- Quickdraw McLaw
- 33 Comments
- 762 Views
- Here’s is Alexis Plunkett’s response to being disbarred. [News3LV]
- There are not many details about why the Commission on Judicial Discipline is taking action against Judges Melanie Andress-Tobiasson and Amy Chelini. [Baltimore Post-Examiner]
- Vegas marijuana magnate sues competitor. [TNI]
- Despite it being an ethical gray area, the marijuana industry is full of lawyers. [TNI]
What is going on in Justice Court and how come there is no information on the blog?
I have an inkling of what it might be, but I don't want to post speculation. I do however feel bad for the public that will have shitty pro tem judges until this shakes out. I was in front of a female clown judge then other day.
9:46 you have no idea.
The subject judges will continue to preside over their departments up and until the Commission issues its orders to suspend the judges after the hearing scheduled for next month. The notices of the hearing state that the Commission will have additional time to issue its rulings if unable to do so on the day of the hearing. If the judges are suspended, I would expect Bill Terry and Tom Pitaro to file Writs with the Supreme Court to stay the suspensions.
9:46 – Give it up. After all part of the attraction of this blog are the rumors. We need to be fed rumors. (it will all be public in a couple of weeks anyway).
Hey careful 9:46! I am not a shitty Pro Tem, but merely crappy.
I don't practice criminal law and I don't know anything of Alexis Plunkett other than what's been in the news. But I find her story simultaneously compelling and horrifying. Will someone who knows her please comment? Was she always on the edge? What caused her to go so far afield? Did anyone try to help her?
I think Alexis' issue was she stopped simply sympathizing with her criminal defendant clients and began actively associating and living with them (well living with one in particular). The boyfriend mentioned in the article was/is an active gang member and Alexis began socializing with the gang more and more. It was all downhill from there. She got caught up in the lifestyle with Andrew and attorneys can't start running around with gang members and threatening rival gang members without drawing attention
Not just running around. It appears that she actually adopted the mindset.
But you are disgraceful, because you are smart enough to realize that Alexis is a gang banger. She is 40 years old who is not responsible for her own actions.
I suppose that continuous exposure to and involvement in the lifestyle, thinking, behaviors, and activities of gang bangers will, over time, create a normalization. If she was indeed that involved, then that is probably as good an explanation as any. She became acclimated.
As to the question of whether the NSC(in ruling in favor of permanent disbarment) should have substituted their judgment in place of the Commission's decuison, the question is not "can they"(of course they "can" as the matter is to be reviewed de novo), the question is "should they"?
It's a fair question. I don't profess to have an answer, only an opinion at best. Seems the Commission spent many hours receiving, and assessing the credibility and sincerity of witness, and significant consideration of documentary evidence as well.
The Commission never ruled that she should be re-admitted after five years–just that she could conceivably try to meet the very demanding burden for re-entry at any time after five years.
Guess the NSC is pretty clear that they don't want any possibility that such person could ever be considered for re-entry.
There is some crazy behavioral shit involved here by this attorney,but no sacred cows such as trust fund invasions or stealing money.
There have been lawyers with serious addictions and who have ripped off hundreds of thousands and even millions. A few(although admittedly not many)did experience a dramatic turn around and got re-admitted after five years or so.
Point is those individuals were not permanently disbarred. Ripping off millions of dollars from dozens of clients(many who are disabled and could generate no income but for such settlement that got stolen)have probably caused real serious harm to far more people than the drama by the lawyer at issue ever caused. She did cause some real problems with a few criminal cases(and I realize how serious that is),and behaved quite oddly and unethically, but I don't think it quite compares to ripping people off of huge sums of money(like a few lawyers did who eventually got re-admitted).
Now I realize on some level I am comparing apples to oranges.
12:36–I guess it can be argued that lawyers who ripped off their clients, and then eventually got readmitted, may have caused far greater far reaching harm than a situation like we have here.
But, as you yourself suggest, comparing a behavioral based case to a financial case, may not always be reasonable. Now if you compare two financial cases, with two attorneys ripping off money, to establish disparity of discipline, that is a more effective argument.
Also, even when money is not really involved to a significant extent, behavior and unethical actions can be serious enough to justify disbarment.
Had she shown some real remorse, and commitment to turn her life around and modify her behavior, accompanied by proof of therapy and the like, she may not have been permanently disbarred.
Generally, permanent disbarment is not something I'd wish on my worst enemy , but I think the Supreme Court had more than a sufficient basis to rule as they did.
I know Alexis and this is very sad. She did some very good work for some folks that nobody else would touch. Pro bono a lot of times. I'm bothered by the fact that she negotiated a plea to the criminal case based on an agreement to a 5 year suspension. So the bar discipline didn't really get litigated and the NSC decided to ignore that. Can they do that? Yes. But should they? With the number of lawyers motivated by greed that got only suspensions, seems unfair.
