The developers aiming to build at the Badlands golf course have sued Las Vegas and Judge Jim Crockett, bringing the total number of Badlands related lawsuits to eight. [RJ]
DA Wolfson is being pressured to release information regarding the theft of $41,792 in campaign funds. [RJ]
Robert Freeman, from Lewis Brisbois, was selected as an outside investigator to investigate claims by a former employee against a CCSD administrator. [RJ]
Attorneys and judges beat doctors in an annual kids’ charity tennis tournament. [eighthjdcourt blog]
The Hafter passing comments were shut down and I had something left to say. @ 9:32 April 22 re: Hafter – I actually appreciate your comment. I don't view it as disrespectful, but rather a statement that those that take their life have many demons and those of us who they leave behind, who may have been involved or know some details cannot and should not blame ourselves. What is clear to me is that Jacob had a loving family and a network of friends. He may have decided that ending his life would help his family in a way he felt incapable of doing with hopeful life insurance proceeds. If that is the case, it made the act of taking his life a final act to protect his family from his own mistakes. I for one have struggled with his death but I can not blame myself, nor do I disparage Jacob. I mourn for him and his family and whish he had sought help.
Guest
Anonymous
April 23, 2018 6:36 pm
A Wall to honor Past Presidents? I would note that the State Bar is spending money on members of the BoG while services for rank and file members continues to decline, except the SBN has always recognized its past Presidents on its wall. I would not object if the BoG actually turned around the fact that service and value for Bar dues has declined so markedly.
Guest
Anonymous
April 23, 2018 6:59 pm
Jacob Hafter executed a new will 3 days before he died. W-18-013855
Can we please allow J. Hafter to rest in peace? His poor family and friends and others who are saddened by his passing. He was a human being. A father, a husband, an attorney, a son, a friend. Be respectful. It matters how you treat others.
Guest
Pride goeth before the fall
April 23, 2018 8:39 pm
J Hafter, while alive, trampled over anyone who got in his way, relying on the slimmest procedural arguments to enrich himself and his clients. If he did in fact try a tax or dodge or insurance scam days prior to his death, would a living Jacob Hafter not shout from the rooftops about the inequity.
Guest
Anonymous
April 23, 2018 8:55 pm
They are having a North and a South wall. So much waste.
Guest
Anonymous
April 23, 2018 10:20 pm
To: 1:39: Not all the people who are saying leave it be would necessarily disagree with your observations.
But it's a matter of timing. You can always post in a few months what you really think of him
Guest
Anonymous
April 23, 2018 10:52 pm
Yeah 1:39. You could say shitty things about Hafter when he was alive, and you can say shitty things about him in a "few months," but you can't say the shitty (and likely true) things now. Why? No one knows – they just seem to blindly follow this bizarre social norm (and all you haters need not even start the "let's not do it for his family's sake," which is so weak).
Yeah, why don't we continue the ethics and disciplinary proceedings against him too? Maybe then disbar him permanently? Then we can possibly bring some criminal charges? And then maybe even throw his corpse in prison? Why not continue to rehash all the things we didn't like about the man just because he died by his own hand, unhappy, at a young age, and leaving behind loved ones?
I mean why would we want to follow the bizarre social norm of moving on and leaving the man and his family alone now that he's gone and can't say or do anything to right any of his alleged wrongs or respond to nasty anonymous comments? And don't you haters even think about telling me that it would be the classy thing to do, because that is so weak.
To:3:52. You are correct. That it what I'm saying–you can disparage someone while alive, and after some time passes after their demise.
And, yes, perhaps it's a bizarre social norm(not to trash them right after they pass) that is difficult to explain. But there are many social norms we "blindly follow" without being able to fully explain them.
I will tell you this much. If you ignore any and all social norms that cannot be fully explained, you will alienate and antagonize a lot of people. Perhaps you don't care. I really don't know.
You do your thing and I'll do mine. You can bash the freshly dead, while I elect not to. But I do agree that I will not defend my postion merely with the ultra-lame, myopic and criminally simplistic "don't do it for the family's sake."
I have to agree with you on that. Since I can't explain the social norm, I will leave it at that, and not fall back on that clichéd justification.
Such a hateful little people you Hafter bashers are. I didn't know the guy, but just bashing to bash? He ended the topics with his death. The sins of the father are not those of the family and friends. The people who didn't know him do not care to read from you about his past. Can you move on? He did.
4:52 – Thanks for your honesty. I raised the issue, because it is a confusing social norm, and I hoped as a group of people who are in the legal field and well-educated there might be more critical analysis of the social norm. Instead, most people here seem to blindly follow the norm and just get angry that truthful (even if not nice) things are said about Hafter because he is now dead. I do not understand how death imparts some sort of reverence on a person who in life did not deserve it (IMHO), but I, like you, will just have to leave it at that for now.
Guest
Anonymous
April 23, 2018 11:26 pm
No, people who are so miserable in their lives who keep bashing him when he is not even cold in the grave are week. You won't be wearing that robe too long if you are that much a socio.
