- Quickdraw McLaw
- 32 Comments
- 311 Views
- Happy first official Juneteenth federal holiday everyone! [CNN]
- Anyone have any non-satirical, highly accurate reports from the Annual Meeting?
- What happens now that traffic tickets are decriminalized? [TNI]
- Have you gotten your entry into Nevada’s million dollar lottery? [TNI]
Yes, the entire Nevada Supreme Court is working deals for their benefit.
Too bad this is not televised. I would to see Bonnie Bulla in a sun hat.
I am here now. Where ate the free drinks?
I am wearing flip flops, drunk . Having a blast Supremes are here.
Question for the peanut gallery today…
I'm a solo lawyer, no staff. I'm getting busy and starting to think about expansion. I'm wondering how others handled it? How hard is it to make the jump to having a full-time employee? Did you do it in one step, or did you take half-steps, like part-time help, first? Any advice and insight would be appreciated.
First, congratulations! That is a huge step and means things are going well for you. I started with part time help. It seemed like an easier transition than jumping straight to a full time employee. I am about 6 months in to the part time assistant, and am considering transition to full time. Having her here part time has taken a ton off my plate and given me a chance to see if it's going to work out.
My advice for the hiring process-be honest with yourself about what you need/want in an assistant. Also, be honest with yourself about your shortcomings as an employer/delegator. After working as a solo and doing everything yourself, it's harder than you probably think to hand over some control to someone else. Also, be ready to adjust your schedule to include training time. There won't be as much if you hire an experienced assistant/paralegal, but there will still be a learning curve as to your systems and expectations. But if you hire someone new, with little experience, there is a fairly steep learning curve, but the payoff is you know things are being down how you want them. Finally, in the interview process, trust your gut on someone. Even if they don't have all the "right" qualifications, chemistry/ability to work together is as or more important. The other stuff can be learned. Good luck!
Also solo with too much work. I have been looking for a part time assistant but I am struggling with what work I can delegate. My cases are all over the spectrum on the civil/transactional side. Jessica, thanks for the note on training and the learning curve. Good to know and plan for.
I started out answering my own phones, typing my own letters, sent my own faxes and filed my own documents (that's what we did back then). Did so for about 6 months until I was way too busy for that. Hired my first Legal Secretary and made her full time. In a few more months, she was busy enough to put down her book and work 8 hours a day (except for Fridays when we close at noon).
Pointer, call the Legal Secretary Certificate Program at UNLV and ask for referrals. Their grads are fresh, mostly competent and will grow with you. AND they are affordable right out of school.
When you are ready to consider an associate, hire a 3L or two and make that work for awhile.
Good luck. Best decision I have ever made.
9:53-It might help to know what type of law you practice. If you practice criminal Law, where you can get paid up front and then in subsequent chunks, and Family Law, where you can bill hourly, those two disciplines(if they form a good percentage of your practice) keep the cash flow going.
But if you are tied up with too many contingency civil matters, you can wait a long time for money and cash flow is a problem during some periods.
But, regardless of what areas you practice in, if you are succeeding to the point where you can take on an associate(or even a skilled paralegal), keep something in mind. Make certain that you are already at a point where you can easily pay your business overhead each, your personal overhead each month, and still have a good chunk left over to bank.
And make sure that chunk(after payment of personal and business overhead) is significant, otherwise it will all be eaten up, and more, by the salary you pay to the new associate or paralegal.
Unless, of course, that observation does not really apply in the event the associate or paralegal will enable you to bring in a lot more on a monthly basis. Usually , that is not the case. A young associate or paralegal is seldom a rain maker, but can liberate your time to the extent that you can concentrate on accepting and attracting more business while the new employee toils away with a lot of the grunt work.
But there are so many variables, and we know nothing about thee specifics of your situation, so you really need to sit down with successful lawyers you respect and pick their brains, while providing all the specifics of your situation.
It sounds like you are relatively young, and have not practiced for an extreme length of time, have not been solo for long, but you are already doing okay to the point where you are considering expanding.
Whatever your specifics are, and whatever you decide to do after you sit down and discuss it with lawyers you respect, keep something in mind.
