So, a couple attorneys presumably spend thousands of dollars, and countless hours, on a law suit complaining about paying a few hundred per year in fees.
Oh.. sorry…I get it now…it's "the principle" of the matter.
I don't think that the concept of a self-regulating profession, that we each support to the tune of a few hundred dollars per year, is in and of itself a major problem.
The problem is how a lot of them are actually run, their priorities, heavy handed approaches, how the money is actually spent, and the list goes on and on. We see a lot of that right here in Nevada. So, obviously a lot of that can and should be addressed.
So, create a much better Bar, but abolishing it altogether? I'm not certain I am on board with that concept.
There are actually some benefits of a profession which regulates itself. For example, everyone dreads receiving a Bar Complaint, but it is generally a lot easier to deal with than if the client instead sued you. And if no one had the option of filing a Bar Complaint, many of these people would instead sue the lawyer. And a malpractice lawsuit, even those which appear to be quite frivolous and may even be filed by someone in a pro per capacity, are generally a much bigger pain in the butt to deal with than the average bar complaint. For example, no matter how frivolous, you need to contact your carrier, etc., etc., etc.
I do believe if there was no ability of a client to file a Bar Complaint, there would be far more malpractice law suits filed(again, even if a large percentage were frivolous, and pursued in a pro per capacity).
Now, I get that there are distinctions that can be made, such as for example, I would much rather to deal with a frivolous malpractice law suit, than deal with a possibly valid Bar Complaint.
But, in a larger context, the large majority of bar complaints have little or no merit, and the same can probably be said for pro per legal malpractice lawsuits. And with that dynamic in place, one is generally much better off dealing with the Bar complaint. And I do firmly believe that a pro per being able to vent and "fight back" with a Bar complaint, often saves the attorney from having to deal with an actual lawsuit. If bar complaints were not available, I believe there would be a lot more of these pro permalparctice lawsuits, and they are generally a lot more difficult and involved to deal with.
Splitting the Bar is not impossible. California split the regulatory functions of the Bar from the voluntary trade association activities which were moved into a separate nonprofit entity.
The CA State Bar Trustees will consist of seven attorneys and six other individuals. The California Supreme Court, the Legislature and the Governor will appoint all trustees. There are no more elections for CA Bar trustees.
The CA Bars' role is now focused solely on disciplinary and regulatory agency with mandatory membership for lawyers. The nonprofit entity handles all of the rest such as sections, committees, etc. The nonprofit entity is voluntary for California attorneys at a cost of $95 / year.
The Bar must adhere to a Supreme Court-approved policy to identify and address any proposed decision by the trustees that raises antitrust concerns. This is because of the North Carolina dental case in 2015, which found a dental regulatory board made up of primarily dentists did not have state-action antitrust immunity in its efforts to block non-dentists from providing teeth-whitening services to the public.
The immediate impact of a split in NV would be to call into doubt the necessity of an expensive administrative part of our bar. Bar counsel would run the discipline and regulatory function. The nonprofit side would have to be efficient to survive. The current executive director position could be eliminated along with some of her staff.
All of this is probably going to happen someday. But, unless someone sues, expect status quo for many years.
There seems to be a current against the executive director on this blog. Our bar is better than most in comparison which means the director is doing a good job. If any of the malcontent haters have objective reason to criticize the director, please explain. Otherwise, STFU.
Go it Hooge, thanks for taking time out of your day to be a keyboard warrior. What, tired of stealing candy from children and explaining why EVERY suspension should be 6 months and a day?
11:48: As a member of 5 different state bars, I have to ask precisely on what facts do you base your opinion "Our bar is better than most in comparison which means the director is doing a good job." Cheaper dues than most in comparison? No. More services than comparable states? No. Better Bar Journal? Ha surely you jest. The Annual Meeting is far superior in meeting the needs of members at lower costs? State bar CLEs are cheaper? Most expensive CLEs of comparable states and not even competitive with private CLE providers. Most expensive Annual Meeting of any of the states to which I belong. I have not a single thing that I find that Kim Farmer has made SBN better than comparable states.
Even worse (other than getting herself a nicer office) nothing has improved in the decade that she has been at the helm or since the Allen Kimbrough days. The website has gone backwards. LRIS has gone backwards. Wait, to be fair, I mean we have FastCase now. But Nevada is a laughing stock compared to comparable state bars.
