On June 22, 2026, the Eighth Judicial District Court issued Administrative Order 26-03: an administrative order regarding general civil, criminal, and family case assignments. According to the order, in order to pilot a new Business Court model, Judges Maria Gall, Dept. 9, and Joe Hardy, Dept. 15, will be designated as full business court judges.
The order states that all Business Court cases currently assigned to Departments 16, 22, and 31 shall be evenly and randomly assigned to Departments 9 and 15. All cases, including Business Court cases, assigned to Department 13 shall remain there. Department 9’s civil cases will be reassigned to Department 22. Department 15’s civil cases will be reassigned to Department 31. Department 15’s professional negligence/medical malpractice cases will be reassigned to Department 30.
In addition, to accommodate the change of chief judges, Department 30 will return to a general civil/criminal case assignment. It will be assigned cases from Departments 24 and 15. Department 10 shall become the chief judge’s department and will retain its homicide cases. Civil cases currently assigned to Department 10 will be redistributed. Department 24 will become a split civil/criminal docket.
Gall is great. Taking Department 16’s Business Court load away to give to 15 is preposterous (especially in light of saying that 13’s Business Court load will stay in Department 13). As for Department 31, I think the powers that be have heard enough about how legal ability has been overrun with technical minutiae. Reminds me of that last scene in Good Morning Vietnam.
“I’ve covered for you a lot of times cause I thought you were a little crazy. But you’re not crazy, you’re mean. And this is just [litigation].”
And all of this is only for the next six months, as the court will be completely rearranged in January 2027 after the elections. But at least we’ll see some stability for the six years following that.
Dirty Hardy? Ugh. Might as well move business court to Bonanza.
Guest
Anonymous
June 23, 2026 11:53 am
Here is a question for the group: What is your normal expectation re response time from other counsel to a voice mail or email? Assuming it is somewhat time sensitive but not a five-alarm fire (meaning a few weeks or so, not a few days or hours) my expectation has always been 24-48 hours (not counting weekends) if you are on my side of the V (by “V” I mean case get your minds out of the gutter) and maybe up to double that if you’re on the other side. A 20 second response that simply says “Hey I’m still waiting to hear back from X about Z, will let you know in ten days or so” is usually acceptable, depending on circumstances. Is this reasonable, or is this one of those “tell me you are at least mid-Gen X or older without telling me you are at least mid-Gen X or older type of things?
I think 2-3 days is an ok time to expect a response. I get bogged down with emails sometimes, and I don’t take offense if someone sends a follow up email after 3-5 days (assuming not an urgent response is needed).
If it’s 2-3 days and I don’t respond I actually somewhat appreciate a follow up because I very likely was bogged in either e mails or some motion that I had to concentrate on at the time and didn’t circle back.
Someone who is AV-rated preeminent does not sit by the phone waiting on the unwashed. The correspondent clock runs one direction: the unwashed wait on my attention, not the reverse. Response time in my practice tracks the file – specifically, what the file has generated in fees and what the correspondent’s standing warrants. A matter that has accrued meaningfully gets a call back within the day. A matter where the client has been slow to remit gets a call back when I am not otherwise occupied with matters that have not been slow to remit. This is not Gen X. This is proper allocation of a finite and expensive resource.
Guest
Anonymous
June 23, 2026 8:47 pm
How many motions in limine are too many motions in limine?
How many can you justify billing for? How many will advance your case? How many will take your attention away from billing/issues that may actually change things?
The foreclosure ruling is the one that will generate real work – Justices reject constitutional attack on foreclosure rules, per SCOTUSblog. I have, as a FLEXCOM past member who has watched this doctrine drift for years, a fairly settled view: the challengers were arguing the wrong theory entirely, and the brief-writers on that side should be deeply uncomfortable with their billing statements. Any practitioner reading the holding who doesn’t immediately see three fee-generating collateral challenges in the consumer-debt and HOA context is not paying attention. The premise of the constitutional attack was, to be charitable, undeveloped. Courts got this right for the wrong reasons, which is almost worse.
Guest
Anonymous
June 26, 2026 7:34 pm
Harry Reid International is raising short-term parking to $38 daily maximum. I note in passing that my billing rate – six hundred fifty an hour after considerable resistance from less serious practitioners – means a full billing day exceeds that figure before lunch. The airport has repriced its product once in seven years. I have repriced mine four times in that period, each increase fully disclosed to clients who, frankly, had no viable alternative. The parking authority’s restraint is, on reflection, not a model I would recommend to the bar. Any practitioner still holding their rate from 2019 is, in the technical sense, subsidizing their clients. I cannot stress this enough.
