- Quickdraw McLaw
- 40 Comments
- 179 Views
- Las Vegas Municipal Court Judge Martin Hastings publicly reprimanded. [RJ]
- Understanding Nevada’s new gun transfer law. [Las Vegas Sun]
- A former security guard at the Nevada National Test Site is suing over allegations of sexual assault. [Las Vegas Sun]
- Here is a copy of the Complaint against the State Bar of Texas that was mentioned yesterday.
- From a press release:
Chief Justice Mark Gibbons has announced three attorneys have been recommended to Governor Steve Sisolak for his consideration to fill the opening on the Clark County Family Court made vacant by the retirement of Judge Cynthia Dianne Steel.
The Nevada Commission on Judicial Selection’s three nominees for the open position, in alphabetical order, are:
· Rhonda Kay Forsberg, 56, Henderson, Rhonda K. Forsberg, Chartered
· Amy M. Mastin, 49, Las Vegas, Eighth Judicial District Family Court
· Shann Dee Winesett, 52, Las Vegas, Pecos Law GroupA total of 11 Nevada attorneys with 10 years of legal experience and two years of Nevada residency applied for the position and participated in public interviews in Las Vegas. As has been the rule since 2007, the Commission’s interviews were open to the public and public comment was requested.
In selecting the finalists, the Commission considered the applicants’ interviews along with information in comprehensive applications about education, law practice, business involvement, community involvement, and professional and personal conduct. The Commission also considered letters of reference and public statements during the interview process.
The Governor’s appointee must run in the 2020 General Election and win to retain the seat.
No time limit exists for the Governor to make his choice. However, if appointments are not made within 30 days following submission of names by the Commission, the Governor may make no other appointments to public office.
The State Bar of Texas, The State Bar of Oregon and the State Bar of Arizona are all being sued for the overreach that they have had for so many years. All of these state bars have been using obscene amounts of money from the dues paying members to fund their political agendas and attorneys in each state have said enough is enough. The bars are under scrutiny for the amount of power that they have with no check and balances. Hopefully an attorney with a Nevada bar license will sue the Nevada State Bar and put their unchecked power under a microscope.
Blog is repetitive.
For those of us who do not understand the finer nuances of this type of law (administrative law, or what actually is it?)….
What SHOULD the bar be allowed to do with our dues, and
what SHOULD the bar NOT be allowed to do with our dues?
And what are the legal arguments behind each argument?
I'm very interested in how this is proceed9ing but all I see is discussion about how various state bars shouldn't be doing XYZ without any further legal explanation. And there was also a case recently up north (Montana?) where some attorney sued his state bar and won.
A mandatory licensure organization is allowed to do only that which is necessary for licensure (admissions/discipline). All of the political activity and frou-frou stuff (paying for Kim Farmer to get to take all-expense paid trips to the Annual Meeting in whatever town she wants to go to next) are not necessary parts of professional licensure and have no business in a mandatory bar. If you took out the non-necessary parts of the Bar Dues and made them part of a voluntary bar association (think Clark County Bar Association), your mandatory dues would/should plummet. SBN membership and revenues plummet and the State Bar of Nevada becomes a bigger version of the CCBA.
I think any start would involve some transparency on expenditures assuming a report does not already exist. I'd like to know the cost of administering the state bar exam (and whether two per year is necessary or required at this point) as well as staffing and salary information. I would also like to see travel costs and expenditures. Following the money might be an ideal start.
For more background, read these posts:
https://bit.ly/2Ht6PYk
https://bit.ly/2ChDFrM
And this one, which includes this quote that also applies to Nevada, Texas and Arizona.
https://bit.ly/2EXKbo8
"Like 31 other states, Oregon forces lawyers to join a bar association and pay mandatory member dues—which in many instances don’t just go toward regulating the legal profession or protecting clients: They’re often used to fund political activities and advocacy that many bar members disagree with."
Here is a link to the 2018 Annual Report, which has the breakdown of income/expenses for the Bar.
https://www.nvbar.org/wp-content/uploads/SBN-AnnualReport2018.pdf
Forced association to hold an occupation is a wonderful idea. Oh wait… see First Amendment.
I don't see salaries on the three pages or so report (it's so pretty). Administration must cover it a $1.5 million. And only a mere $166K for the annual state bar function no one I have ever met is able to attend. Thanks to whoever posted it.
The income from the annual meeting is $178,400, so the meeting pays for itself plus some.
Annual Meeting Income of $178,400; direct expenses of $166,800. What that $166,800 did not include is the staff salaries for Kim F. and company and assorted support expenses to get a free vacation to Austin/Chicago/Kathmandu (which is lumped into Administration). Unless you get to look behind the curtain and see what composes those numbers, you never would know what it is hiding. As someone who has met with Finance at the SBN, the Annual Meeting is a revenue loser every year. That does not include the fact that the Annual Meeting is complete ineffective and worthless for the majority of members who have zero desire to spend their money to go to Chicago.