Fuck you, Mikey. I mean Ryan. You ignore legitimate bar complaints against bigger firms to destroy little firms. Take a PR class and a con law class. Might benefit the NSC as well.
It is NOT about the money and certainly not the $490 we are required to pay every year for bar membership and CLE. If you think it is about that, you haven't been paying attention. It is about fighting the ongoing violation of lawyers' First Amendment rights through compelled speech and association. https://indefenseofliberty.blog/2019/02/18/janus-protects-lawyers-free-speech-rights-too/
Guest
Anonymous
May 3, 2019 6:29 pm
I don't think the issue is whether we should or should not have a state bar regulating the profession; the issue is whether that state bar should be able to use mandatory dues to promote or oppose legislation that isn't related to regulating attorneys, or to take positions on and spend mandatory dues revenue promoting (overly dramatic list) things like pro-immigration, anti-immigration, pro-abortion, anti-abortion, pro-diversity, anti-diversity, pro-religious, anti-religious, pro-gun, anti-gun, pro-democratic party, anti-democratic party, pro-republican party, anti-republican party, etc. Last – spending an large amount of money on annual meetings in places like Vail, Colorado and paying for judges, bar staff, board of governors, etc, to travel and stay in Vail, Colorado when the majority of bar members don't attend, won't attend, or can't afford to attend, is a waste of money. Have a mandatory State Bar of Nevada that regulates attorneys, and let voluntary bar associations such as the Clark County Bar Association have meetings and CLEs in Vail, Colorado. The members get to vote on things in the CCBA and if they don't like how their money is being spent, they can stop being a member. We don't get that glorious choice with the State Bar of Nevada.
Guest
Anonymous
May 3, 2019 6:40 pm
Non-related here, but looking for a referral in Phoenix for a friend. Yes, a friend, not a "friend."
Friend of mine was in Phoenix about 1-2 weeks ago and got into an altercation with an ex-boyfriend. I think it's charged as an assault/battery and she's got some type of initial hearing/arraignment coming up on 5/8/19.
I posted that I would invest the time and money to sue the Bar. I am serious. I am "retired" but still licensed meaning I currently seek no clients but who knows. I understand the amount of time and money this will take as they will hand it off to a large firm and bury me in paperwork. I have had a couple of people promise to contact me but no one ever has. It's simple. Set up an anon email and I'll send you my contact info if you want to help/be a party/whatever. And if you don't think the Bar is prejudiced against small firms you are naive. If you can't see a conflict between one day enforcing discipline and the next representing a lawyer as their trade organization, your last name must be Hooge. The Bar is the last remnants of the good ol' boy network which has been fading since the 90s and the corporatization of Vegas. I can fight them bc they have zero power over me and, luckily and fortunately, I have f u money. Is there anyone who wants to help out?
How can people contact you when they don't know how to get a hold of you? Why don't you set up the anon email account and ask those interested to contact you there? Why, like pretty much every other poster here, put the onus on someone else to get the ball rolling?
Hi – 11:59 here – because if I setup the anon account I'd be asking someone to trust an unknown person (me) with their information. They do not know who I am. I could be someone at the NSB. So if they setup the anon email, I can take the first step and send my info then they can judge what I have to say and my plans before revealing their name. If they do not like what they hear they can choose to not participate or even write back to me. If you have a better idea, I'd like to hear it but I can't just ask people to trust an anon blogger with their info. Thanks
1:35, meh, it's exactly the same the other way around. Let's be real, whoever puts out their anon account first, the other will respond with their own anon account. Two anons flapping in the wind – trying to figure out if the person on the other end is the SBN. If you really want people to respond to your offer to communicate with you then make it easy for them. Or maybe you like the feeling that there is no movement only because other people are too scared to join your noble and valiant cause.
Dear 1:35 – 11:59 here – not sure why the attitude and the assumption that I'm instigating some devious plot to waste my time with anon emails, etc. I have already said I will go first on faith that any responses are well meaning – maybe that's naive of me but so be it – what do you suggest? I don't want to burn too much energy on just meeting people to join but maybe I have to – should I just post my name, contact info, plan, and background/CV on this blog? Is there a better way? I'm not interested in wasting time – I'm an old guy and don't have that much time left 🙂 I appreciate you taking the time out of your day to converse with me – but tell me how? Thanks
Nevada Supreme Court Rule 94 provides a way to force the BOG to vote on a member referendum. Problem is, you have to get enough people to Vail to do it: Those present at an annual meeting may, by a two-thirds vote, order the board of governors to take a referendum upon any of such matters presented or acted upon at such meeting. Whenever the board of governors is ordered to take a referendum, or whenever the board of governors orders any question referred to a vote of the entire membership of the state bar, the executive secretary shall prepare a questionnaire containing the matters upon which such vote is to be taken, and such questionnaire shall be submitted by the executive secretary to each member, in such form that each member can vote thereon and return the same to the executive secretary.