Guest
Anonymous
April 23, 2018 11:26 pm
Anyone know if the Court of Appeals has plans to accept electronic filings in the near future?
Thanks. It is crazy that the CoA does not have e-filing …
Guest
Anonymous
April 24, 2018 12:05 am
I vote leave Hafter alone.
I also vote that most of us don't care if a group of attorneys beat a group of physicians at a tennis match.(but, I am admittedly pleased that at least it raised money for something worthwhile.)
I also vote that with the controversy surrounding random audits and other real concerns with bar leadership, that the rank-and-file bar members don't want to hear about a Wall Of Fame which genuflects to past Bar "leadership." Really bad timing.
I agree with the part about most bar members would not, at this time, want to "honor past Bar leadership."
That's the important point made by 5:05. The other two points(when it is appropriate to criticize Jacob Hafter, and whether people care who won the tennis match) are relatively unimportant.
But the point about the Wall Of Fame is spot on because it shows how tone deaf the Bar can be. It is as bad as when an incumbent politician emphasizes everything he/she has supposedly done for the economy during a re-election year when the economy is awful, as opposed to shifting the focus to international affairs, value issues or whatever. When the economy is bad, a politician can discuss how he/she will improve it, but should know better than to tout whatever worthless "programs" they spear-headed.
Same concept here. Bar leadership should be responsive, or act like they are responsive, to the rank-and-file solo practitioners who point out the unfair hardship of random audits that the attorneys themselves must pay for.
That would be a lot more user-friendly and rational than the ivory tower approach of genuflecting to past "leaders."
Lest we forget, it's more than random audits. These people have been out of control for sometime. Two years ago, bar leadership ramrodded through an unnecessary extra hour of mandatory cle for substance abuse, addiction disorders and mental health education. They then tried to force through ABA Model Rule 8.4(g) to impose a lawyer speech code unconstitutionally restricting free speech, free exercise of religion, and freedom of association of attorneys. The amended rule would have exposed lawyers deemed in breach of the rule to unprecedented levels of new bar discipline. Next, current bar president Gene Leverty, a former Nevada Chief Deputy Insurance Commissioner, has forced through his longtime pet project, a task force studying the implementation of costly mandatory malpractice insurance.
And all the while, bar leadership operates without any transparency, oversight or accountability, spending our mandatory bar monies on utter nonsense like this idiotic, self-congratulatory Wall of Fame and expensive out-of-state convention junkets.
Bar leaders treat Nevada lawyers like proverbial mushrooms kept in the dark and fed a bunch of B.S. So until these arrogant, tone-deaf, out-of-touch egotists are ousted, what comes next after random audits?
More great legal opinions coming out of the Eighth Judicial District all under Gonzales' watch. The NSC is going to be busy reversing and remanding a lot.
The Hafter passing comments were shut down and I had something left to say. @ 9:32 April 22 re: Hafter – I actually appreciate your comment. I don't view it as disrespectful, but rather a statement that those that take their life have many demons and those of us who they leave behind, who may have been involved or know some details cannot and should not blame ourselves. What is clear to me is that Jacob had a loving family and a network of friends. He may have decided that ending his life would help his family in a way he felt incapable of doing with hopeful life insurance proceeds. If that is the case, it made the act of taking his life a final act to protect his family from his own mistakes. I for one have struggled with his death but I can not blame myself, nor do I disparage Jacob. I mourn for him and his family and whish he had sought help.
A Wall to honor Past Presidents? I would note that the State Bar is spending money on members of the BoG while services for rank and file members continues to decline, except the SBN has always recognized its past Presidents on its wall. I would not object if the BoG actually turned around the fact that service and value for Bar dues has declined so markedly.
Jacob Hafter executed a new will 3 days before he died. W-18-013855
Correction. He executed a trust-based estate plan on that date. The filed will is a pourover will. Man, I hope he actually funded the trust.
D-18-569570-D
Can we please allow J. Hafter to rest in peace? His poor family and friends and others who are saddened by his passing. He was a human being. A father, a husband, an attorney, a son, a friend. Be respectful. It matters how you treat others.
J Hafter, while alive, trampled over anyone who got in his way, relying on the slimmest procedural arguments to enrich himself and his clients. If he did in fact try a tax or dodge or insurance scam days prior to his death, would a living Jacob Hafter not shout from the rooftops about the inequity.
They are having a North and a South wall. So much waste.
To: 1:39: Not all the people who are saying leave it be would necessarily disagree with your observations.
But it's a matter of timing. You can always post in a few months what you really think of him
Yeah 1:39. You could say shitty things about Hafter when he was alive, and you can say shitty things about him in a "few months," but you can't say the shitty (and likely true) things now. Why? No one knows – they just seem to blindly follow this bizarre social norm (and all you haters need not even start the "let's not do it for his family's sake," which is so weak).