That is for the next decade or so really live within your means as to your personal life. Yes, we should all enjoy the fruits of our labors, but for the next decade or so you need not take multiple vacations each year, need not live in a $800,000 home, need not drive luxury European sports cars, etc.(in other words, largely avoid thee things that make life fun for successful people–luxury items).
At least avoid these temptations for thee first decade. If you resist those temptations the first decade, bust your butt, and live a somewhat scaled-down personal life, you will be amazed what you have in thee bank the first decade. It worked for me and I'm no genius. We are in a profession where we need not be brilliant(although it sure helps if we are), but that if we work hard, and take occasional calculated risks, we can do real well.
I realize that as lawyers, particularly when we start realizing some success,we are not masters of delayed gratification, but we should try to be for the first decade or so of our successful period, IMO.
Also, same goes for your business life–live within your means. No, you don't want to work out of a shit hole. But, no, you don't want to have digs that are well beyond what you can afford while you lamely justify that with a cliché "if you want to be successful, you need to look and act like you are already successful."(which, admittedly, is true on certain levels).
Too many attorneys, who bring in a lot each month, spend well more than half of it on their monthly business overhead. Need to get that percentage down if it is well more than 50%
10:25, don't necessarily agree with all your advice but you hit the nail on the head as to three items:
1. Control the business overhead.
2. Control personal expenditures.
3. Sit down with someone whose business model you really respect and dissect all the details.
#1 nd #2 seem kind of obvious, but not when you consider the number of attorneys who spend way too much on business overhead, and live well beyond their means in their personal life.
If you live that way, even if you are successful, you will still be slaving away full-time into your 70's(assuming your health holds out).
But, presumably, one of the main reasons many of us go into this profession is so that we create possibilities, flexibility, and freedom for ourselves later in life–which also enhances our health as we are not constantly stressed an slaving away to frantically meet our monthly business and personal bills.
My ultimate definition of attorney success is that once we are well into our 50's, and still practicing, we are practicing simply because we still want to practice to some extent, but that if we suddenly reach a situation where we medically can no longer work, or we simply choose to retire early, we can do so.
Grant Sawyer, is amazing and still working at 101 because he loves it. But I bet he could have retired in his 50's and been set for life, had he wanted to.
That, to me, is the definition of attorney success. Plus, of course the positive difference we make in our clients' lives, and, for the few of us who are fortunate enough, to affect broader change and enhancement in matters that reach beyond our practices and our individual clients.
Grant Sawyer died in 1996. His former partner, Sam Lionel, is still working.
Sam Lionel retired a year or so ago.
I assume 10:38 meant Sam Lionel, who is alive and did work until 100 or 101, and only recently finally retired.
Grant Sawyer only lived to about 77, if I recall.
Share space with someone who has a very fancy office. Let them pay the overhead. Plus, they will probably refer cases to you.
Driminalized Traffic Tickets
Bench warrants were the primary tool for collecting fines. How will, for example, the City of Las Vegas collect fines and penalties from scofflaws? Will the city have to obtain a civil judgment to garnish wages, levy accounts? Traffic trials, are they now civil matters? At what point does a non-criminal traffic ticket become criminalized (say speeding at 30 over posted, with or without an accident)?
If only there were a link to an article with answers to all your questions.
I know there were comments yesterday regarding Cheryl Moss– nice lady who did not control her docket or act timely. It pains me but Judge Delaney has been on the bench long enough that she just has to get control of her docket. Starts half hour late. Takes hours to get through the calendar. Minutes not posted for 6 weeks. I really like her as a person but it is out of control.
12:30–If timeliness and calendar control is a major concern(and it should be) then let's give the devil his due and acknowledge that Doug Smith, with all his short comings, was at least efficient and timely–even if he sometimes called it wrong.
You might receive an erroneous ruling, but you didn't have to sit and wait hours to receive it, like you would in other departments that issue erroneous rulings with a fair degree of consistency
He was particularly efficient as a JP, and got through morning calendar very quickly.
I didn't have as much experience with him when he became a District Judge, but what I hear is that although demeanor, and the appropriateness of his rulings, could be a problem, he remained really efficient with calendar control, didn't allow too much time on each case, and wait times to be heard were relatively short.