I will help if I can. Monetarily or help as a law firm. Fuck the bar and the NSC. Apply the fucking law, do not misuse funds, do not violates rights of attorneys. You post on here how to get a hold of you, and I will help what I can.
Same problem – anonymous PO Box, anonymous voicemail, burner phone with voicemail, & anonymous email – everyone sending you something or calling you will have to assume the anonymous person is an SBN plant and feel them out first to determine if they are or are not. Someone's going to have to out themselves first.
Guest
Anonymous
May 3, 2019 7:23 pm
11:59–the problem with all this is that sometimes a proposed solution, such as suing them, actually makes matters worse and exacerbates one of the main problems we would be suing them over(i.e. how they spend our dues money).
They would no doubt hand the defense of the suit over to a firm that would bilk the matter at an astronomical hourly rate, with hundreds of largely unnecessary hours appearing to be spent. I promise you that by the time the case is complete(whether it settles or goes all the way to conclusion) the bill would not merely be tens of thousands of dollars, but instead would be hundreds of thousands of dollars. I can promise you that.
And of course it will all be paid for out of our money. So, if we don't like how they are conducting business, including how they are expending our dues, sue them and then you really won't like how they are spending our dues.
To help finance the defense to such law suit(s), I also promise that our dues would increase, and probably by some degree of measure.
So, sue away if your opinion is that what best serves us. But we apparently have an honest difference of opinion because if we sue them(and they spend hundreds of thousands of our own money defending the suit we brought against them) we are clearly cutting our nose to spite our face.
Now I do appreciate that 11:59 references a matter other than just how our money is spent(the post discusses selective enforcement of discipline, such as the bias against the small practitioner vs. larger influential firms).
But, in a broader sense, that issue, among other issues, still basically, have at their center, how our money is being spent. And I don't want them using our money, and raising our dues, so they can, for example, defend this practice of selective, inequitable discipline.
So, I just don't think, as a practical consideration, that litigation is the answer. Admittedly, I don't know what the answer is. In theory, to me the simplest and seemingly most effective approach always appeared to be that we all need to present a united front, and recruit and support candidates for BOG who agree with our views as to critical changes that need to be implemented, including a basic shift in current philosophy.
But that approach either has not worked, or, more fundamentally, no such strong and united front has truly ever been advanced. Perhaps the main thing we all do is complain, which gets us nowhere. So, yes, we need to do something strong and effective, but I still think litigation could just make matters worse in certain respects.
The most effective thing is to continue to vote out incumbents. This takes time. We (the folks who don't go to Vail or Austin for bar conventions) got two on last time. We need to keep it up for this election. If we get enough on and scare the rest, the changes will come.
Non-incumbents according to the bar's website:
Annette Bradley
Scott Lachman
Casey Quinn
Katrina Ross
From the candidates statements, it appears Lachman and Quinn are change agents. I'm all for lower bar dues as Lachman includes. Quinn is about transparency, which I cannot argue against. No ideas from Ross. Bradley is generic and heeds to the strategic plan. Has anyone actually read the plan??
I freely admit my ignorance of the candidates running. I am a solo who has no interest in the Bar, who knows nothing of the Bar politics, and who wants to keep his head buried. I have never voted in a Board of Governors election, because I am not qualified to cast a vote.
Maybe I am part of the problem, but another part is how hard it is to get any useful information about the candidates — they all spread the same manure/lies.
And I'm still available as a Plaintiff (former Bar Pres.)
Guest
Anonymous
May 3, 2019 7:26 pm
I agree with what 12:33 says about the problems with suing the Bar.
But something must be done. In over 30 years being licensed, I would observe that at this time attorneys view the Bar in a much more negative light than ever before. And it will only get worse.
Guest
Anonymous
May 3, 2019 7:34 pm
The saying, be careful what you wish for – you might just get it… immediately comes to mind. The easy and obvious solution to the dispute is also the one that the bar members would hate the most.
