Yesterday, Jon Ralston (@Ralstonreports) published an article on attorney general candidate Adam Laxalt that included a summary of notes from Lewis & Roca‘s 2012 performance evaluation of Laxalt. A few hours later, Ralston followed up his initial article by posting Laxalt’s own self-evaulation as well as the content of reviews of Laxalt’s performance by several attorneys at Lewis & Roca. We’ll let you read and judge for yourselves, but to say the least, the reviews are not very flattering. Laxalt’s campaign said that the summary was an “improperly and perhaps illegally leaked document” that Laxalt had not previously seen and called the authenticity into question. It also indicated he was speaking with Lewis & Roca about the release of the document. The campaign also provided a letter from the firm earlier this year which indicated Laxalt was welcome to rejoin the firm after the election. Is this the end of Laxalt’s chances at AG? Was his performance evaluation fair game? Who will get fired as a result of this? Stay tuned, from what we hear, this story is just getting started. [Las Vegas Sun; RJ; RGJ)
Looks like District Attorney Steve Wolfson (who is up for election this fall against someone his office is prosecuting) has another witness-paying situation on his hands. If you recall, after the DA’s practice of paying witnesses was brought to light last fall, Wolfson called for an audit of witness payments. No word on how his audit went, but intrepid Las Vegas legal reporter Betsy Barnes (@Betsbarnes) followed up on her initial story and learned that the DA’s office has been making rent payments for witnesses and that defense attorneys may not be aware of that fact. [RJ]
Congrats to the Mountain Ridge Little League team who are moving on to the Little League World Series Championship game! [RJ]
I agree; it's unbelievable and pretty outrageous. The rest of us go around worrying about whether to say anything more about an employee than dates of employment and "still employed" or "eligible for rehire."
Absolutely agree that Lewis & Ricardo need to fire any involved in distributing private and personal information outside of the firm's HR Dept. I thought much higher of their professional standards before this egregious and reckless handling of sensitive internal documents. What's next, publication of client's files who are late paying their bills?
Guest
Anonymous
August 21, 2014 5:08 pm
Agreed. I probably wouldn't vote for the guy unless Ross Miller gets caught cooking meth in his state office, but this is pretty unfair. First, this appears to be from his very first year in practice after coming from a completely different environment. More importantly, there is no possible way he can respond to many of these issues without breaching attorney client privilege or disclosing work product. Was six hours too long to spend interviewing a client about an answer to a complaint? I don't know. Was the complaint 10 pages of boilerplate, or was it one of those behemoths with multiple statutory claims of one kind or another? The fact that he would be criticized for asking his friends at other firms how much time is reasonable seems out of line to me. Someone in a new job who hasn't billed hours before shouldn't be criticized for talking with his contemporaries about things like that. Most of these big firms are just cesspools of back-stabbing and political jockeying. So was this fair, or was it a bunch of BS? As is often the case, the truth probably lies somewhere in between. Very unfair to Mr. Laxalt in any event.
Guest
Anonymous
August 21, 2014 5:17 pm
Laxalt never saw this evaluation, I guarantee it. Most people never see the sausage factory that is firm-level evaluations, they just see the finished product (in this case, the conversation between Sean McGuinness, Chris Jorgenson, and Laxalt). The fact that Ralston points to the review as evidence that Laxalt knew the contents of the evaluation is laughable.
Guest
Anonymous
August 21, 2014 5:46 pm
How did Ralston get a hold of this, do we know?
Guest
Anonymous
August 21, 2014 5:50 pm
Whether Laxalt ever saw the review (he probably didn't) is irrelevant. He is running for Attorney General and just three years ago his evaluators suggested treating him like a first year associate. I'm definitely not voting for some one who is the equivalent of a fourth year associate.
Well, yeah, for the purposes of evaluating an associate in the commercial litigation group. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the AG's office handles a whole lot of that type of litigation.
That's great news! I'm sure he'll do great handling the switch in the types of cases. Oh wait…
Guest
Anonymous
August 21, 2014 6:20 pm
The whole thing is just sick. Laxalt wasn't being treated like a first year, HE WAS A FIRST YEAR. JAG is completely different than private practice.
Let's not forget that in the week prior to this release, Ralston was throwing a hissy fit because Laxalt wouldn't come on his show. Ralston takes that very personally and goes out of his way to really shit all over politicians who won't come on his show (See: Dean Heller, for example). When Laxalt's campaign manager told the RJ that Ralston's show was biased (technically he said audience, but we all know what he meant, because, well, it's true), Ralston became engulfed in his patented, insecure nuclear, vindictive envy.