Stew Bell was one who was super efficient in disposing of morning calendar as a District Judge. He had his rulings ready and did not start cases by saying "your motion, counsel" which is how many judges start things, and which is interpreted by many counsel as an invite to regurgitate their entire motion in even greater detail.
Instead, he would say something to the effect that if either side has something really critical that was not included in the motion or opposition, they can present such matters, otherwise the court is ready to rule. And based on the way he phrased such matter, no one wants to be perceived as a counsel who consistently accepts an offer to discuss critical matters left out of a motion, as it establishes one as an attorney who…well…habitually leaves critical matters out of their motions.
So, which method do you prefer?:
1. Judges vacating contested hearings and disposing of matters with Bench Orders or minute entries(which still does not seem to happen all too often, but can in certain departments).
2. Allowing attorneys to speak only as to matters not included in the motion.
3. Or, simply the "your motion, counsel" approach which seems to put no limit on how long an attorney can drone on.
There's a fourth approach that has been tried by largely eliminated in my view. That is#2, above, but in addition to inviting commentary on matters not included in the motion, but also to "add, clarify or emphasize material that is included in the motion"
But some judges have largely eliminated such approach, as it seems to invite a more lengthy and open-ended discussion, like #3, above, the "Your motion counsel, please proceed" approach.
1:19, your post reminds me that we attorneys can be a bit harsh in our criticisms of judges in that if judges are weak in certain areas, we tend not to give them the credit in other areas.
If someone is not timely and has bad calendar control, but usually gets the rulings right, we tend to complain about the time and delay, without emphasizing that they usually get it right.
Likewise if they are efficient and timely, but often get it wrong, we just emphasize that they often get it wrong, without at least conceding that we did not have to sit and wait hours to receive the erroneous ruling.
As for me, if I have the Hobson's choice between a more timely but erroneous judge vs. a poor calendar control untimely judge but who usually gets it right, I'll every time prefer the untimely judge who gets it right.
If I have to sit hours and wait, it can create an unhappy billing event for clients, and they often complain about paying for waiting time, but still, if the judge ultimately gets it right, the long wait is a price I am willing to pay.
I generally much prefer that than the timely judge who makes a hash out of the case and makes the erroneous call.
At nay rate, with our new video method the inconvenience and aggravation of long waits for hearings, although certainly not eliminated, have been reduced to a fair degree.
In an ideal world, a judge is both very timely and also almost always makes the right call. But I've practiced since the 80's and can't think of too many who fit that wonderful model.
Perhaps somewhat off topic, but are Family Court hearings really as bad as some of yesterday's later posters represented them as being?
Two different posters insisted that rather than hearing legitimate issues surrounding the care and well-being of children, that you are far more likely to hear shit like an attorney or party drone on about how the other side, the mother, does not sufficiently respect Dad's fiance(meaning whoever he happens to be sleeping with at the moment).
The reason it disturbs me, and has the ring of truth, is that a Family Law attorney, friend and colleague of mine, once complained to me about a preposterous hearing as follows:
He represented the mother of the children. The side representing Dad, completely ignored critical issues raised about schooling and other concerns during the part of the week that Dad has the children, and instead Dad's attorney kept complaining about disrespectful text messages the children's mother sends Dad's fiancé(the exotic dancer he was currently sleeping with).
The judge apparently, and quite understandably, seemed quite disinterested, but since the attorney droned on for so long, the judge asked to see the messages.
Dad's attorney replied "um..um.. they were too numerous to print, but my client's fiance has them on his phone."
Dad's "fiancé"(sitting in the front row, and making exasperated sounds and faces through the whole hearing) then started fumbling with her phone for several minutes(which the judge should not have allowed, but did) and the "fiancé" did not exactly emerge with any smoking gun messages that she could produce.
Considering that Dad's fiance(the exotic dancer) was in the front row, and according to my colleague was the one paying for Dad's attorney, that might help explain why the emphasis was placed on the supposed "disrespect" Mom shows to Dad's "fiancé" as opposed to the emphasis being on legitimate concerns about the children's well-being.
I found this all amusing, assumed it was some outlier odd-ball case, and had a hearty laugh.
But my colleague said "No. No. It's not funny. You don't understand. this shit happens all the time down there(Family Court)."