The Nevada State Bar could easily be split as proposed between the licensing/regulatory functions and the non-licensing/regulatory functions. The state could then simply transfer the licensing/regulatory functions to the Division of Business and Industry to administer (subject to Supreme Court final approval of actions – similar to current operations of the State Bar) and terminate the non-licensing/regulatory functions altogether, leaving it to the member to either form a statewide trade association or expand the role of the existing local associations (e.g. Clark County Bar, Washoe County Bar, Criminal Defense Bar, NJA, Insurance Defense Bar, etc.) to address whatever needs the members feel are beneficial or needed to advance their profession/reputations.
Guest
Anonymous
May 3, 2019 9:17 pm
12: 34 PM-Splitting licensing/regulatory functions. If this ever occurred it would not go to a State agency but to a Disciplinary Court under the supervision of the Nevada S. Ct.. This is what occurred in Arizona. They have a disciplinary judge (an actual judge from the Courts) who hear disciplinary cases. The discipline in Arizona which uses this model is more harsh on attorneys. It is better the way it is currently in Nevada. When I moved to Nevada from Arizona it was like a breath of fresh air on attorney regulation and discipline. I have never been in trouble or had any bar issues but have been involved in discipline and served in Arizona and Nevada as an attorney panel member.
Yes and no. Same history as you. Arizona is modeled on Colorado. PDJ in Arizona (Judge O'Brien) used to be a Superior Court Judge in Casa Grande and now does PDJ full time. He is Stew Bell. Gruff persona. Scares the shit out of attorneys. Very fair and even handed in the discipline imposed. The Rules are much harsher in Arizona but that is not a product of the PDJ. Colorado PDJ has none of the complaints that you have levied.
But think about it here: If Hardesty retires and becomes PDJ, we are all doomed. If Mark Denton retired and became the PDJ, I would trust him more than I trust the current system.
That is one possible process. Another possible process would be to turn it over to Administrative Law Judges to act as essentially special masters/hearing masters for the Supreme Court, issuing reports and recommendations.
It seems to me that, as a matter of state constitutional law and more broadly historical tradition in this country, that the Nevada Supreme Court would assert inherent regulatory power over lawyers who practice law in courts of law, so any attempt to eschew that authority by the legislature would probably run afoul of inherent power of the courts to regulate practice before the courts and separation of powers troubles, at least when deciding who gets to practice law in courts.
The legislature, rightly it seems to me, can also exercise its plenary power to regulate the health, safety, welfare, and morals of any person subject to Nevada's jurisdiction, especially as relates to the occupational licensing of lawyers and who gets to "practice law" in Nevada generally, whatever that actually means, up to the point that it interferes with the powers properly belonging to the judicial department. Depending on how nicely (or not nicely) the Nevada Supremes decide to play along, changes might ultimately take state constitutional reform or else could be mired in inter-branch conflict for years.
As noted earlier, the only reason states are taking a fresh look at any of this in the first place is because, first, SCOTUS said, "hey, states, your professional licensing agencies, if they're dominated by industry insiders and don't have sufficient non-industry, actual state control and oversight, you don't have immunity from antitrust litigation." And second, thanks to doctrinal shifting in First Amendment jurisprudence as relates to compulsory state-mandated licensing fees, states are worried their integrated bars are going to have sustainability problems. Funny, it's as though integrated state bars are starting to feel like what it's like to be a labor union under conservative legal control.
You are correct, It was a typo. Arizona was modeled after Colorado with discipline handled by a PDJ appointed by the Supreme Court (Judge Lucero in Colorado; Judge O'Neill in Arizona). And yes Judge O'Neill is a stern guy but he is fair and even handed. Even the Jack Levine article that you link to proposes more control to the PDJ not less.
So you attach one article that says that the PDJ system in Arizona is too easy on lawyers, specifically big firms, and one article that says that the PDJ was corrupt when he was a Superior Court Judge. You don't think that State Bar of Nevada comes down harder on solos than big firms? Look around. Then-Justice Cherry even made this point during the Mandatory Audits debate that our SBN picks on solos and smalls and the big firms can get away with murder.
Yeah that old divorce allegation that never went anywhere. That is not an indictment of a PDJ system that some disgruntled litigants went after a Judge. You write not like someone who ever sat on Discipline cases panels but someone who went through a Discipline hearing in Arizona. Bret Whipple is that you?