There's also a major attorney-client privilege issue here. Ralston says HE redacted the names of clients in the review. Which means Ralston saw them. Which means, to the extent that the identities of the clients, linked with information in the review contain privileged information, that privilege is now waived. I'm sure LRR is all over this internally, it's a big fuckin' deal.
And someone should be fired at LRR. The problem is that how many people have access to these kinds of files? I venture to say only partners and the tech people. I would guess that this was the result of a rogue and politically active IT person who will certainly be caught and have the holy wrath of LRR lighting their world on fire.
And I have to say that while the information in the reviews may be relevant to the race, it's sick the way that Jon Ralston seems to enjoy destroying peoples lives and careers. This won't just end Laxalt's campaign, that's honestly the least of his worries. His legal career may be over entirely now that this is so widely known, which is extremely unfair to him.
Which is why LRR will be writing him a big fat check! Take that to the bank!
Although the release of info was completely unjustifiable, I'm pretty sure Laxalt will land on his feet. The only reason he is in the AG race is his last name – and juice is thicker than blood in this town (pretty sure that didn't make sense but it was fun).
With the Laxalt name, I'm sure he's got plenty of juice and blood to go around in Nevada. He'll be fine. This does suck, though. I lost a lot of respect for Lewis and Roca and I never had any respect for Ralston anyway.
If you remove her comments and ratings, he looks like someone who came from JAG corps where he ran his own cases to big firm/commercial litigation and didn't immediately get with the civil program. Others rated him as meets expectations or higher or not enough info to rate.
Yea, what a cold frigid bitch. Who the hell uses spell check and what's this crap about nonbillable assignments? Jeez, can't a guy make upwards of 120k a year anymore without having to be subjected to all these ridiculous requirements? WTH!
I have worked with Joice many times before – both as a colleague and opposing counsel. She's not "horrid." She's an excellent, respectful attorney and would not have written such comments lightly.
Don't know Bass, but she is kind of a fox. Makes me think of The Bad Touch.
Guest
Anonymous
August 21, 2014 8:33 pm
I once had a boss that never said anything good about anyone. After working for that guy, I'm sure there's some piece of paper out there that says I'm a waste of skin. So I guess I'll never run for office.
Guest
Anonymous
August 21, 2014 8:55 pm
Ralston being a mean-spirited vindictive prick has little to do with this. He's just doing his job. He hasn't crossed any legal or ethical line.
Reviews, while usually written by partners, are typically kept in the custody of an "HR Manager", "Firm Administrator", "Office Manager" or some similar type of non-lawyer employee. There's your screw-up.
Does anyone know who the top administrative person for LRR's Las Vegas office is? Or possibly at LRR's headquarters?
Before they fire the HR Manager, hope they publish her shit review for all the world to see too. Ha! See how her new job hunt goes with all those personal flaws highlighted to the world
Yes, Ralston is being a (loosely defined) "journalist," but it's the way he went about this. It is clear he has a personal vendetta against Laxalt for whatever reason. That's fine, he's entitled to his opinion, but when he does this and then gloats, it is unbecoming.
Guest
Anonymous
August 21, 2014 8:59 pm
What? No one going to way in on DA paying witnesses' rent without disclosing it to defense? I don't practice crim law, but sounds pretty shady to me. Is there any aspect of the system here that isn't corrupt?
Every criminal attorney knows that the DA's office is corrupt and ethically bankrupt. Those self righteous pricks hide evidence and over charge on every case.
Guest
Anonymous
August 21, 2014 9:17 pm
Are any judgments or settlements concerning this leak going to come out the partner's pocket?
Guest
Anonymous
August 21, 2014 9:59 pm
Based on my experience, Joice Bass calling out another attorney's questionable abilities is the "pot calling the kettle black."
I've heard employees at LRR call her the "black widow" for all of the associates, paralegals etc. She's had a hand in firing with reviews like these. Word is she's super passive aggressive, crushing people in reviews that cant be traced back to her (until now).
Doubtful she would have the clout to get anyone fired. If you get fired from biglaw then you either really really suck or you pissed off the rainmaker in the corner office. Big law is notorious for letting failing attorneys hang around for years.
Guest
Anonymous
August 22, 2014 1:50 am
Bass doesn't fit the good ole boy partner prototype. Every female attorney I know has had the experience of being treated dismissively by a full-of-himself young buck new associate.
Guest
Anonymous
August 22, 2014 2:05 am
I am licking my chapsticked lips that one partner out of the six or eight partners in lewis and Ricardo's evaluation is a female….