He insists that if you, as an attorney, appear down there for hearings at least 2 or 3 times per week, you will never go a week without hearing shit about how Mom does not afford Dad's new girlfriend the proper respect, and that invariably Dad always brings such girlfriend to the exchanges of the children which virtually guarantees that such tumult continues.
I'm assuming the judges can avoid a lot of this by ruling that the exchanges should only be by the parents, and that new husbands, new wives, boy friends, girl friends, children's grand parents, and any other intermeddling folks, can just be left at home.
So, do judges regularly issue such sensible restrictions or do they just leave these fools to blunder through with all this conflict, and inflame it by bringing these other people to the children exchanges?
They will if you bitch about it enough. But, I remember the days when Nick DelVecchio was on the bench.
Holy shit, if you had a smoke show for a client (or Dad's new GF) in the courtroom, you won no doubt. He stepped on himself to ask the babes questions so they would stand and he could ogle them.
What POS! But, I cant say I didnt use that as an advantage once or twice. At least you knew what you were in for with him.
@1:29 and what do you consider right? Your argument won? Just because you think you are right and the Judge disagrees, does not mean the Judge is wrong, it could, but not always.
2:24–of course you are right.
But, I believe 1:29 still makes an interesting point about how many lawyers perceive and evaluate judcial performance.
2:10–It's all true, particularly among weaker judges who don't control the proceedings too well.
As to the specifics of the situation:
–Most decent judges would NOT have paused the proceedings to let the fiance fumble with her phone to retrieve these utterly pointless messages.
–Most solid, decent judges(if they let the fiancé remain in the first place and not close the hearing)would have tossed her from the courtroom when she audibly gasped, sighed or laughed incredulously in reaction to the proceedings.
–Most decent judges would absolutely have told these clowns to leave these other contentious people out of the children exchanges, and penalized any litigant who failed to do so if matters continued to erupt.
–Most decent judges would have informed each party that they are responsible for the behavior of their family members, and then taken action if family members continue to act up and inflame the case.
–And the better judges would not even have gotten to the point of deciding whether or not to let the fiancé fumble with the phone to retrieve the messages. The better judges would have made it clear that if the messages were that important that they merit any discussion and requested relief, that by necessity they needed to be printed out, served and filed in the proceedings in a timely manner. And, more to the point, unless the messages are some direct serious threat to life or safety, or are particularly profane or indicate some mental illness or potentially dangerous behavior, that the court does not care and has no time for the issue.
–But, that said, the judge would make it clear that such issue is eliminated by ruling Mom and fiance are not to communicate absent some immediate child emergency.
Now I am speaking of what "solid" or "better" judges would do. The judge who allowed the fiancé to act up in court, take all that time digging through her phone, and who allowed Dad's attorney to drone on about such a ludicrous non-issue, is probably not one of the "better' or more "solid" judges.
Just sayin'
Your comment makes me think you do not practice in family court. We have very few good judges. There are a few who control the courtroom and move hearings along, but most of them are no where near that. Instead we get Judges like Forsberg who can't control herself, much less the courtroom. She is either screaming or arguing one side's case for them. We get judges like Throne and Mastin who don't read pleadings and abuse attorneys they don't like. Gibson is abusive, Perry is a few cans short of a six pack, Cutter is incompetent, Burton has all the backbone of wet noodle, etc etc etc
The comments re Potter and Hardcastle are a joke. Potter was abusive and unhinged. Hardcastle just predictably tells everyone's clients their attorneys suck and then you have to listen to a story about how him and Stew Bell used to solve all their cases together because they were the best attorneys who ever practiced in this state.
Family court is such a hell hole, I seriously doubt we'll ever have a significant number of good judges because no one wants that nightmarish caseload.
Can confirm Forsberg raises her voice a lot in court, but so far I've heard Perry is prepared for hearings and reads the filings before every hearing. Details?
9:30–I don't know, you may be right, but I don't know what about 2:30's comment makes you think they never practiced in Family Court.
I practiced(some) in Family Court and find 2:30's remarks fairly accurate and reasonable, for the most part.
Seems you are programmed to automatically shoot down people and be contentious, even when they may be largely agreeing with you.
