- Quickdraw McLaw
- 37 Comments
- 155 Views
- Nevada Business’ Legal Elite 2020 list is out for your enjoyment.
- Attorney and Gaming Control Board chair Sandra Douglass Morgan talks about safety compliance ahead of casinos reopening. [TNI]
- The parent company of TI is suing its insurer for denying coverage during the COVID-19 pandemic. [8NewsNow]
- Here’s a look at races for the Family Court bench from Nevada Current.
We usually think of Nevada judicial races as involving hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions in expenditures per race, and such is still true for RJC races, and even much more so for NSC races.
But, the article in the Nevada Current demonstrates that as to the Family Court races, the large majority of candidates have raised less than $10,000(and most of the time they have raised far closer to $0. than the $10,000. amount).And it appears that of these small amounts the average candidate raises, much of it may be them lending their own money to the campaign.
It appears the incumbent judges who are on the ballot are doing a little better with fundraising than their opponents, or candidates for open seats, but it is still surprising how very little these incumbents are raising.
Now, I do recognize that this is the pandemic, and also that elections in Family Court never approaches the kind of money that the average RJC incumbent raises. But these are still county-wide judicial seats, and the Primary is soon upon us, and we have sitting judges, involved in a Primary, who are raising amounts very much under $10,000
You nailed it. Fundraiser cocktail parties have been zilch which is a great way to squeeze monies. I will also say with the pandemic, our firm has been much tighter in our donations because of economic concerns as well as keeping our powder dry for the primary elections.
The Legal Elite cover is not practicing social distancing.
Photoshop is my guess.
10:21, you already alluded to some of the reasons.
I believe the reasons primarily are:(1)the pandemic;(2)there are an unusually high number of these Family Court seats up for election(about six newly created seats, several judges retiring, a few unpopular incumbents): and (3) these seats traditionally attract far less in contributions than RJC seats.
For seats at RJC, the sources of funding that candidates can draw upon is far greater reaching, and often far more deep-pocketed, than the sources of funding for Family Court races(where the main funding source is other Family Law attorneys, many of who may not be doing all that well and/or simply don't tend to contribute much).
But that all said, a lot of these RJC candidates(whether challenging an incumbent or vying for an open seat)are not raising too much either. So, apparently the pandemic is the common denominator here.
Many people are out of work, including many attorneys. Feeding their family will be somewhat more important than contributing to some self-glorifying political ladder climber–(okay, that was a poor metaphor or whatever, but I hope I got my point across).
10:21,10:32–This topic reminds me of advice I gave to two acquaintances who were thinking of running, and both eventually did commit to run(one in RJC and one in Family).
I told them both that the best piece of advice is that if they commit to run, that they go into this with the realization that they will primarily have to self-fund their campaigns.
But we as lawyers in general are often self-confident to a fault. Plus, as first time entrants into the election arena, they had a real distorted view of how much interest there would be in their individual candidacies, and instead they seemed really encouraged by a few colleagues(who seemingly had their own agenda of recruiting competition to run against certain incumbents).
So, these two candidates expected hundreds of thousands of dollars to rain upon them from the sky, but from what's reported neither has raised more than a couple thousand bucks.
And, granted the pandemic has made this matter far worse, along with the very large number of contested judicial races on the ballot.
But even during the best of times, and during times when there are very few judicial seats on the ballot, lawyers are notorious for convincing other lawyers that if they run against Judge X, that they will be supported to the tune of tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands. But then the anticipated level of support never materializes.
So people need to be realistic, mature and aware. When some lawyer who just lost a motion before Judge X tells someone that everyone hates that Judge and that anyone who runs against that judge will raise a king's ransom, it is b.s.
Even when we look at these low-rated judges who are opposed, the opponents have collected next to nothing in many cases.
Great point. I have a good friend who is running this cycle. I did not convince this person to run but am happy they are. This person is running against a TERRIBLE judge, someone who I cannot tolerate being on the bench. I was approached for a donation….a $5000 donation. This is a righteous cause; however that is 2+ months of mortgage payments for my family in a time of crisis. I like this person but I do not like them enough to not pay my mortgage. I donated what I could afford, which admittedly seemed paltry to this person. This candidate has been disappointed at the lack of financial support across the board but that is the reality. Its why unions hold such sway is that its a lot of money in one fell swoop. It is why (mostly to the bad) Eglet holds such sway.
But the other point that has to be raised is that it sucks to donate a lot of money to defeat a bad incumbent but it sucks even worse to donate all of that money and you do NOT defeat an incumbent. The power of incumbency (and that comes with incumbency) is tough to overcome. I got a call from a sitting judge (and Judge Israel you know who I am talking about) begging for support and discussing his "good record on cases" which I took as a reference to my cases in front of him. But was it a veiled reference to the cases currently pending in front of him? I had to wonder.
I just donated money to Three Square Food Bank instead of judicial candidate.
11:12,that is why judges are discouraged form directly conducting their own fund-raising, but to instead delegate that project to committees.
Even in instances where a judge is not directly precluded from making some of their own fund-raising calls(and states vary on this), they often attract ethical scrutiny when we peel away a bit at the content of the calls. The devil is in the details.
And the most common problem is what the poster just emphasizes. The theme presented by a judge during these calls is invariably the general approach of "YOU should still want ME on the bench.
And why should YOU still want THEM? Various ethics panels or commissions, when confronted with this issue, almost always determine that the targeted attorney currently has matters pending before the judge.
So, the call itself, although quite ill-advised, is not necessarily unethical on its face. But just below the surface, we glean info.(attorney has pending cases before such judge)which is what justifies, and often results in, reprimands or other ethical consequences.