Yeah, why don't we continue the ethics and disciplinary proceedings against him too? Maybe then disbar him permanently? Then we can possibly bring some criminal charges? And then maybe even throw his corpse in prison? Why not continue to rehash all the things we didn't like about the man just because he died by his own hand, unhappy, at a young age, and leaving behind loved ones?
I mean why would we want to follow the bizarre social norm of moving on and leaving the man and his family alone now that he's gone and can't say or do anything to right any of his alleged wrongs or respond to nasty anonymous comments? And don't you haters even think about telling me that it would be the classy thing to do, because that is so weak.
To:3:52. You are correct. That it what I'm saying–you can disparage someone while alive, and after some time passes after their demise.
And, yes, perhaps it's a bizarre social norm(not to trash them right after they pass) that is difficult to explain. But there are many social norms we "blindly follow" without being able to fully explain them.
I will tell you this much. If you ignore any and all social norms that cannot be fully explained, you will alienate and antagonize a lot of people. Perhaps you don't care. I really don't know.
You do your thing and I'll do mine. You can bash the freshly dead, while I elect not to. But I do agree that I will not defend my postion merely with the ultra-lame, myopic and criminally simplistic "don't do it for the family's sake."
I have to agree with you on that. Since I can't explain the social norm, I will leave it at that, and not fall back on that clichéd justification.
Such a hateful little people you Hafter bashers are. I didn't know the guy, but just bashing to bash? He ended the topics with his death. The sins of the father are not those of the family and friends. The people who didn't know him do not care to read from you about his past. Can you move on? He did.
4:52 – Thanks for your honesty. I raised the issue, because it is a confusing social norm, and I hoped as a group of people who are in the legal field and well-educated there might be more critical analysis of the social norm. Instead, most people here seem to blindly follow the norm and just get angry that truthful (even if not nice) things are said about Hafter because he is now dead. I do not understand how death imparts some sort of reverence on a person who in life did not deserve it (IMHO), but I, like you, will just have to leave it at that for now.
No, people who are so miserable in their lives who keep bashing him when he is not even cold in the grave are week. You won't be wearing that robe too long if you are that much a socio.
Anyone know if the Court of Appeals has plans to accept electronic filings in the near future?
The NVSC clerk of the court stated they are looking into it, but have no indication it would be happening anytime soon.
*gave
Thanks. It is crazy that the CoA does not have e-filing …
I vote leave Hafter alone.
I also vote that most of us don't care if a group of attorneys beat a group of physicians at a tennis match.(but, I am admittedly pleased that at least it raised money for something worthwhile.)
I also vote that with the controversy surrounding random audits and other real concerns with bar leadership, that the rank-and-file bar members don't want to hear about a Wall Of Fame which genuflects to past Bar "leadership." Really bad timing.
Hubris. Complete "let them eat cake" hubris.
I agree with the part about most bar members would not, at this time, want to "honor past Bar leadership."
That's the important point made by 5:05. The other two points(when it is appropriate to criticize Jacob Hafter, and whether people care who won the tennis match) are relatively unimportant.
But the point about the Wall Of Fame is spot on because it shows how tone deaf the Bar can be. It is as bad as when an incumbent politician emphasizes everything he/she has supposedly done for the economy during a re-election year when the economy is awful, as opposed to shifting the focus to international affairs, value issues or whatever. When the economy is bad, a politician can discuss how he/she will improve it, but should know better than to tout whatever worthless "programs" they spear-headed.
Same concept here. Bar leadership should be responsive, or act like they are responsive, to the rank-and-file solo practitioners who point out the unfair hardship of random audits that the attorneys themselves must pay for.
That would be a lot more user-friendly and rational than the ivory tower approach of genuflecting to past "leaders."
Lest we forget, it's more than random audits. These people have been out of control for sometime. Two years ago, bar leadership ramrodded through an unnecessary extra hour of mandatory cle for substance abuse, addiction disorders and mental health education. They then tried to force through ABA Model Rule 8.4(g) to impose a lawyer speech code unconstitutionally restricting free speech, free exercise of religion, and freedom of association of attorneys. The amended rule would have exposed lawyers deemed in breach of the rule to unprecedented levels of new bar discipline. Next, current bar president Gene Leverty, a former Nevada Chief Deputy Insurance Commissioner, has forced through his longtime pet project, a task force studying the implementation of costly mandatory malpractice insurance.
And all the while, bar leadership operates without any transparency, oversight or accountability, spending our mandatory bar monies on utter nonsense like this idiotic, self-congratulatory Wall of Fame and expensive out-of-state convention junkets.
Bar leaders treat Nevada lawyers like proverbial mushrooms kept in the dark and fed a bunch of B.S. So until these arrogant, tone-deaf, out-of-touch egotists are ousted, what comes next after random audits?
Your BOGS work for you.
More great legal opinions coming out of the Eighth Judicial District all under Gonzales' watch. The NSC is going to be busy reversing and remanding a lot.