can understand them wanting to make a point of there not being a bright line rule in civil cases vs. criminal cases, and the well settled point that experts can rely on inadmissible evidence so long as it is the type of evidence ordinarily relied upon by relevant experts.
What I don't get is that they completely glossed over the fact that the recording was altered with the original being destroyed. Under the Kelly or Daubert standard, I don't think that is the type of evidence typically relied upon by experts thus in its gate-keeping role I think the trial court erred in allowing the expert to rely upon it.
The expert may have testified that it didn't influence her opinion, but of course that is something not in the opinion so we don't know.
The interesting part of this case, and also part of why it's potentially the wrong vehicle factually for a published opinion is that the the actually recording was excluded from father's case and the outcome would likely have been the same based upon the child interview and other evidence without the expert even reviewing the recording. They could have simply used the harmless error way out in an unpublished opinion and waited for a better factual case for this type of a decision.
A doctored and edited recording is what the NSC thinks is "contemporaneous" and "unfiltered"? What the hell is going on in Carson City?
Because they did not read the transcript. This is the third or fourth case in a month where if you read the briefs, the Opinion does not match the facts in the case.
Except the Opinion outright states that the recording was edited, with portions deleted and the original destroyed. In one paragraph they describe the recording as the product of shenanigans THAT WORKED and in another they describe it as the type of evidence routinely used- a contemporaneous and "unfiltered" recording. They forgot what they said 6 paragraphs before. What the everloving hell is going on there?
Title lll Wiretap Act is preemptive law and Nevada Supreme Court or Nevada legislators must follow it. This extreme change of law will be void by Nevada legislation or by Feds as it directly violates 18 U.S. Code § 2515 – Prohibition of use as evidence of intercepted wire or oral communications. Edited tapes and not video or audio recorded interview with child direct violation of Due Process.
Sour grapes? Get a move on.
The doctrine of federal preemption is grounded in the Supremacy Clause of the U.S.
Constitution. 6 The Supremacy Clause gives Congress7 the power to preempt state legislation as
long as it is acting within the powers granted it under the Constitution.8 According to the
Supreme Court, “State laws that ‘interfere with, or are contrary to the laws of congress, made in
pursuance of the constitution” are invalid.”
The Supremacy Clause? You mean Santa Claus. I believe.
The daughter of Appellant has nothing to do with that custody case but her private conversations are openly published in Family and Nevada Supreme Court. She was injured by Nevada Family Court ..,suffering ongoing injury since everybody can read that staff and she is likely be exposed to another violations in future as long as her mom has custody of her son per NSC decision… Mom can’t challenge Nevada in Federal Court but only in US Supreme Court however her daughter can demand protection from Nevada in Federal Court since she didn’t lose Appeal and was not party to the case.
Huh?
Someone please post a link to Eglet's complaint on behalf of Clark County.
It will be Wolfson worthy.
When and where is the LVMPD motions being heard on Paddock's warrants?
And the applicants for Lippis' JP seat are in:
Candace Carlyon
Dayvid Figler
John Momot
Robert Walsh
James Miller.
I don't know Walsh or Miller, but Momot is my choice. Candace is a very sharp cookie but not someone I want wearing a robe, even if she's been a Judge Pro Tem. And Figler? No. Just, no.
Could we please get these people to run for NSC? Momot, holy shit. He would be great.
Is everyone aware that Robert Graham is being sentenced tomorrow morning at 9 am? The date was moved up from January 11, 2018.
Yes.
So JD Leavitt decided not to put his name in for consideration for the appointment and instead is just going to run? (I’ve already seen his advertisement “Elect me to JC1” on electronic billboards around town).
Correct. Conversely Carlyon has stated that she is applying with an assurance that she will not run for the seat (same thing Rob Bare did when he went on the Muni Court bench).
I don't think Momet or Miller will run either. And Figler has already served a temporary appointment on the Muni bench.
James Dean Leavitt announced his decision to run for the Lippis vacancy in July, well before Lippis resigned her seat. Why would he seek an appointment when he was elected by huge margins in 2004 and 2010 to the Nevada Board of Regents. Few people remember, but he crushed current Judge Gloria Sturman 57% to 43% in 2004 in a race for the Board of Regents. Since then he has done nothing in the community other than leading the effort to acquire 42 acres at Tropicana and Koval to expand the university footprint, and led the effort to start the UNLV School of Medicine, just to list a few things. He has incredibly strong support in the Las Vegas legal, medical, education, business, and philanthropic community.
JDL, me thinks you think too much of yourself.
To:9:56: usually when someone responds to a positive post about a person, by representing that the person themselves must have written it, I just take it as humor.
But 9:56 makes a strong case that the person discussed in 4:13 may have posted that material himself.
It is so unbelievably glowing, and gives him complete credit for certain developmental projects which required the committed efforts of many people, that it appears that if it was not written by the candidate himself, that it was written by a close friend, a family member, or someone involved with the operations of his campaign.
This suspicion is highlighted by the huckstering hyperbole to describe, in quite colorful terms, how he completely annihilates his opponents at the ballot box, and they are left with only a very small percentage of the votes and little or no dignity.
