I enjoyed the funny lines in the author bios in this issue of Nevada Lawyer — whoever did that, more please!
Guest
Anonymous
January 13, 2023 7:10 pm
OMG please do not start me off on the OBC. Although not always criminal, they are the last vestiges of the 70s and 80s corruption that prevailed through S. Nevada. For those of us that can remember, it was an accepted attitude (the movie Casino did a good job summarizing). So the Bar is not blatantly mafia and criminal but they carry they same ethos of corruption, protecting biglaw, hiring friends, etc. Everyone turns their eyes because they do not bother most, but when they do bother you it becomes real quickly. I am licensed in Arizona and Utah as well and these bars function completely differently. In reality, I bet it takes another few decades to work itself out up there.
What needs to happen is have some poor soul who is being harassed by the OBC, take the case up all the way up to the 9th Circuit and have the OBC swatted like the bugs that they are. There is currently litigation in a number of states (some in the 9th) that are challenging the bar's power. Note: In comparison, a licensed medical professional has to answer to the licensing board HOWEVER, complaints against doctors are done in civil court whereby you are innocent until proven guilty. Additionally, the plaintiff (complaining client) in a civil court would have to provide evidence and docs that defendant actually did something wrong. OBC are absolute cowards – they would never go after attorneys in a big law firm because they know that they would get buried in paperwork because big law could assign a whole litigation team to respond the inquiries that are over-broad and vexing to the average solo or small firm. Not to mention the fact that they are totally incompetent and have no relevant knowledge or choose to obtain any when they deal with areas of law that they are not familiar with (which most competent bars do)
OP here, Bless You 12:11. It lifts my Soul even to hear someone else that understands. You do have the solution but the problem is, of course, who would further alienate the bar when they know they would further suffer. It might take someone near retirement or wealthy or something IDK.
You really think attorneys at large firms are stealing from client trust funds? They wouldn't even have the opportunity. Or refusing to respond to clients? There are so many systems in place in big firms that it would be pretty hard to commit the types of offenses the OBC goes after.
10:16 clearly has not been investigated by OBC if you think client money is what they're investigating lately. They have gotten absurdly prosecutorial and punitive. It's no longer about protecting the public and advancing the profession…they're all about a "win" for Hooge and Hahn, no matter who or what they destroy in their wake.
Can you give examples? I'm genuinely confused. I read a lot of posts about the OBC going after trust account issues and being non-responsive to clients, which is why I gave the examples I did. I'm genuinely curious.
I'm not going to give details because I don't want to give up my anonymity. You'll just have to accept my word that OBC is out of control and filing complaints against people for trivial nonsense. It is not about protecting clients or trust accounts…it is about Hooge and Hahn winning at all costs. They go after small firms and solos because those are the lowest hanging fruit. A large firm would destroy OBC. A small firm can be bankrupted by OBC.
We are practitioners tend to pick on the Bar Counsel of the day when the problems at OBC really go back to the installation of Stan Hunterton. Supreme Court pushed the BoG to get rid of David Clark who was serious but fair and had been a practitioner before joining SBN. Supreme Court (read: Hardesty) was not happy that cases were taking too long and were coming up with recommendations that Hardesty did not consider harsh enough. Hardesty made it known that he wanted the Bar to get tough and to send a message that discipline was going to be tough.
Supreme Court wanted a prosecutorial mindset and brought Brian Kunzi fresh off of him losing Nye County DA to be "Deputy Bar Counsel", a newly created position in 2015 to make the office harsher. He was less deputy and more successor in waiting. Et tu Brute. Out went Clark; in came Kunzi for a short stint before he too was pushed to the curb to make room for Stan Hunterton to really get nasty. (They made Kunzi admissions director so he would not be laid off). Stan was told to bring Operation Strikeforce to the State Bar. Cases that were 2 year suspensions under David Clark were now becoming 4-5 year suspensions on the same facts. Precedent meant nothing. Mitigating factors meant nothing. It is no secret that Stan made things toxic inside of OBC as well as outside of OBC (which helps explain the revolving door at OBC during that period).
Hooge is the reincarnation of Kunzi–rural DA brought in to run the OBC without any experience in private practice. Yes they count pelts on the walls more than effectiveness of the office and confuse deterrence with justice in how they handle cases. But that is the prosecutorial mindset of people that were never taught any better regulating those who know better.