Guest
Anonymous
August 22, 2014 3:36 pm
If Joice Bass were a man, no one would be critiquing her evaluation. She was Lexalt's supervising partner, so her comments are more lengthy, but otherwise they are not out of the ordinary and are consistent with the others. The comments on this board indicating she would be hard to work for are just typical negative reactions to blunt criticism coming from a female in authority.
Where does her gender enter into this at all? She ripped him, that's all. Some people have said she's horrid, others have said she's great. Nice attempt to put your own biases into other people's comments. There are more women coming out of law school than men, you're winning; the sexism card is getting tired
Criticism that would be accepted from a man is often poorly received when coming from a woman. The comments on this thread reflect that, even if your personal biases prevent you from seeing it.
I don't know Laxalt at all and do not have an opinion on his qualifications but this is a true story: I was a CLE with a table full of women attorneys of varying ages. Laxalt came up to us, introduced himself, and asked us if we were secretaries. Seriously. When he was informed that we were all licensed attorneys, he fumbled and mumbled and drifted away. I thought, nice looking and polite, but his handlers need some face time with him if he is going to succeed in politics.
That is another example of the sexism card getting tired…another rote example of male attorney, who discriminates against women, running for public office.
Stop worrying your pretty little head. You'll get too confused. Save the critical thinking for the men. (That's a joke by the way before you lose your shit.)
Guest
Anonymous
August 22, 2014 6:13 pm
I see what you did there! Proving once again that being clueless is not necessarily sexist but certainly can be. So funny!!
Hmm…I think we should feed the homeless to the hungry. That will solve two problems at once.
Guest
Anonymous
August 23, 2014 1:48 am
Please stop whining that any observation on gender is "playing the sexism" card. Yes, more women are coming out of law school, but it's going to take a while for that to be reflected in the demographics of the typical law firm. I'm not saying women are rampantly being oppressed or anything, but it's just naive to claim gender dynamics is a non-issue in many law firms.
Guest
Anonymous
August 24, 2014 7:23 am
Poor Laxalt. He's a politico, so no doubt his soul is destined for hell; but disclosing internal employee reviews is just plain wrong. I remember one partner going out of the way to hurt me in my annual review. How do you defend yourself? Gee, look at the trials I won, the money I collected, the amount of love my staff has for me even though I work them to death? Nope, no partnership for you. Never again a large firm. Never. Each and every one of you at a large firm is a bitch. Period. No exceptions. Yes, some are towering strap-on bitches pounding away in some vainglorious attempt at creating self-worth; but most of you are bent-over bitches gritting your teeth wishing you hadn't sacrificed your last scrap of dignity for a chance at the brass ring.
It's all subjective, and so even if the ultimate client likes you, and you get a good result, if a reviewing partner doesn't like like you for any petty reason they can just crush you in a one-sided tirade.
Someone definitely needs to get fired at LRR for this. Regardless of political affiliation, you can't have employees giving evaluations to the press.
I agree; it's unbelievable and pretty outrageous. The rest of us go around worrying about whether to say anything more about an employee than dates of employment and "still employed" or "eligible for rehire."
Absolutely agree that Lewis & Ricardo need to fire any involved in distributing private and personal information outside of the firm's HR Dept. I thought much higher of their professional standards before this egregious and reckless handling of sensitive internal documents. What's next, publication of client's files who are late paying their bills?
Agreed. I probably wouldn't vote for the guy unless Ross Miller gets caught cooking meth in his state office, but this is pretty unfair. First, this appears to be from his very first year in practice after coming from a completely different environment. More importantly, there is no possible way he can respond to many of these issues without breaching attorney client privilege or disclosing work product. Was six hours too long to spend interviewing a client about an answer to a complaint? I don't know. Was the complaint 10 pages of boilerplate, or was it one of those behemoths with multiple statutory claims of one kind or another? The fact that he would be criticized for asking his friends at other firms how much time is reasonable seems out of line to me. Someone in a new job who hasn't billed hours before shouldn't be criticized for talking with his contemporaries about things like that. Most of these big firms are just cesspools of back-stabbing and political jockeying. So was this fair, or was it a bunch of BS? As is often the case, the truth probably lies somewhere in between. Very unfair to Mr. Laxalt in any event.
Laxalt never saw this evaluation, I guarantee it. Most people never see the sausage factory that is firm-level evaluations, they just see the finished product (in this case, the conversation between Sean McGuinness, Chris Jorgenson, and Laxalt). The fact that Ralston points to the review as evidence that Laxalt knew the contents of the evaluation is laughable.
How did Ralston get a hold of this, do we know?