Based on your critique of various judges, as to demeanor, lack of sufficient preparation, favoritism, etc.–it would seem that you should in fact strongly agree with the suggestions and observations of 2:30.
Your experience must be different, and admittedly, a lot more extensive than mine, but I agree with 2:30 that a solid judge would not have let the girlfriend remain in the court room if she behaved like that, nor let her search her phone for evidence while the proceedings are delayed for such purpose.
In fact, in Family Court I have seen that exact issue, and the judge indicated that if the material is important enough then print it out and file and serve it.
And I strongly agree with 2:30 that good judges make people responsible to control third parties connected to them, if those third parties cause trouble in the case.
That all said, you mainly discuss the new or newer judges(and we have 12–10 newly elected, and then two fairly recent appointees–Forsberg and Gibson.)
If all these newer judges are as bad as you say, that court, and Clark County families, are really in trouble.
To be fair, I do know from experience that you are spot on about the situation as to the former judge who discusses that he used to settle cases with the other individual you mention, while seemingly belittling, or at least being somewhat dismissive, to the attorneys appearing.
And you are certainly right about the explosive behavior of the other former judge you mention.
All of which confuses me when you take serious issue with 2:54 that those two judges (despite their flaws) would have been perfect for b.s cases like the one where the guy wants his wife ordered to provide better respect for Dad's exotic dancer "fiancé." That case calls out for a rather harsh slap down based on the b.s. level, and those judges could be a good fit for something like that. That does not necessarily mean that they are good judges for other cases, and does not even necessarily mean that they are good judges in general.
You offered some helpful insight to others about our new judges, and it is valuable for attorneys, who never appeared before such judges, to receive feedback and then decide what feedback to consider and which feedback not to consider.
But you seem to condemn and strongly dismiss posters who are largely agreeing with you. I kind of shudder to see your demeanor toward people you actually strongly disagree with. Doubt there is much respect being acknowledged in such instances.
But I largely blame this dynamic on how our profession programs us to be contentious and automatically go on the initial attack as to all arguments offered by opposing counsel. In fact, I encountered law firms that had exactly that as a model, and do not want to see too much common ground or stipulated issues until much later on(probably so some really sufficient billing could first take place).
2:10 and 2:30. I have what I think is the perfect solution(I'm still patting myself on the back)for a case like that.
I understand that opinions concerning former Family Court Judge Gerald Hardcastle were mixed, and some found him…shall we say..somewhat harsh at times.
With those qualifiers being understood, would he not have been the perfect judge for this case?
How long do you think these fools would have been permitted to behave this way without feeling his wrath?
How long would the "fiancé" been permitted to remain in the courtroom,and do we honestly think Judge Hardcastle would have paused the proceedings to allow her to fumble with her phone?
How long would he have permitted the attorney to present this preposterous argument that Mom better learn to afford Dad's exotic dancer "fiancé" greater respect?
Say what you will about him, but the case in question, and many others like it, really scream out for the necessity of his iron hand.
And he still serves as a Senior Judge, so who knows.
Wouldn't it be great if we had a system where we could match cases to a judge who has the ideal skill set and temperament for the case?
We could have a system where we might bypass judges such as Judge Hardcastle if a case legitimately calls for a user friendly approach with some real bedside manner.
But then assign him all the cases of the "Mom doesn't sufficiently respect my exotic dancer fiancé" variety.
And yes, there are tons of case of that ilk.
Too bad it's logistically impossible to match such cases to the ideal judges.
But I can dream, can't I?
2:51–yes, I would love to see him on cases like that.
And if you want an even much harsher smack down of people like that, bring Judge Potter back as Senior Judge, and assign that case to him.
If I was not permitted to watch for free, I would gladly pay $79.95 to witness such spectacle on close circuit or pay per view.
Cases like this, where lawyers waste inordinate print time and in-court argument time, on sophomoric nonsense like this, occur all the time in that building, every day, every department.
Anyone who tells you otherwise, and who insists that things are a lot more controlled and a lot more dignified than that, is simply lying to you.
Or they simply have very little experience in that court.
Who dresses Harry Reid?
Happy Juneteenth, the ninth circuit discriminates against minorities.