According to this month's "Nevada Lawyer", your bar dues are going to fund a scholarship to honor Jim Hardesty. If there was EVER a reason to opt out of the mandatory bar dues, it is requiring me to pay you money so you can use my money to aggrandize Justice Hardesty. Shame on you BoG.
Good Lord. If someone wants to privately fundraise for that then knock yourself out, but these people do spend an inordinate amount of time (and money) congratulating one another. A real mutual admiration society. It's kind of like the Student Council clique in school, except with real power and money.
How about the bar's pushing Diversity Equity Inclusion (DEI)?. It is unconstitutional. Martin Luther King taught us to be color blind and not discriminate. The Constitution so mandates. Why are my bar dues being used to support political agendas. They need to call it Diversity Equity to Foster Exclusion.
The DEI thing is out of hand everywhere. ABA, NVBar, large firms. For the various Bars, DEI is the next big thing after having pushed substance abuse for years. It's because each is afraid of being criticized and for insensitivity and being called bigoted. Members sit through the mandatory CLE, but attention is elsewhere. Generally a waste of time and money.
Guest
Anonymous
January 13, 2023 11:18 pm
I have become increasingly frustrated this week over clients who insist on losing their way rather than winning my way.
It seems as if all of my clients have been to law school, and have taken multiple cases to trial. They seem to know so much more than I do. It's really weird.
Live is too short to deal with clients that don't listen. They can do what ever they want, but you don't have to represent them while they do. Drop them like a rock. And do it early so you don't get stuck.
I make it very clear that I will listen to ideas, but that strategy of what to do or say or file or not file is my call and my call alone. If they don't like it they can stroll on down the street.
The minute its clear that we cant get to that point, I am gone. And the CYA is in every email and all over the file. Also, when I withdraw, the client gets a letter detailing why (with exhibits). And heaven forbid they want me to do something unethical or against my moral code…that shit makes it into the letter as well.
I refuse to use Roman numerals for the District Court departments on my pleadings. It's archaic and serves no valid purpose. Just use Arabic numerals that every normal purpose can easily understand.
I noticed the Nevadalaw.info site is back up. “New ownership”?
Who is the new ownership?
I enjoyed the funny lines in the author bios in this issue of Nevada Lawyer — whoever did that, more please!
OMG please do not start me off on the OBC. Although not always criminal, they are the last vestiges of the 70s and 80s corruption that prevailed through S. Nevada. For those of us that can remember, it was an accepted attitude (the movie Casino did a good job summarizing). So the Bar is not blatantly mafia and criminal but they carry they same ethos of corruption, protecting biglaw, hiring friends, etc. Everyone turns their eyes because they do not bother most, but when they do bother you it becomes real quickly. I am licensed in Arizona and Utah as well and these bars function completely differently. In reality, I bet it takes another few decades to work itself out up there.
What needs to happen is have some poor soul who is being harassed by the OBC, take the case up all the way up to the 9th Circuit and have the OBC swatted like the bugs that they are. There is currently litigation in a number of states (some in the 9th) that are challenging the bar's power. Note: In comparison, a licensed medical professional has to answer to the licensing board HOWEVER, complaints against doctors are done in civil court whereby you are innocent until proven guilty. Additionally, the plaintiff (complaining client) in a civil court would have to provide evidence and docs that defendant actually did something wrong. OBC are absolute cowards – they would never go after attorneys in a big law firm because they know that they would get buried in paperwork because big law could assign a whole litigation team to respond the inquiries that are over-broad and vexing to the average solo or small firm. Not to mention the fact that they are totally incompetent and have no relevant knowledge or choose to obtain any when they deal with areas of law that they are not familiar with (which most competent bars do)
OP here, Bless You 12:11. It lifts my Soul even to hear someone else that understands. You do have the solution but the problem is, of course, who would further alienate the bar when they know they would further suffer. It might take someone near retirement or wealthy or something IDK.
OBC is an absolute joke and deserves every bit of criticism it gets + some.
You really think attorneys at large firms are stealing from client trust funds? They wouldn't even have the opportunity. Or refusing to respond to clients? There are so many systems in place in big firms that it would be pretty hard to commit the types of offenses the OBC goes after.
10:16 clearly has not been investigated by OBC if you think client money is what they're investigating lately. They have gotten absurdly prosecutorial and punitive. It's no longer about protecting the public and advancing the profession…they're all about a "win" for Hooge and Hahn, no matter who or what they destroy in their wake.
Can you give examples? I'm genuinely confused. I read a lot of posts about the OBC going after trust account issues and being non-responsive to clients, which is why I gave the examples I did. I'm genuinely curious.