Whether Laxalt ever saw the review (he probably didn't) is irrelevant. He is running for Attorney General and just three years ago his evaluators suggested treating him like a first year associate. I'm definitely not voting for some one who is the equivalent of a fourth year associate.
Well, yeah, for the purposes of evaluating an associate in the commercial litigation group. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the AG's office handles a whole lot of that type of litigation.
That's great news! I'm sure he'll do great handling the switch in the types of cases. Oh wait…
The whole thing is just sick. Laxalt wasn't being treated like a first year, HE WAS A FIRST YEAR. JAG is completely different than private practice.
Let's not forget that in the week prior to this release, Ralston was throwing a hissy fit because Laxalt wouldn't come on his show. Ralston takes that very personally and goes out of his way to really shit all over politicians who won't come on his show (See: Dean Heller, for example). When Laxalt's campaign manager told the RJ that Ralston's show was biased (technically he said audience, but we all know what he meant, because, well, it's true), Ralston became engulfed in his patented, insecure nuclear, vindictive envy.
There's also a major attorney-client privilege issue here. Ralston says HE redacted the names of clients in the review. Which means Ralston saw them. Which means, to the extent that the identities of the clients, linked with information in the review contain privileged information, that privilege is now waived. I'm sure LRR is all over this internally, it's a big fuckin' deal.
And someone should be fired at LRR. The problem is that how many people have access to these kinds of files? I venture to say only partners and the tech people. I would guess that this was the result of a rogue and politically active IT person who will certainly be caught and have the holy wrath of LRR lighting their world on fire.
And I have to say that while the information in the reviews may be relevant to the race, it's sick the way that Jon Ralston seems to enjoy destroying peoples lives and careers. This won't just end Laxalt's campaign, that's honestly the least of his worries. His legal career may be over entirely now that this is so widely known, which is extremely unfair to him.
Which is why LRR will be writing him a big fat check! Take that to the bank!
Agreed. Ralston is a sack of shit. He has the biggest hard on for Laxalt, it's amazing.
Although the release of info was completely unjustifiable, I'm pretty sure Laxalt will land on his feet. The only reason he is in the AG race is his last name – and juice is thicker than blood in this town (pretty sure that didn't make sense but it was fun).
With the Laxalt name, I'm sure he's got plenty of juice and blood to go around in Nevada. He'll be fine. This does suck, though. I lost a lot of respect for Lewis and Roca and I never had any respect for Ralston anyway.
I think the juice is mostly limited to Reno. Vegas has too many transplants to know Laxalt.
Who is Joice Bass? Jesus Christ, she seems like a terror to work for.
From the tone of her remarks, you can tell she must be horrid.
If you remove her comments and ratings, he looks like someone who came from JAG corps where he ran his own cases to big firm/commercial litigation and didn't immediately get with the civil program. Others rated him as meets expectations or higher or not enough info to rate.
Yea, what a cold frigid bitch. Who the hell uses spell check and what's this crap about nonbillable assignments? Jeez, can't a guy make upwards of 120k a year anymore without having to be subjected to all these ridiculous requirements? WTH!
LOL 12:21, you CAN, if you're a Laxalt.
I have worked with Joice many times before – both as a colleague and opposing counsel. She's not "horrid." She's an excellent, respectful attorney and would not have written such comments lightly.
I'm sure she'd be glad to know that anonymous commenters have got her back.
Joice is a great attorney and not "horrid" in any. It is unfair to her for such confidential comments to be disclosed.
Thanks, Joice.
Don't know Bass, but she is kind of a fox. Makes me think of The Bad Touch.
I once had a boss that never said anything good about anyone. After working for that guy, I'm sure there's some piece of paper out there that says I'm a waste of skin. So I guess I'll never run for office.
Ralston being a mean-spirited vindictive prick has little to do with this. He's just doing his job. He hasn't crossed any legal or ethical line.
Reviews, while usually written by partners, are typically kept in the custody of an "HR Manager", "Firm Administrator", "Office Manager" or some similar type of non-lawyer employee. There's your screw-up.
Does anyone know who the top administrative person for LRR's Las Vegas office is? Or possibly at LRR's headquarters?
Whatever happens, that person is toast!
Before they fire the HR Manager, hope they publish her shit review for all the world to see too. Ha! See how her new job hunt goes with all those personal flaws highlighted to the world
Ya, let's see Joice Bass' reviews as well. What a complete bitch.
Work for her, I could not.
Butt boy, you would be.
I don't know if being a "mean-spirited vindictive prick" is a requirement for Ralston's job. This was a dick move on his part.
Isn't Ralston just being a journalist? I mean, you can't say the eval wasn't newsworthy, especially when the race is for the state's top attorney.