Jack Levine is an old suspended lawyer first admitted in '64. He is a gadfly and well known critic. Doubt that he is the best source. If you are facing discipline, you don't want to be facing an appointed judge in Arizona. If it gets before the Judge, you are in serious trouble no matter what. We do not want that system here. Folks should lay off the State Bar. The alternative is far worse.
Guest
Anonymous
May 4, 2019 5:33 pm
I have a question for people who might know. I saw this week that a long-time Nevada lawyer (who I liked and respected) resigned from the State Bar and his resignation was accepted by the Supreme Court. I have always wondered what would lead someone to resign rather than just go Inactive once one reaches retirement age?
If you go inactive, SBN charges you for the application. Also, you need ton submit annual disclosures. Who needs that crap when you're old and want to hang it all up?
I don't remember having to pay any fee when I changed my status from active to inactive, but yes you still have to timely submit all of the disclosure forms every year and worse, pay an annual fee for the privilege of not being authorized to practice law.
I can see the logic in charging a one time fee to change your status (active to inactive; inactive to active) but to charge inactive members a fee every year to not practice law seems like nothing more than a blatant money grab simply because they can. Really, what does the inactive member receive for their ~$150/year? A copy of the bar magazine (which can be read for free online, annual electronic disclosure forms (no cost to the bar to have the member go to the website to complete and submit in light of the same forms being used for active members; access to the group discount codes for the contracted vendors [discounts are no better than AAA or AARP or other generally available discounts])
One of the biggest jokes for an inactive member is the disclosure forms themselves… Malpractice insurance… if you are not authorized to practice law and the policy is a claims made policy, only covers the claims made during the policy period (current practice issues), unless you are talking about a recently inactive member or tail coverage there wouldn't be any applicable insurance. Client trust account.. If the attorney properly wound down their practice they wouldn't still have clients thus how would they be holding their client's property? And my favorite… Pro Bono hours… If the member is not authorized to practice law how could they have performed Pro Bono legal services?
I can certainly understand the logic of having the member complete a final set of disclosure forms at the time they change their status to inactive (and even a new set upon returning to active status) but having them do it every year when you know by definition that nothing is changing is the height of stupidity.
I guess those that occupy the ivory tower known as the State Bar of Nevada checked their common sense at the door when they entered their Taj Mahal.
So, a couple attorneys presumably spend thousands of dollars, and countless hours, on a law suit complaining about paying a few hundred per year in fees.
Oh.. sorry…I get it now…it's "the principle" of the matter.
I don't think that the concept of a self-regulating profession, that we each support to the tune of a few hundred dollars per year, is in and of itself a major problem.
The problem is how a lot of them are actually run, their priorities, heavy handed approaches, how the money is actually spent, and the list goes on and on. We see a lot of that right here in Nevada. So, obviously a lot of that can and should be addressed.
So, create a much better Bar, but abolishing it altogether? I'm not certain I am on board with that concept.
There are actually some benefits of a profession which regulates itself. For example, everyone dreads receiving a Bar Complaint, but it is generally a lot easier to deal with than if the client instead sued you. And if no one had the option of filing a Bar Complaint, many of these people would instead sue the lawyer. And a malpractice lawsuit, even those which appear to be quite frivolous and may even be filed by someone in a pro per capacity, are generally a much bigger pain in the butt to deal with than the average bar complaint. For example, no matter how frivolous, you need to contact your carrier, etc., etc., etc.
I do believe if there was no ability of a client to file a Bar Complaint, there would be far more malpractice law suits filed(again, even if a large percentage were frivolous, and pursued in a pro per capacity).
Now, I get that there are distinctions that can be made, such as for example, I would much rather to deal with a frivolous malpractice law suit, than deal with a possibly valid Bar Complaint.
But, in a larger context, the large majority of bar complaints have little or no merit, and the same can probably be said for pro per legal malpractice lawsuits. And with that dynamic in place, one is generally much better off dealing with the Bar complaint. And I do firmly believe that a pro per being able to vent and "fight back" with a Bar complaint, often saves the attorney from having to deal with an actual lawsuit. If bar complaints were not available, I believe there would be a lot more of these pro permalparctice lawsuits, and they are generally a lot more difficult and involved to deal with.
Splitting the Bar is not impossible. California split the regulatory functions of the Bar from the voluntary trade association activities which were moved into a separate nonprofit entity.
The CA State Bar Trustees will consist of seven attorneys and six other individuals. The California Supreme Court, the Legislature and the Governor will appoint all trustees. There are no more elections for CA Bar trustees.
