- Quickdraw McLaw
- 15 Comments
- 537 Views
- The Federal courthouse will be closed again today because of the power outage. [RJ]
- John Turco says the teen accused of shooting at the Fashion Show mall may argue self defense. [Las Vegas Sun]
- Here’s a story about the case that was argued in front of the Court of Appeals at the law school. [RJ]
- Wayne Newton took the stand trying to get back things he left behind when he sold his property. [News3LV]
- Not much of a surprise, but Nevada’s new red flag gun law is not popular at the gun show. [TNI]
- Has the new coronavirus made its way to Southern Nevada? @LasVegasLocally says yes, but the SNHD
says nosaid no last night, but admits this morning they are investigating a possible case. [Fox5Vegas]
Blog is dead, everyone died from the coronavirus
I have a question. Why is the firm Alverson Taylor a favorite whipping boy for those who blog on this site.
I realize they have encountered some really transitional problems over the last year or two, but that often happens within the long life span of a large law firm. The so-called big firms of a few decades back no longer still exist in their original forms–e.g. Beckley Singleton: Lionel Sawyer Collins: Jones, Jones, Close and Brown, etc.).
I realize that some of those firms, over time, subsequently merged into other firms, or dissolved, or other approaches, and I realize that what happened with Alverson Taylor may have bee a little more sudden and dramatic.
By why is Alverson Taylor so vilified? I always considered them a solid firm, with a heavy emphasis on insurance defense. But I am likewise aware that they had a reputation of working young associates to the bone, perhaps not paying them a great deal(relatively speaking), and requiring intense billing quotas. But many large firms, insurance defense of otherwise, have similar reputations as to what life is like for young associates.
So, again, I'm not taking up for Alverson Taylor, but why do they seem so unpopular, and ridiculed, and sometimes even reviled, by a good number of posters?
I like hiring attorneys from AT. They know how to bill and how to work a file. They also appreciate people who actually treat them well for their second job.
Kurt Bonds is a nice guy. Other than him, my sense was always that the lawyers there were pure garbage. My guess is that the the firm probably doesn't have Westlaw, because the briefs they submit never seemed to cite any relevant law. The firm has also had tremendous turnover, and from talking with the associates I went against there, it seemed like a miserable place to work.
Because everyone started at out Alverson. It is not what it used to be. Are Jonathan Owens and Darren Brenner over there? Two gems.
At one point in time it was a starting point for almost every lawyer. Many of whom have gone on to have very successful careers. Owners of multi million dollar practices. Attorneys defending fortune 500 companies. I'm not sure how it works now, but back in the day they never hired laterals, only lawyers straight out of law school. The hiring process emphasized presentation (looks, personality, demeanor) over academics. Attorneys would put in a max of 2-3 years there, then move on to bigger and better things. That was their business model that served them well for decades. Whip on them all you want, but the firm was pretty well respected back in the day and ultimately produced some damn fine attorneys.
I only do commercial work so I have not been opposed to them often but I was never impressed with their work. I always thought H&S and MAC were better firms in that second/third tier behind the top local and regionals.
H&S and MAC are commercial/corporate litigation firms. ATMS became (and has been for 20 years) an insurance defense mill.
Both H&M and MAC do a fair amount of insurance defense work too though, right? And ATMS does some commercial work. Might be different ratios but they seem more similar to one another than any of them seem to Brownstein or H&H or Pisanelli or Fennemore or MCW or GT or Bailey Kennedy or any of the other pure commercial firms.
Ill never forget Jack Cherry refusing to accept service of a summons and complaint on behalf of a corporate client. Was petty and spiteful in light of the circumstances. "F" 'em.
H&S and MAC are far more well rounded firms than AT&S. 20 years ago AT&S and H&S were very similar; however that is the tale of firms with very different trajectories over the years. MA(C) has always been more business litigation similar to a Holley Driggs/Kaempfer Crowell style of firm.
Is Kaemofer over on far west Cheyenne and 215? If so,that firm is way smaller than it used to be.
H&S does some insurance defense work has large corporate clients. AT's practice is primarily insurance defense, whereas firms like H&S and MAC have it as a small subset of their work.
The Wayne Newton hearing is the definition of a Cluster****. Judge Holthus literally has no clue what she is doing. Wiley and Jimmerson are at each other's throats with Jimmerson absolutely taking Wiley to the woodshed.
I'm most pro Trump in world but I beg my liberal friends, please not Bloomberg, at least Warren Sanders etc believe their ideology but Bloomberg just pandering demagogue, sorry I'm texting left handed