Yes, Ralston is being a (loosely defined) "journalist," but it's the way he went about this. It is clear he has a personal vendetta against Laxalt for whatever reason. That's fine, he's entitled to his opinion, but when he does this and then gloats, it is unbecoming.
What? No one going to way in on DA paying witnesses' rent without disclosing it to defense? I don't practice crim law, but sounds pretty shady to me. Is there any aspect of the system here that isn't corrupt?
*weigh
Use your spell check or Joice Bass will come after you!
Every criminal attorney knows that the DA's office is corrupt and ethically bankrupt. Those self righteous pricks hide evidence and over charge on every case.
Are any judgments or settlements concerning this leak going to come out the partner's pocket?
Based on my experience, Joice Bass calling out another attorney's questionable abilities is the "pot calling the kettle black."
Really? Detailz or your full of sh!te and probably just a bitter loser…
Hello Joice.
I've heard employees at LRR call her the "black widow" for all of the associates, paralegals etc. She's had a hand in firing with reviews like these. Word is she's super passive aggressive, crushing people in reviews that cant be traced back to her (until now).
Doubtful she would have the clout to get anyone fired. If you get fired from biglaw then you either really really suck or you pissed off the rainmaker in the corner office. Big law is notorious for letting failing attorneys hang around for years.
Bass doesn't fit the good ole boy partner prototype. Every female attorney I know has had the experience of being treated dismissively by a full-of-himself young buck new associate.
I am licking my chapsticked lips that one partner out of the six or eight partners in lewis and Ricardo's evaluation is a female….
If Joice Bass were a man, no one would be critiquing her evaluation. She was Lexalt's supervising partner, so her comments are more lengthy, but otherwise they are not out of the ordinary and are consistent with the others. The comments on this board indicating she would be hard to work for are just typical negative reactions to blunt criticism coming from a female in authority.
Where does her gender enter into this at all? She ripped him, that's all. Some people have said she's horrid, others have said she's great. Nice attempt to put your own biases into other people's comments. There are more women coming out of law school than men, you're winning; the sexism card is getting tired
"If you were a man, I'd punch you…right in the mouth."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NkwxtydkJk
Criticism that would be accepted from a man is often poorly received when coming from a woman. The comments on this thread reflect that, even if your personal biases prevent you from seeing it.
Old Ron Burgandy – classic!
If Bass were a man, I wouldn't be thinking of The Bad Touch. That's for sure.
^ was. I just copied the poor grammar from the female's quote above. Sorry guys.
Why? "Were" is correct.
I don't know Laxalt at all and do not have an opinion on his qualifications but this is a true story: I was a CLE with a table full of women attorneys of varying ages. Laxalt came up to us, introduced himself, and asked us if we were secretaries. Seriously. When he was informed that we were all licensed attorneys, he fumbled and mumbled and drifted away. I thought, nice looking and polite, but his handlers need some face time with him if he is going to succeed in politics.
That is another example of the sexism card getting tired…another rote example of male attorney, who discriminates against women, running for public office.
No. 1 item in running for office … know your audience … so you can BS your way to their heart.
I wasn't saying that he is sexist….I don't know him…but he was certainly clueless. (Usually) two different things.
Stop worrying your pretty little head. You'll get too confused. Save the critical thinking for the men. (That's a joke by the way before you lose your shit.)
I see what you did there! Proving once again that being clueless is not necessarily sexist but certainly can be. So funny!!
Offending the easily offended is awesome!
Hmm…I think we should feed the homeless to the hungry. That will solve two problems at once.
Please stop whining that any observation on gender is "playing the sexism" card. Yes, more women are coming out of law school, but it's going to take a while for that to be reflected in the demographics of the typical law firm. I'm not saying women are rampantly being oppressed or anything, but it's just naive to claim gender dynamics is a non-issue in many law firms.
Poor Laxalt. He's a politico, so no doubt his soul is destined for hell; but disclosing internal employee reviews is just plain wrong. I remember one partner going out of the way to hurt me in my annual review. How do you defend yourself? Gee, look at the trials I won, the money I collected, the amount of love my staff has for me even though I work them to death? Nope, no partnership for you. Never again a large firm. Never. Each and every one of you at a large firm is a bitch. Period. No exceptions. Yes, some are towering strap-on bitches pounding away in some vainglorious attempt at creating self-worth; but most of you are bent-over bitches gritting your teeth wishing you hadn't sacrificed your last scrap of dignity for a chance at the brass ring.
It's all subjective, and so even if the ultimate client likes you, and you get a good result, if a reviewing partner doesn't like like you for any petty reason they can just crush you in a one-sided tirade.