Let me give you another example, LRE is a money loser for the SBN so it changed its accounting methods to lump it in with LRIS (which was a cash cow for years). Then LRIS was asked to fund diversity scholarships. Then LRIS was asked to fund LRE. Now LRIS is lumped in accountingwise with LRE. Kim F. hated and hates LRIS and has run it into the ground. Guess what? LRIS/LRE is no longer cash positive.
Yeah, I don't buy for a second that the Lawyer Referral Information System cost $237k to run, or that Legal Related Education brought in any part of the $257k income attributed to "LRIS/LRE." Also, someone want to explain to me what the hell costs are involved in the TIP program, such that SBN burned through $71k? It's nothing but a $350 tax on new lawyers.
It cost $257k to run the one free 1/8 inch add in the yellow pages for LRIS that is now free, because no one pays for advertising. Also, it costs $257k a year to no update the contact information for Lori Wolk who has not been there for three years. BOGS have their sparkle on now.
This report is a trainwreck
So Marty Hastings is just plain lazy?
I keep being impressed with what the judicial commission does. Really, grants on call and Heidi Alamse. Way worse things that judges are doing, but good work.
Low hanging fruit.
I genuinely like Judge Hastings and, I think, he is very popular with both prosecutors and defense attorneys. I have no idea why he opted to not do the search warrant on-call duty. My take on Municipal Court, though, is that one or two people down there run things with an iron fist and, if you aren't liked, you get run out or leave. I hope Judge Hastings is able to stay on the bench.
Marty Hastings is a nice man, no I am not him, I am a woman. I knew him when he was a prosecutor. Good judge. This is such a joke that the panel would pursue this. Just like OBC, we only want to go after the lower rung of attorneys and judges.
Hastings is a great judge but I could see the rest of the superior, self important Muni judges looking down on him because he isn't one to take himself too seriously. LV Municipal Court is a joke. Like 11:57 said, there are 1 or 2 good Judges, and they rule the roost with an iron fist. But collectively the Muni Judges come off as arrogant and superior when, for the most part, they are bottom of the barrel.
Agree with 11:57 and 1:32 that there may be a few self-important Muni judges strutting about in their own private fiefdoms, not,apparently, recognizing the extreme limitations, and thus quite limited importance, of their position in the county-wide and state-wide judicial food chain.
Also believe that 12:11 hits on an issue concerning OBC that is currently shared by many and many, and merits some real inquiry and analysis.
But whatever we think of the arrogance of certain muni judges, that kind of fails to directly address the very specific issue. We are trained as lawyers, and hopefully to think logically, and not to analyze matters and reach conclusions based on how much we personally like the people involved. So, we cannot ignore the following:
1. Night Time Warrant Duty(or whatever it's stupid acronym is) is dreadful and despised by all. Who the Hell wants to be constantly woken up with this s—?
2. The other judges, whether or not they be arrogant and self-aggrandizing, endured this duty since its inception.
3. Judge Hastings though has been avoiding it for four years and using tax-payer funded alternates for this highly unenviable garbage of a task.
So yes, these other judges may be as characterized, and they are clearly throwing Hastings to the wolves and no one is getting behind him to lend any support. But it does not change the fact he avoided this awful duty while the others endured it for years.
So, the fact I like Hastings but don't really like some of the others, does not change the facts that he avoided an important duty.
So, obviously I may be missing something important, so please someone explain it. Now if Bar Counsel over-reacted by strongly pursuing this matter, that is at least an argument. And to argue that the other judges ganged up on Hastings and cast him adrift appears to be a fair observation. But the apparent conclusion that because he is nice, while the pthers may be arrogant, does not justify him in avoiding this warrant duty.
Why not have a night time duty judge? It worked for Harry T. Stone.
It appears (but was never mentioned) whether there was any policy about using alternate or pro tem judges other than that the type of use needed to be categorized (business, personal or medical). What prohibited the municipal court from having an internal policy and/or limit on time taken off? There is a budget in every court for using pro tems and alternates and, assuming Hastings was overusing the budget, why not make a policy? Also, is this situation really worth the amount of money the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline spent making an example of Hastings? I've practiced in Nevada for nearly 20 years and I recall a time when both the State Bar and the Commission had some sense of how to value a case – is a letter of caution warranted, should mentoring apply, etc. The Hastings case was a monumental waste of money and could have been handled at the Municipal level with a policy (as opposed to the draconian my way or the highway typically employed) or with a modicum of restraint at the Commission level. I say this as someone who spent the majority of my career as a prosecutor where valuing a case is a primary job responsibility.
8:10 am – great post, thank you. I also watch the judicial discipline and bar cases with disbelief–the sense of proportion and priorities seems like it's upside down.
8:10 – while I agree with most of your post, one thing does jump out at me from the news articles: this was not the go-to method for addressing Judge Hasting's avoidance of night watch. Looks like the Chief Judge tried giving him specific instructions at numerous times, and Judge Hastings still wouldn't comply. But if he was on the bench every day (and thus never used pro tems or alternates for the daily work), I don't see any reason why he couldn't delegate the craptastic job of getting woken up all night for a week straight to an alternate.