The CA Bars' role is now focused solely on disciplinary and regulatory agency with mandatory membership for lawyers. The nonprofit entity handles all of the rest such as sections, committees, etc. The nonprofit entity is voluntary for California attorneys at a cost of $95 / year.
The Bar must adhere to a Supreme Court-approved policy to identify and address any proposed decision by the trustees that raises antitrust concerns. This is because of the North Carolina dental case in 2015, which found a dental regulatory board made up of primarily dentists did not have state-action antitrust immunity in its efforts to block non-dentists from providing teeth-whitening services to the public.
The immediate impact of a split in NV would be to call into doubt the necessity of an expensive administrative part of our bar. Bar counsel would run the discipline and regulatory function. The nonprofit side would have to be efficient to survive. The current executive director position could be eliminated along with some of her staff.
All of this is probably going to happen someday. But, unless someone sues, expect status quo for many years.
There seems to be a current against the executive director on this blog. Our bar is better than most in comparison which means the director is doing a good job. If any of the malcontent haters have objective reason to criticize the director, please explain. Otherwise, STFU.
Go it Hooge, thanks for taking time out of your day to be a keyboard warrior. What, tired of stealing candy from children and explaining why EVERY suspension should be 6 months and a day?
11:48: As a member of 5 different state bars, I have to ask precisely on what facts do you base your opinion "Our bar is better than most in comparison which means the director is doing a good job." Cheaper dues than most in comparison? No. More services than comparable states? No. Better Bar Journal? Ha surely you jest. The Annual Meeting is far superior in meeting the needs of members at lower costs? State bar CLEs are cheaper? Most expensive CLEs of comparable states and not even competitive with private CLE providers. Most expensive Annual Meeting of any of the states to which I belong. I have not a single thing that I find that Kim Farmer has made SBN better than comparable states.
Even worse (other than getting herself a nicer office) nothing has improved in the decade that she has been at the helm or since the Allen Kimbrough days. The website has gone backwards. LRIS has gone backwards. Wait, to be fair, I mean we have FastCase now. But Nevada is a laughing stock compared to comparable state bars.
Fuck you, Mikey. I mean Ryan. You ignore legitimate bar complaints against bigger firms to destroy little firms. Take a PR class and a con law class. Might benefit the NSC as well.
It is NOT about the money and certainly not the $490 we are required to pay every year for bar membership and CLE. If you think it is about that, you haven't been paying attention. It is about fighting the ongoing violation of lawyers' First Amendment rights through compelled speech and association. https://indefenseofliberty.blog/2019/02/18/janus-protects-lawyers-free-speech-rights-too/
I don't think the issue is whether we should or should not have a state bar regulating the profession; the issue is whether that state bar should be able to use mandatory dues to promote or oppose legislation that isn't related to regulating attorneys, or to take positions on and spend mandatory dues revenue promoting (overly dramatic list) things like pro-immigration, anti-immigration, pro-abortion, anti-abortion, pro-diversity, anti-diversity, pro-religious, anti-religious, pro-gun, anti-gun, pro-democratic party, anti-democratic party, pro-republican party, anti-republican party, etc. Last – spending an large amount of money on annual meetings in places like Vail, Colorado and paying for judges, bar staff, board of governors, etc, to travel and stay in Vail, Colorado when the majority of bar members don't attend, won't attend, or can't afford to attend, is a waste of money. Have a mandatory State Bar of Nevada that regulates attorneys, and let voluntary bar associations such as the Clark County Bar Association have meetings and CLEs in Vail, Colorado. The members get to vote on things in the CCBA and if they don't like how their money is being spent, they can stop being a member. We don't get that glorious choice with the State Bar of Nevada.
Non-related here, but looking for a referral in Phoenix for a friend. Yes, a friend, not a "friend."
Friend of mine was in Phoenix about 1-2 weeks ago and got into an altercation with an ex-boyfriend. I think it's charged as an assault/battery and she's got some type of initial hearing/arraignment coming up on 5/8/19.
Anybody got anything?