Yes, its a real shame she wont be fighting to get criminals released back into our community any more.
No way 2:18 is an attorney. Representing those accused of crimes is the attorney's job.
Breaking ethical rules was the problem.
2:18 seems to believe the attorney should be condemned merely for representing those accused of crimes. This reeks of the most unsophisticated of lay opinion. Never heard a licensed attorney make such a buffoonish, ignorant remark.
Guess if 2:18 is an attorney they are the only attorney that has the luxury of representing totally pure and blameless people, who are complete victims and never contributed anything to their existing problems.
Hogge is a clown. NSC got this right. I am following your decisions during the election year to advocate to other people who they should vote for.
Just par for the course when it comes to NSC and bar discipline. Why bother cooperating or negotiating a plea when NSC will frequently put the screws to the attorney regardless?
4:43– You are prescient beyond your years. As someone who deals with bar discipline regularly, there is virtually no reason to cooperate with the OBC or enter a plea based upon an Conditional Guilty Plea and stipulated discipline. The Nevada Supreme Court does not care. There are the incidents a few years ago in which certain counsel entered into an Agreement with the OBC to voluntarily be suspended, only to have the Nevada Supreme Court refuse to recognize the period of voluntary suspension in calculating the period of suspension.
Furthermore (and if you chart decisions you will see this), mitigating factors are virtually irrelevant to the Court. If Plunkett had 3 mitigators or 10 mitigators, the Court would rule the same. In fact there are cases in which persons with MORE mitigating factors have gotten longer suspensions than attorneys with less mitigators for the same violations. For example, compare Plunkett (aggravators of lying to the State Bar, Metro and the Court) with Lizzie Hatcher, who lied to Metro, the State Bar and the Court. Hatcher got a 1 year suspension.
12:36 and 12:43 provide good food for thought, but to abruptly switch topics–why is our sole(or at least primary source)of the ongoing ethical challenges of local judges, a Baltimore-based news source?
Agreed. Also, why do we have to go to a Baltimore source when there are multiple news outlets in the Las Vegas Valley? The answer is that there is no real local newspaper that will take on the real issues. The Las Vegas Review Journal and the Las Vegas Sun stay away from any local controversy because they want to play nice with everybody and the hell with the truth. The best 2009-2010 Bank crisis and HOA scandel stories from Vegas were in the Seattle Times and the Los Angeles times. You can check those facts. It is still 1975 in this town after all of these years.
The Las Vegas news/media consumer must be fairly savvy. In my opinion, the RJ is actually a decent paper in terms of the breadth of its content. The trick with the RJ is that you have to remember to be skeptical whenever Sheldon A. has a direct or indirect interest in the story (for example, when he was involved early on in the Raiders Stadium). Sometimes his interest is obvious, other times it may not be.
The news stations appear to be stretched too thin to do any real substantive news. Most of their "stories" fall into the following categories: (1) regurgitating press releases (MGM "job fairs" new chain restaurants coming to the valley, etc.); (2) quick hit crime stories. These stories can be put together quickly at little expense and, because they are shocking, can be great for ratings; and (3) stories that give obvious advice ("Tune in tonight when we'll review what you need to know about pool safety, and how to keep your toddler from drowning"). Local TV news is almost a complete waste of time.
The Las Vegas Sun is really half a newspaper. Sheldon and the RJ are correct that they hold back their best content from the print version, which is usually just Brian Greenspun giving his opinion, one local article and a bunch of New York Times wire service articles from 2-3 days ago. The masthead posts that the Sun is a Pulitzer Prize winning newspaper. Really, it's a husk of what was once a Pulitzer Prize winning newspaper.
I like KNPR. In my opinion, they are the best local news outlet. The problem though, is that they have extremely limited resources and therefore what local news they do have isn't comprehensive.
Anyway, the bottom line is that all Las Vegas news orgs have some kind of limitation that prevent them from being a comprehensive, reliable source of local news. The Salt Lake media market is roughly the same size, and they have two reputable newspapers, solid local TV news and the local behemoth KSL (TV, radio, .com). By the way, what does it say about Las Vegas that our town can't support a commercial news talk station? KXNT did try a few years ago. They had a solid morning program with Dayna Roselli and Nathan Tannenbaum and it flopped in the ratings. Now KXNT is just talk.
See the RJ article from Nov. 8 reporting Chelini and Tobiasson discipline.
https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/courts/2-las-vegas-judges-pose-threat-of-serious-harm-panel-says-1888989/
Sent to all JEA's today:
Your Honor:
My name is Bill Nelson. You may or may not already know who I am, as I've been a Certified Court Reporter working in the Federal District Court, State District Court and the Las Vegas Justice Court here in Las Vegas since 1983.