On June 22, 2026, the Eighth Judicial District Court issued Administrative Order 26-03: an administrative order regarding general civil, criminal, and family case assignments. According to the order, in order to pilot a new Business Court model, Judges Maria Gall, Dept. 9, and Joe Hardy, Dept. 15, will be designated as full business court judges.
The order states that all Business Court cases currently assigned to Departments 16, 22, and 31 shall be evenly and randomly assigned to Departments 9 and 15. All cases, including Business Court cases, assigned to Department 13 shall remain there. Department 9’s civil cases will be reassigned to Department 22. Department 15’s civil cases will be reassigned to Department 31. Department 15’s professional negligence/medical malpractice cases will be reassigned to Department 30.
In addition, to accommodate the change of chief judges, Department 30 will return to a general civil/criminal case assignment. It will be assigned cases from Departments 24 and 15. Department 10 shall become the chief judge’s department and will retain its homicide cases. Civil cases currently assigned to Department 10 will be redistributed. Department 24 will become a split civil/criminal docket.
Fits with the blog’s headline today.
Gall is great. Taking Department 16’s Business Court load away to give to 15 is preposterous (especially in light of saying that 13’s Business Court load will stay in Department 13). As for Department 31, I think the powers that be have heard enough about how legal ability has been overrun with technical minutiae. Reminds me of that last scene in Good Morning Vietnam.
“I’ve covered for you a lot of times cause I thought you were a little crazy. But you’re not crazy, you’re mean. And this is just [litigation].”
Has 31 gotten better after drawing an opponent?
And all of this is only for the next six months, as the court will be completely rearranged in January 2027 after the elections. But at least we’ll see some stability for the six years following that.
Dirty Hardy? Ugh. Might as well move business court to Bonanza.
Here is a question for the group: What is your normal expectation re response time from other counsel to a voice mail or email? Assuming it is somewhat time sensitive but not a five-alarm fire (meaning a few weeks or so, not a few days or hours) my expectation has always been 24-48 hours (not counting weekends) if you are on my side of the V (by “V” I mean case get your minds out of the gutter) and maybe up to double that if you’re on the other side. A 20 second response that simply says “Hey I’m still waiting to hear back from X about Z, will let you know in ten days or so” is usually acceptable, depending on circumstances. Is this reasonable, or is this one of those “tell me you are at least mid-Gen X or older without telling me you are at least mid-Gen X or older type of things?
I think 2-3 days is an ok time to expect a response. I get bogged down with emails sometimes, and I don’t take offense if someone sends a follow up email after 3-5 days (assuming not an urgent response is needed).
You can stay on your side of the vajaja. 😛
If it’s 2-3 days and I don’t respond I actually somewhat appreciate a follow up because I very likely was bogged in either e mails or some motion that I had to concentrate on at the time and didn’t circle back.
Someone who is AV-rated preeminent does not sit by the phone waiting on the unwashed. The correspondent clock runs one direction: the unwashed wait on my attention, not the reverse. Response time in my practice tracks the file – specifically, what the file has generated in fees and what the correspondent’s standing warrants. A matter that has accrued meaningfully gets a call back within the day. A matter where the client has been slow to remit gets a call back when I am not otherwise occupied with matters that have not been slow to remit. This is not Gen X. This is proper allocation of a finite and expensive resource.
How many motions in limine are too many motions in limine?
6
No such thing
How many can you justify billing for? How many will advance your case? How many will take your attention away from billing/issues that may actually change things?
Bench trial? 1
The foreclosure ruling is the one that will generate real work – Justices reject constitutional attack on foreclosure rules, per SCOTUSblog. I have, as a FLEXCOM past member who has watched this doctrine drift for years, a fairly settled view: the challengers were arguing the wrong theory entirely, and the brief-writers on that side should be deeply uncomfortable with their billing statements. Any practitioner reading the holding who doesn’t immediately see three fee-generating collateral challenges in the consumer-debt and HOA context is not paying attention. The premise of the constitutional attack was, to be charitable, undeveloped. Courts got this right for the wrong reasons, which is almost worse.
Harry Reid International is raising short-term parking to $38 daily maximum. I note in passing that my billing rate – six hundred fifty an hour after considerable resistance from less serious practitioners – means a full billing day exceeds that figure before lunch. The airport has repriced its product once in seven years. I have repriced mine four times in that period, each increase fully disclosed to clients who, frankly, had no viable alternative. The parking authority’s restraint is, on reflection, not a model I would recommend to the bar. Any practitioner still holding their rate from 2019 is, in the technical sense, subsidizing their clients. I cannot stress this enough.