David Gingras
I posted that I would invest the time and money to sue the Bar. I am serious. I am "retired" but still licensed meaning I currently seek no clients but who knows. I understand the amount of time and money this will take as they will hand it off to a large firm and bury me in paperwork. I have had a couple of people promise to contact me but no one ever has. It's simple. Set up an anon email and I'll send you my contact info if you want to help/be a party/whatever. And if you don't think the Bar is prejudiced against small firms you are naive. If you can't see a conflict between one day enforcing discipline and the next representing a lawyer as their trade organization, your last name must be Hooge. The Bar is the last remnants of the good ol' boy network which has been fading since the 90s and the corporatization of Vegas. I can fight them bc they have zero power over me and, luckily and fortunately, I have f u money. Is there anyone who wants to help out?
How can people contact you when they don't know how to get a hold of you? Why don't you set up the anon email account and ask those interested to contact you there? Why, like pretty much every other poster here, put the onus on someone else to get the ball rolling?
Hi – 11:59 here – because if I setup the anon account I'd be asking someone to trust an unknown person (me) with their information. They do not know who I am. I could be someone at the NSB. So if they setup the anon email, I can take the first step and send my info then they can judge what I have to say and my plans before revealing their name. If they do not like what they hear they can choose to not participate or even write back to me. If you have a better idea, I'd like to hear it but I can't just ask people to trust an anon blogger with their info. Thanks
1:35, meh, it's exactly the same the other way around. Let's be real, whoever puts out their anon account first, the other will respond with their own anon account. Two anons flapping in the wind – trying to figure out if the person on the other end is the SBN. If you really want people to respond to your offer to communicate with you then make it easy for them. Or maybe you like the feeling that there is no movement only because other people are too scared to join your noble and valiant cause.
Dear 1:35 – 11:59 here – not sure why the attitude and the assumption that I'm instigating some devious plot to waste my time with anon emails, etc. I have already said I will go first on faith that any responses are well meaning – maybe that's naive of me but so be it – what do you suggest? I don't want to burn too much energy on just meeting people to join but maybe I have to – should I just post my name, contact info, plan, and background/CV on this blog? Is there a better way? I'm not interested in wasting time – I'm an old guy and don't have that much time left 🙂 I appreciate you taking the time out of your day to converse with me – but tell me how? Thanks
What about a burner phone with voicemail? People can leave you messages.
If you can fight them, and you have f u money, then why do you need anyone else to reach out to you? Why wait? Why not just do it?
Nevada Supreme Court Rule 94 provides a way to force the BOG to vote on a member referendum. Problem is, you have to get enough people to Vail to do it: Those present at an annual meeting may, by a two-thirds vote, order the board of governors to take a referendum upon any of such matters presented or acted upon at such meeting. Whenever the board of governors is ordered to take a referendum, or whenever the board of governors orders any question referred to a vote of the entire membership of the state bar, the executive secretary shall prepare a questionnaire containing the matters upon which such vote is to be taken, and such questionnaire shall be submitted by the executive secretary to each member, in such form that each member can vote thereon and return the same to the executive secretary.
I will help if I can. Monetarily or help as a law firm. Fuck the bar and the NSC. Apply the fucking law, do not misuse funds, do not violates rights of attorneys. You post on here how to get a hold of you, and I will help what I can.
Violate, damn spell check.
Purchase a new po box, and post the address for letters to be sent to you with people's contact information.
Same problem – anonymous PO Box, anonymous voicemail, burner phone with voicemail, & anonymous email – everyone sending you something or calling you will have to assume the anonymous person is an SBN plant and feel them out first to determine if they are or are not. Someone's going to have to out themselves first.
11:59–the problem with all this is that sometimes a proposed solution, such as suing them, actually makes matters worse and exacerbates one of the main problems we would be suing them over(i.e. how they spend our dues money).
They would no doubt hand the defense of the suit over to a firm that would bilk the matter at an astronomical hourly rate, with hundreds of largely unnecessary hours appearing to be spent. I promise you that by the time the case is complete(whether it settles or goes all the way to conclusion) the bill would not merely be tens of thousands of dollars, but instead would be hundreds of thousands of dollars. I can promise you that.
And of course it will all be paid for out of our money. So, if we don't like how they are conducting business, including how they are expending our dues, sue them and then you really won't like how they are spending our dues.
To help finance the defense to such law suit(s), I also promise that our dues would increase, and probably by some degree of measure.
So, sue away if your opinion is that what best serves us. But we apparently have an honest difference of opinion because if we sue them(and they spend hundreds of thousands of our own money defending the suit we brought against them) we are clearly cutting our nose to spite our face.
Now I do appreciate that 11:59 references a matter other than just how our money is spent(the post discusses selective enforcement of discipline, such as the bias against the small practitioner vs. larger influential firms).