I'm not going to give details because I don't want to give up my anonymity. You'll just have to accept my word that OBC is out of control and filing complaints against people for trivial nonsense. It is not about protecting clients or trust accounts…it is about Hooge and Hahn winning at all costs. They go after small firms and solos because those are the lowest hanging fruit. A large firm would destroy OBC. A small firm can be bankrupted by OBC.
I am not 12:11 PM. I do not want to out myself, but I can confirm what is said from personal experience.
We are practitioners tend to pick on the Bar Counsel of the day when the problems at OBC really go back to the installation of Stan Hunterton. Supreme Court pushed the BoG to get rid of David Clark who was serious but fair and had been a practitioner before joining SBN. Supreme Court (read: Hardesty) was not happy that cases were taking too long and were coming up with recommendations that Hardesty did not consider harsh enough. Hardesty made it known that he wanted the Bar to get tough and to send a message that discipline was going to be tough.
Supreme Court wanted a prosecutorial mindset and brought Brian Kunzi fresh off of him losing Nye County DA to be "Deputy Bar Counsel", a newly created position in 2015 to make the office harsher. He was less deputy and more successor in waiting. Et tu Brute. Out went Clark; in came Kunzi for a short stint before he too was pushed to the curb to make room for Stan Hunterton to really get nasty. (They made Kunzi admissions director so he would not be laid off). Stan was told to bring Operation Strikeforce to the State Bar. Cases that were 2 year suspensions under David Clark were now becoming 4-5 year suspensions on the same facts. Precedent meant nothing. Mitigating factors meant nothing. It is no secret that Stan made things toxic inside of OBC as well as outside of OBC (which helps explain the revolving door at OBC during that period).
Hooge is the reincarnation of Kunzi–rural DA brought in to run the OBC without any experience in private practice. Yes they count pelts on the walls more than effectiveness of the office and confuse deterrence with justice in how they handle cases. But that is the prosecutorial mindset of people that were never taught any better regulating those who know better.
Not 12:41 but can confirm that he/she has it 100% correct and an accurate history and understanding of the evolution.
Where do our bar dues go?
According to this month's "Nevada Lawyer", your bar dues are going to fund a scholarship to honor Jim Hardesty. If there was EVER a reason to opt out of the mandatory bar dues, it is requiring me to pay you money so you can use my money to aggrandize Justice Hardesty. Shame on you BoG.
Good Lord. If someone wants to privately fundraise for that then knock yourself out, but these people do spend an inordinate amount of time (and money) congratulating one another. A real mutual admiration society. It's kind of like the Student Council clique in school, except with real power and money.
FIFY: *Except with their power and our money.
How about the bar's pushing Diversity Equity Inclusion (DEI)?. It is unconstitutional. Martin Luther King taught us to be color blind and not discriminate. The Constitution so mandates. Why are my bar dues being used to support political agendas. They need to call it Diversity Equity to Foster Exclusion.
The DEI thing is out of hand everywhere. ABA, NVBar, large firms. For the various Bars, DEI is the next big thing after having pushed substance abuse for years. It's because each is afraid of being criticized and for insensitivity and being called bigoted. Members sit through the mandatory CLE, but attention is elsewhere. Generally a waste of time and money.
I have become increasingly frustrated this week over clients who insist on losing their way rather than winning my way.
Just paper the file with CYA after CYA.
It seems as if all of my clients have been to law school, and have taken multiple cases to trial. They seem to know so much more than I do. It's really weird.
Live is too short to deal with clients that don't listen. They can do what ever they want, but you don't have to represent them while they do. Drop them like a rock. And do it early so you don't get stuck.
I make it very clear that I will listen to ideas, but that strategy of what to do or say or file or not file is my call and my call alone. If they don't like it they can stroll on down the street.
The minute its clear that we cant get to that point, I am gone. And the CYA is in every email and all over the file. Also, when I withdraw, the client gets a letter detailing why (with exhibits). And heaven forbid they want me to do something unethical or against my moral code…that shit makes it into the letter as well.
#freerenojim
#freebonniebulla
#freevegaspeye
#freevegaspete
I really enjoyed the Nevada Lawyer article posted. And, for the record, I use both. Whatever floats my boat that day.
I am the same way.
Me too, or is it II?
I refuse to use Roman numerals for the District Court departments on my pleadings. It's archaic and serves no valid purpose. Just use Arabic numerals that every normal purpose can easily understand.