My office, Bill Nelson & Associates, presently handles the Court Reporting duties for Judge Jim Crockett in District Court 24 and Judge Joe Bonaventure in Justice Court 9. Over the years we have covered many District Courts, both Federal and State, and Justice Courts. We are experts in working in the courtrooms, as opposed to freelance deposition Court Reporters. We are also experts in producing daily-copy transcripts during trials.
It's recently come to my attention from many local attorneys, as well as a few Judges, that there seems to be a real dissatisfaction in the so-called certified transcripts they are receiving from the departments with Court Recorders in regards to important testimony being left out as "unintelligible" by the typists that can't seem to understand what is said on the recordings, leaving a blank in the transcript that could be one word or a whole paragraph that may be important in regards to an appeal. Also, trials where the attorneys want daily-copy transcripts they are telling me that the Court Recorders aren't getting them daily, instead are providing them in two or three days. When we do daily-copy transcripts as Court Reporters, they are produced over night and provided the very next morning.
I understand a lot of Judges do appreciate having the audio recordings produced by the JAVS System for the use of themselves and/or their staff in preparing minute orders, etc.
As a Court Reporter with many years of experience in courtrooms, I have a way to get around the unacceptable transcripts being produced by the Court Recorders. The courtrooms are already provided the JAVS recordings, so I would submit that the best way to use it is to keep it in all courtrooms for audio, but to use an experienced Certified Court Reporter in conjunction with it as the official court record. That way the Judges and staff members will still have the audio, but the attorneys and Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals will be able to refer to verbatim transcripts when there is an appeal.
Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that my company and myself are available to handle your Court Reporting duties in your courtroom if you are presently unhappy with your situation for any reason.
I will be happy to come and sit down with you and answer any questions you may have regarding my qualifications, reputation and Court Reporting versus Court Recording scenarios.
Thanks for your time, and I hope to show you how to have the best of both worlds in your courtroom when it comes to making a verbatim record.
Bill Nelson
Certified Court Reporter
Bill Nelson & Associates
Las Vegas, Nevada
702-302-2156
zbillnelson@aol.com
Do not use this guy! Rude and unprofessional.
It's incredible that an employee of the court, "Official Reporter" is soliciting work for his company outside of his role he should uphold as an officer of the court. There is a reason that there is only a handful of Certified Court Reporters left in the court system and since his position will fade as Judge Crockett retires, he is actively searching for new employment for himself and his company. With the ever increasing shortage of Court Reporters being felt in the freelance market it is only inevitable that the balance of courtrooms will convert to Digital.
Yes, there are those rare instances where "unintelligible" are used, the fault is not with the equipment but in the process of outsourcing transcriptionists. Are you aware that the majority of transcriptionists are not based in Nevada or are certified in any manner? And don't forget, there isn't one attorney out there, just like myself, that have received a transcription back from a Court Reporter and read through it and found areas where the reporter "paraphrased" or "substituted" his/her opinion of what they heard. I have been told by a retired Supreme Court Justice that court Reporting is the highest form of hearsay. Although the career of Court Reporting is a learned skill and most reporters are professionals, it is fraught with potential of abuse or laziness in order to produce as many jobs the reporter can do because they are paid by the page.
We are in the middle stage of a shortage of reporters nationwide and it is currently being felt here in Nevada, specifically Clark County. Digital Deposition Officers are currently being used in the freelance market of depositions as allowed by NRCP 28 and 30B3. This was upheld in the revised NRCP in March, why should the Court be immune from this technology? It isn't and it won't be.
Instead of searching for work outside your official position you signed up for, I propose to follow the requirements in most jurisdictions that use digital recording. Have a court appointed Transcriptionist list that is certified by the AAERT. For those of you unaware of the AAERT, it is an organization founded in 1993 with its sole responsibility in Certifying Digital Reporters and Digital Transcriptionists. These highly qualified individuals are capable of handling the specifics of the JAVS system as well as any other digital media presented to them. They are trained to utilize the individual recorded audio channels that JAVS is capable of recording with to turn on and off microphones during playback to isolate each speaker and thus create the most accurate transcript possible. Why else do "ALL" Court reporters use digital recording in addition to the stenographic equipment they employ during trial and depositions?
The official record of a digital hearing or deposition is the Audio/Visual recording. It is so stated in NRCP 30. Nothing conveys intent or demeanor better that an audio/video recording. "the Video never lies" or paraphrases!
Says who? A competing court reporter. The man has a tight to make a living!
right
Exactly what I thought. What kind of person posts an anonymous swipe like that? Maybe 4:36 should try to compete with Mr. Nelson's quality and quick turnaround instead of smearing him online.
Do not use Western Reporting, screwed up multiple transcripts for our firm.
Obviously you aren't old enough to remember Stella Butterfield. Damn whippersnappers.
For the whippersnappers: Stella Butterfield was the last shorthand reporter and her transcripts were perfect. Stella is still alive.
She would have to be in her 90's by now. Late 90's. Allan Earl was about the last attorney I knew of who used her.
She's about 94. She isn't reporting anymore.