If the post is to be believed, anything in this community of a high profile nature in terms of education, development, and our general quality and enjoyment of life, as well as, apparently our personal happiness and mental health, was created by a politician currently sitting on the Board Of Regents.
Now if he is actually as great as represented, please don't waste those rare skills as a Justice Of The Peace. Run for Governor, or US Senate or something–or perhaps the Federal Ninth Circuit if a position becomes open.
If you want to criticize someone running for Justice Court, who has volunteered 12 years of their life for an unpaid position, spending 20 plus hours a week performing their duties, at a significant detriment to their law practice, go for it. Sounds kind of chicken shit to me. Do 9:56 and 12:58 not admire public service?
Correction – 5:38.
8:25: so nominate him for Citizen of the Year. How does all of that, as noble as it might be, qualify him for a position in which he can screw up peoples lives?
5:38 here.To:8:25
I'm not criticizing him, which should be obvious by what I wrote.
I said or implied nothing negative about him. I was merely pointing out(admittedly, with far too much sarcasm) how over the top 4:13 is.That post created a false narrative, and also showed something of a misunderstanding as to the extent of authority of the position he holds.
That post implies that he was almost a one-man show in getting these major projects approved, and also gave him credit for certain developmental projects that are not really under the auspices of he Board Of Regents, at least not solely so.You fail to understand the other regulatory matters, and the zoning issues,and the other boards or entities whose skills must be offered in conjunction to make these matters happen.
Your assigning of super-human qualities to him, and essentially insisting he receive sole credit for matters which were clear team efforts, and calling "chicken shit" to anyone who points that out or who mentions that Justice Court requires a completely different and specific skill set,is quite concerning.
If you are a supporter or campaign worker, your apparent callowness, naivete, inability to read absorb and understand, as well as an automatic knee flex hostility and condemnation to those who don't automatically swallow everything you say in a completely unquestioning nature, could indicate his campaign could be in trouble.
And if you are a campaign adviser, now I understand something which I did not before–something which mystified me and everyone experienced in politics who I spoke to. When he announced for the position I do not know why he did not take the golden opportunity to praise Judge Lippis for her years of service, as by publicly doing so cold have attracted a lot of political good will–an issue you, and possibly the candidate as well, are apparently oblivious to.
But now perhaps I understand it. You may have provided the campaign blue print: the candidate is great and deserves credit for everything. No one else should be mentioned or receive credit for anything.
No I don't want to criticize someone running for Justice Court, who has volunteered 12 years of their life for an unpaid position, spending 20 plus hours a week performing their duties, at a significant detriment to their law practice. I want to criticize self-aggrandizing political candidates who believe that the sun rises and sets around them everyday, who believe that the traffic would not run and birds would not chirp without their existence. BTW: Regents are paid under the NRS, plus receive quite a few perks and benefits with the position (but I presume you already knew that JDL/8:25). 4:41 hit the nail on the head. Your transparency is quite obvious.
If JDL is so good and wants that seat, why not put in for the appointment? Because he knows he is so unqualified that he would never be appointed!
4:41 – Please do your homework. Mr. Leavitt publicly praised and thanked Judge Lippis for her years of service when he announced his intention to run for her seat on the Politics Now show hosted by Steve Sebelius. He has also praised and thanked her for her years of service on his FB Posts. Perhaps you should do some more research and find out why so many others are supporting his campaign. Better yet, why don’t you join his campaign. I am sure he would welcome your support.
I am honestly concerned that JDL has campaign workers who are this dense acting as a mouthpiece for him. You seem to lack basic reading comprehension which is that you are not serving your candidate well. However if we are touting public appearances, explain this appearance. https://veteransinpolitics.org/2017/10/james-dean-leavitt-danny-tarkanian-christina-gruber-appear-veterans-politics-video-talk-show/
To:9:43: I'd be happy to support and endorse his campaign if it appears he's the most qualified. I'll need to do my due diligence on each candidate. But you still have a challenge with recognizing very clear matters, or with accepting any suggestions or observations or advice(Heaven forbid anyone would ever actually offer any mild criticism. Not sure you'd be able to handle that).
Also, try to hone and improve your political skills and instincts. It doesn't matter that much what he said about Judge Lippis on his private Facebook page or on some local cable political program that no one watches.
When he made his announcement, and scored a news article and photo., prominently featured in the RJ, he did not do the obvious–which was to link himself, and piggy back off of, the companion articles concerning Judge Lippis' retirement.
She has tremendous political tentacles in the community after over 25 years on the Bench and has very broad-based organizational support.He could have been the first one to pay homage to her. He also had a completely clear runway as no one else had yet announced. But all he did is make some boring statements, and boast, about his own qualifications. People don't listen when a politician boasts about themselves, but they always listen when a politician praises someone else, particularly since it does not happen all that often. And studies show how favorably it is received.
There is now another prospective candidate who has done the requisite home work and lobbying, and is hitching their star to Lippis' wagon.
But you somehow have a political barometer which indicates he should not make a statement to the RJ that, considering on line as well as print sales, will be seen by anywhere from 70,000 to 125,000 people. Instead, he should make the statement praising Lippis on a local cable political program watched by only 868 people.
If elected, I have no information that would make me doubt he could perform the job. But if you are offering him political advice, please stop.