- Quickdraw McLaw
- 49 Comments
- 484 Views
- Can my HOA do that? [KNPR]
- Liberace is getting a street named after him. [Las Vegas Sun]
- The applicants to be appointed to Department 7 are:
- James Dean Leavitt
- Lindsay Moors
- Nadine Morton
- Would it surprise you to learn that a list of judicial hellholes does not have Nevada in the top ten? [ABA Journal]
The judicial appointment will be easy. Nadine Morton has no chance. She's a below-average attorney. James Leavitt has run twice and lost twice. That alone will disqualify him. And that leaves Lindsay Moors, an average D.A.. Moors will get the appointment.
Leavitt has a Masters degree and started the UNLV med school. He is highly respected in the higher Ed community and super connected. He will get the appointment and deserves it.
Moors just came in third place behind Schwartz and Ganz – Morton applied for the Cybil Dotson JP seat and wasn’t given it.
Holy crap! Leavitt is the scariest judicial candidate in a generation. Maria Gall wiped the floor with him, and it was still too close. NO, NO, NO!
Maybe the Judicial Selection Committee should re-open the application period for Dept. 7?
Literally this is what annoys me about anonymous posting. On one hand you have the dude with a carpet bomb of hate for all three candidates, which always makes me laugh because you talk all this nonsense but no one can comment on your ability as an attorney. On the other hand you have the person talking up JDL like a public relations hack. We all have better than a master's degree and JDL, who I like as a person, did not start up the medical school. Why lead with something that is categorically false? Three people applied, they all have pluses, they all have minuses, but those are your choices. If you think there is a better person, you should've either ran or incentivized them to run, but don't just talk shit for the sake of talking shit, just go back to billing your .1 for reading the blog and be bitter you didn't have the balls to put in. TBH, I wish Roohani put in, she's an awesome judge and I think it's bullshit she lost.
@5:11 Truer words were never spoken. Roohani was a great judge in the short time she was on the bench and I'm going to miss her. (It's okay to offer praise anonymously, right?)
Ben raises an interesting point which is why defeated past judges do not attempt to regain seats. Bill Gonzalez is an exception. As for Roohani (fair or not) there was a whisper campaign that she got her appointment off of familial connections/donations to Sisolak when this appointment will be made by Lombardo.
@5:48 I think the common thought is that governors seek to appoint someone who is both competent and who can be re-elected after appointment. When you take someone like Roohani and appoint her and she loses, I think the assumption is that she would lose again. The reality is though that these elections are completely arbitrary because the electorate has no idea who any of these people are. I field calls from several non-attorney friends every election asking who to elect. People don't have a clue so the outcome is essentially random. Roohani could just as easily win the next go-around, but the preconceived idea of "electability" will probably keep her from applying for another appointment.
Much respect for Mr. Ben Nadig, who always has the courage to put his name on his comments and who also always gives fair and respectful assessments.
9:42: . . . even if Ben is unelectable.
JDL is in fact the scariest perennial candidate/applicant in a generation.
That said, anyone who isn't smart enough to watch his comments on Facebook and attacks a significant demographic of the electorate, isn't smart enough to take the bench.
I have supported him with votes and money in the past and this last couple years, he has lost my confidence and any chance at my support. Especially, for the bench, where we might have to appear in front of him.
I certainly don't wish him ill will and no one wants a Mat Harter repeat.
But, no. Can't do it.
I, for one, am shocked that the quality of candidates/applicants for judge has consistently decreased over the past decade when the salary for the position has remained unchanged.
As far as these appointments are concerned, the most highly qualified applicants often don't even make the top three, let alone get the appointment. So why bother?
There were only three applicants
A dearth of applicants also occurred with the Probate Commissioner (at least the second time around).
No, there were a lot of applicants for probate. There were a number of interviews. They only nominated three names for consideraton and picked someone with hardly any probate experience. Funny how that happens. Nothing to see here. Move on please.
I don't apply because you have to publish way more personal information than if you ran for office. I understand it's an interview process, but not interested in writing all that out for everyone on the internet to mine.
"No, there were a lot of applicants for probate." Re-read my comment, 4:04 PM. THE FIRST TIME there were a lot of applicants. The first round had three finalists – Roger Giuliani, Blair Parker and Sean Tanko. After they rescinded the offer made to Tanko, a second round of applicants were taken. There were so few applicants, that there were only two finalists (even though the process requires three): Jim Berchtold and James Fontano. So yes, on the second round there was in fact a dearth of applicants for Probate Commissioner.
@4:06 – also because I enjoy reading this blog and know I'd probably be eviscerated if I applied.
Y'all are nice, but I know I got problems ^_^
I thought Sean Tanko had accepted the position of Probate Commissioner. He started then left. They recruited again. Don't want to out myself but interviewed both times. The first time it was all on Zoom. The second time in person. Oddly enough they appointed someone who hardly had any probate experience. Not that it matters. Nothing to see here. Move along. It is a hard job. They need to have more staff and another Commissioner. I don't know how Wesley Yamashita did it and did it so well.
Sean Tanko was hired. He was wrapping up his private practice. An unnamed county employee decided he did not do it fast enough and rescinded the hiring. The probate bar was adequately put off by the process that no one applied the second time and there were only 2 finalists. Your statement that you "interviewed both times" is curious to me because I was told from administrative staff that there were only 2 applicants, neither of whom had real probate experience.