8:10 here. I do not know why Hastings opted to dig in and not do the search warrrant duty. It is a part of the job whether any like it or not. I do know the Hardcastle 'strong chief judge' case as well as the Hoefgran commission decision (which basically states you either snitch on a fellow judge you know or believe to be engaged in some wrong doing or face discipline yourself) was the stated basis for the many warnings Hastings received. My issue is with the way it was handled and my general criticism of the way Municipal Court is run (see other comments) by one or two judges. Should Hastings have done his duty? Yes. Could a policy have been implemented when the issue became apparent at the Municipal Court level? Yes. Would a policy have perhaps impacted other judges' use of alternates/pro tems? Yes. The absurdity of the situation IMO is that rather than assessing the situation and addressing it with a common sense policy, one or two judges opted to go for the nuclear option (for personal reasons also IMO) which has resulted in additional funds expended because the Commission is incapable of valuing cases and either appropriately negotiating them or not charging them in lieu of other disciplinary options.
Along the same lines as what 8:10 stated, why does it matter how someone in Hastings' position chooses to use his/her requested time off? Hastings is always on the bench. There doesn't appear to be any internal policy limiting the time taken off by these Judges, particularly in Municipal Court. Every other Municipal Court Judge seems to take advantage of this, vacationing several times a month, never working a full schedule, leaving after a half day of "work" to go piss around while everyone else is grinding. If Hastings wants to use his discretionary leave time to find a replacement for warrant duty, why shouldn't he be permitted the same leniency as the other Judges on the bench? Why can't he use his apparently unlimited time off, while the other Judges take advantage of the system. This persecution is a total waste of time and resources.
And @5:15 p.m., it's more than "a few" Municipal Court Judges that don't realize their quite limited importance, it's all of them. Spend a few weeks there and you'll agree.
@9:47AM This. Exactly this.
Jill Carol Davis at judicial commission, keeping it real!
The case "up north" is out of North Dakota not Montana. It is Fleck v. Wetch that was remanded by SCOTUS to the 8th Circuit. https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/fleck-v-wetch/
There are two issues presented by Fleck:
(1) Whether it violates the First Amendment for state law to presume that the petitioner consents to subsidizing non-chargeable speech by the group he is compelled to fund (an “opt-out” rule), as opposed to an “opt-in” rule whereby the petitioner must affirmatively consent to subsidizing such speech; and
(2) whether Keller v. State Bar of California and Lathrop v. Donohue should be overruled insofar as they permit the state to force the petitioner to join a trade association he opposes as a condition of earning a living in his chosen profession.
Also see this link. https://goldwaterinstitute.org/fleck-v-wetch/
"Mandatory state bar associations—like unions, student organizations, and other mandatory groups—have a special privilege: The law allows them to collect money from people who would rather not give it. With that special privilege comes a special responsibility to not spend that money on politics and other activities irrelevant to the purposes of the group, and to have special safeguards in place to make sure dissenters’ rights are respected."
"The State Bar Association of North Dakota (SBAND) takes full advantage of its special privilege, but it ignores its corresponding responsibilities. SBAND violates the rights of its 2,700 members, using their mandatory dues to engage in lobbying efforts and other activities not relevant to the practice of law, while lacking the basic procedural protections required by law."
Cannot believe no one has yet commented on the collegiate bribery scandal. As if certain attorneys in this town have not greased some palms (NOTE: Elisabeth Kimmel is variously listed as a media executive and an attorney).
No Elisabeth Kimmel listed as a member of the Nevada Bar, although I hear the head of one of the white-shoe firms was indicted.
Is this one where Aunt Becky tried to buy her kids way into USC?
If you're interested in the 269 page complaint (that was sealed by motion when filed but unsealed one day later by another motion) take a look here (I also OCR'd it so it can be searched): https://bit.ly/2Hvcux5 and the arrest warrants are here: https://bit.ly/2TNx0iU
What, were UNR and UNLV listed among the "elite" institutions involved?
The finalists for department 6 are:
Trevor L. Atkin
Stephanie A. Barker
Jacqueline Bluth
Please God no Stephanie Barker. OBC sucks continue.
Proof positive you can be a judge in Nevada even though you bombed law school – atkin's app says he was on academic probation after first year and graduated in bottom 15%; Barker and Bluth just ignore the question re law school performance. Some of the others were at the very top of their class.
I get that law school ranking isn't the be all and end all but it counts for something more than this commission apparently understands. And the argument that voters can't assess judicial candidates is what, exactly?
Once upon a time, you were able to access LV Justice Court filings through Odyssey/Wiznet, same as the EJDC. Then, things got fancy, and e-filing became mandatory. There's a fancy new e-file & serve site that serves both, but doesn't provide document access. EJDC filings are accessible through the Attorney Portal. How do I access Justice Court filings these days? I almost never do anything down there, and now that I need to, I want my DAP back.
Two ethics opinions need comments on the Nevada Bar site:
https://www.nvbar.org/about-us/bar-committees/professional-responsibility-ethics/ethics-opinion-drafts-feedback-form/