The focus of course, as alluded to by 11:12, is the seeming coercive element of such calls when attorneys have certain amounts of their professional compensation, as well as their success and professional reputation to varying extents, tied up with matters before such court.
And ethical commissions sort of assume the worst of intentions in such cases, and validly so when we examine the details.
For example, if a low-rated judge, who very few people seem satisfied with, asks you for money, it is not assumed that they merely wish to convey the message that "you want to keep good judges like me on the bench"–not when the consensus is that this person is a dreadful judge.
Instead the message is interpreted as "I realize most attorneys think I'm dreadful, and you probably do as well, but you have a lot at stake before my department at this time."
Based on having received a few of these calls over the decades, I have to agree with 1:11.
That said, I remember one situation(of a judge making some of their own calls) which I thought was not necessarily unacceptable.
The judge called and cheerfully invited me to their campaign kick-off(the "cheerfully" part is somewhat note-worthy in that it is the only time I ever saw the judge as acting in manner which could be described as "cheerful").
The judge mentioned nothing about fund-raising, although obviously there was a table, at the entrance of the event, set up for such purpose.
One of my colleagues (perhaps somewhat unwisely)directly told the judge that the attorney did not intend to contribute to any judicial races such cycle(noteworthy as this was the only contested judicial race on the ballot).The judge responded that he totally understood, but
encouraged the attorney to still stop by for some good food and mingling(don't know if he also mentioned good "drink").
So, that seemed okay, but usually judges are much more direct, and do not call merely to invite attorneys to an event. Instead, it's usually a direct solicitation of funds, along with an oblique reference as to why it is very much in the attorney's best interests to keep such judge on the bench
Even with all those other factors mentioned(pandemic, large number of races on the ballot, etc.) a lot of it comes down to the strength of incumbency in judicial races.
The public tends to know next to nothing about these races, so the incumbent usually has more name recognition than a challenger, and that is a huge advantage.
Of course gender is perhaps an even greater advantage, and evn more so in the Family Court races.
It also helps to have an anglo sounding name (Bill Kephart) as opposed to an African-American sounding name (Fikisha Miller). Shouldn't. But that's just the way it is.
You have my support, Fikisha. Vote the incumbents out.
It's Fikisha Miller for me.
It's time for Miller for me, also.
Sign me up for Miller too!
I always thought Bill had a very flatulent-sounding name…
Incumbents also have a significant fundraising advantage because they're usually favored to win. If you're an attorney donating to a judge (and I'm guessing attorneys comprise the majority of donors to judicial races, because who else cares about these races), you risk pissing off a judge you appear in front of if you donate to the opponent. On the other hand if you donate to the incumbent and he wins, he may look upon you more favorably.
It's Miller time.
Obviously I think Derek Chauvin is a despicable piece of trash. However there is something REALLY not right about having the US Senator (a federal legislative officer) announce what the State Attorney General (a state executive officer) is going to charge in a criminal case.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/03/3-more-cops-charged-in-george-floyd-death-other-officers-murder-charge-upgraded.html
I am helping five other people in my family filling out their ballots this morning. Happily telling them to not vote for Kris Pickering. Careful how you treat and rule on cases, NSC, because lawyers are good for multiple votes against you.
Good thing most lawyers think that Pickering is a really good justice and the intellectual force on the NSC, even when they disagree on a case. That you lost doesn't mean she's bad. Go Kris!
I'm a mask wearing Trump hating liberal and I voted for Pickering
12:30 me too. I've voted dem my whole life and the choice isn't even close. Pickering is by far the best candidate and has been great on the court. Best writer out there.
I am a non mask wearing Trump supporter who voted for Esther Rodriguez.
11:49 is spot on and really underscores what attorneys need to be doing right now to get out the vote. We all have opinions about Judges. Its crunch time if you really want to see decent people on the bench.
I don't see how 11:49 could really be spot on on anything. Spot on that they told their family how to vote? OK. I'm a moderate who can't stand either political party. I think Pickering is one of the best on the court and I've told a few people to vote for her. I'm spot on too.
I go with 11:49.
Off Topic – But speaking of Donations
I was solicited to contribute to the "NAACP Legal Defense Fund". I know little of the organization but with a little research it appears to no longer have an NAACP affiliation and mostly engages in civil rights litigation. Seems well funded, $65 million in annual revenue and $58 million in assets. IRC 501(c)(3).
Is this a worthy charity. Seems well funded and maybe my money would be better off else where. Your thoughts?
It is legally separate from the NAACP because 501(c)(3) organizations can't lobby. NAACP lobbies and is not a 501(c)(3) org; the LDF litigates (but does not lobby) and is a 501(c)(3) org.
If civil rights/racial equality litigation is something that's important to you, it's the best in the business. That's not to say there aren't a lot of other worthy causes out there, but your money will be put to good use if you donate.
No they are separate. Apparently there were internal rifts. WIKI says "there was a serious dispute between the two organizations after which NAACP created its own internal legal department". In 1980 the NAACP sued for use of its name but lost. One charity rating service gives NAACP LDF a 3 out of 4 stars for financial management. I'm going with Catholic Charities.
Hi, this not Mickey Bohn, but I want a Bohn t-shirt.
I like to Bohn.
We know. I want to vote for Kris Pickering to get a mask.
It's the annual Nevada Business clown show where they have no-name attorneys stuff the ballots to vote for each other so they can call themselves Legal Elite. I've never even heard of 80% to 90% of the attorneys on their list. Lol
You don't really need to stuff the ballots to make it, you only need a few votes and to pay their fees. They aren't in the business of turning people away who are willing to pay lol.
Agree 100%.