There are many probate attorneys who would like to serve as Probate Commissioner. There are very few probate attorneys (almost none) who are willing to work for Clark County.
One man's hellhole is another's paradise. It all depends on whose ox is being gored.
None of those three people are even baseline competent enough to hold that position. What a mess. Any chance the commission reopens the application due to a lack of qualified candidates?
In crazy random news – German authorities arrested a German Prince for planning a coup to overthrow the government https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63885028
Too lazy to read. A real coup? Or a Jan 6 selfie coup?
J6 fakey coup
Nadine Morton's bio on her website says she is a "Siniour Lawyer." What's that?
The whole website look like she used filler text in a pre-designed page and never got around to replacing the text with her own. Go read the rest of her bio. It's nuts.
If you don't know what a "siniour lawyer" is, maybe you should not be participating in these conversations. Sounds like you're out of touch.
The underlying foundation for every explanation and gripe about the lack of expertise and qualification for any position of power, judges, JP, etc. is that the successful do not downgrade. I work in divorce law. Have you ever seen Willick or Jimmerson run for JP? (In case you don't know they both have their own buildings and are viewed as very successful and [as someone who knows both and likes them both] leaders in the local domestic law community). From the other end, look at someone like the old (easy to pick on) Del Vecchio who did nothing before becoming a judge that I know of. So, almost by definition, you're going to get the (insert failed lawyer name) running for small positions. Just my 2 cents.
What happened to Trevor Atkin is Exhibit A for why successful attorneys don't typically become judges. Clark County voters don't do their homework.
Yep
It's a tragedy voters had no way to really understand what a great judge Trevor Atkin was.
Trevor was really good; his replacement is not. Bailus was pretty good; his replacement is not. Honestly Bare grew into the job and was far more judicial than his replacement. But don't cry for Trevor– he is doing just fine at ARM. Honestly the life of a mediator is much better than the life of a judge.
Add Rob Bare and Terry Coffing to that list. An absolute travesty that neither is on the bench.
I read comments repeatedly from people who lament that judicial applicants are subpar. Some blame pay. I don't think that is it. I think in some small part this blog is part of the problem. Well not this blog directly but the nature of the practice, the bar and our culture. We are savages. I have been discussed on this blog and had incredibly nasty things said about me, my appearance, my practice, my clients, my competence.
And yet I have had people come to me in the previous appointment/election cycles inquiring if I would throw my hat in. Hell no. Why in the world would I leave a successful practice to put my family through being called the names that we call people who put in for appointments? It is not about money or prestige. The process attracts people who do not care or who have nothing to lose.
11:54 you are one ugly MFer hahaha Just kidding. You make a really good point and maybe even better than the one I made (11:46). It's not just the money but the savage attacks. Thanks for your input
Pay is def part of the problem. Something changed w their PERS a few years back and now their take home is even less. We've gotten to the point where if you can't make more than a district court judge, you either suck as a lawyer or suck as a business person.
There's an increasingly shrinking applicant pool as well. The last few election cycles have demonstrated that male judicial candidates virtually always lose when a female candidate of basically any caliber runs against them. Given that reality, why would any rational male attorney waste their time, relinquish a bunch of private data, prepare to transition their clients / business, just for the prospect of obtaining a judicial appointment that will pay less, has zero upward mobility, and is virtually certain to end in the next election cycle?
Anyone ever consider that District Court judges make $140 a year (after PERS deducts a $20K chunk from their $160K salary)? And yet every time judicial raises are proposed in a once every two years legislative session, the bill never gets out of committee. It's a travesty that a Magistrate Judge makes $35K more than the starting salary of a Nevada Supreme Court Justice. Hey, Judiciary Chairman Yeager, how about doing something about this this year? Maybe with a better salary, we can attract better candidates to the District Courts. What's going on now is a flippin' embarassment.
Supply and demand. Supply of applicants is abundant. Demand is fairly low. If they cut salaries $20k, most of the judges would stay on the bench. One could argue there should be no salary. Only accomplished altruistic attorneys who do not require a salary should serve. No young ones. No hungry ones. Just solid older attorneys who want to serve.
So…you only want rich people to be judges?
What you are describing would basically eliminate any opportunity for individuals from lower (or even middle class) socio-economic backgrounds to become judge.
Yes, being a lawyer generally pays well. But typically not enough that a “first college grad in my family” student can get themselves and their parents so comfortably set for the rest of their lives by the age of, say, 50 or even 60, to be able to never collect a salary again.
So, we would get disproportionately rich judges and probably also disproportionately older judges.
This comment has been removed by the author.
2:41 — 5:07 was too nice to you. Your post is hare-brained.
Judges make a good salary. When you add in the contributions to their generous retirement plan plus their other benefits, they make considerably more than noted above.
Some judges sell sex toys to supplement their income.
9:46 — Where do you get your information from? Actually, the judicial PERS contribution rules changed a few years ago, requiring new judges to kick in $20K of their salary to their retirements, which was previously funded by PERS. Surprise, surprise to the EJDC newbies who came on board in 2020. You're taking home substantially less than your vested peers.