But, in a broader sense, that issue, among other issues, still basically, have at their center, how our money is being spent. And I don't want them using our money, and raising our dues, so they can, for example, defend this practice of selective, inequitable discipline.
So, I just don't think, as a practical consideration, that litigation is the answer. Admittedly, I don't know what the answer is. In theory, to me the simplest and seemingly most effective approach always appeared to be that we all need to present a united front, and recruit and support candidates for BOG who agree with our views as to critical changes that need to be implemented, including a basic shift in current philosophy.
But that approach either has not worked, or, more fundamentally, no such strong and united front has truly ever been advanced. Perhaps the main thing we all do is complain, which gets us nowhere. So, yes, we need to do something strong and effective, but I still think litigation could just make matters worse in certain respects.
The most effective thing is to continue to vote out incumbents. This takes time. We (the folks who don't go to Vail or Austin for bar conventions) got two on last time. We need to keep it up for this election. If we get enough on and scare the rest, the changes will come.
Who are the two we should be voting for this time? I'm holding out on voting, hoping for more input. It was helpful last year.
Non-incumbents according to the bar's website:
Annette Bradley
Scott Lachman
Casey Quinn
Katrina Ross
From the candidates statements, it appears Lachman and Quinn are change agents. I'm all for lower bar dues as Lachman includes. Quinn is about transparency, which I cannot argue against. No ideas from Ross. Bradley is generic and heeds to the strategic plan. Has anyone actually read the plan??
I freely admit my ignorance of the candidates running. I am a solo who has no interest in the Bar, who knows nothing of the Bar politics, and who wants to keep his head buried. I have never voted in a Board of Governors election, because I am not qualified to cast a vote.
Maybe I am part of the problem, but another part is how hard it is to get any useful information about the candidates — they all spread the same manure/lies.
4:53 doesn't know Casey or is actually Casey Quinn. I know him. Can't afford another disappointment.
Time for an offline meetup! Triple George at noon? I'll be the one wearing a nametags that says "Totally not an SBN plant, Esq."
And I'm still available as a Plaintiff (former Bar Pres.)
I agree with what 12:33 says about the problems with suing the Bar.
But something must be done. In over 30 years being licensed, I would observe that at this time attorneys view the Bar in a much more negative light than ever before. And it will only get worse.
The saying, be careful what you wish for – you might just get it… immediately comes to mind. The easy and obvious solution to the dispute is also the one that the bar members would hate the most.
The Nevada State Bar could easily be split as proposed between the licensing/regulatory functions and the non-licensing/regulatory functions. The state could then simply transfer the licensing/regulatory functions to the Division of Business and Industry to administer (subject to Supreme Court final approval of actions – similar to current operations of the State Bar) and terminate the non-licensing/regulatory functions altogether, leaving it to the member to either form a statewide trade association or expand the role of the existing local associations (e.g. Clark County Bar, Washoe County Bar, Criminal Defense Bar, NJA, Insurance Defense Bar, etc.) to address whatever needs the members feel are beneficial or needed to advance their profession/reputations.
12: 34 PM-Splitting licensing/regulatory functions. If this ever occurred it would not go to a State agency but to a Disciplinary Court under the supervision of the Nevada S. Ct.. This is what occurred in Arizona. They have a disciplinary judge (an actual judge from the Courts) who hear disciplinary cases. The discipline in Arizona which uses this model is more harsh on attorneys. It is better the way it is currently in Nevada. When I moved to Nevada from Arizona it was like a breath of fresh air on attorney regulation and discipline. I have never been in trouble or had any bar issues but have been involved in discipline and served in Arizona and Nevada as an attorney panel member.
Yes and no. Same history as you. Arizona is modeled on Colorado. PDJ in Arizona (Judge O'Brien) used to be a Superior Court Judge in Casa Grande and now does PDJ full time. He is Stew Bell. Gruff persona. Scares the shit out of attorneys. Very fair and even handed in the discipline imposed. The Rules are much harsher in Arizona but that is not a product of the PDJ. Colorado PDJ has none of the complaints that you have levied.
But think about it here: If Hardesty retires and becomes PDJ, we are all doomed. If Mark Denton retired and became the PDJ, I would trust him more than I trust the current system.
That is one possible process. Another possible process would be to turn it over to Administrative Law Judges to act as essentially special masters/hearing masters for the Supreme Court, issuing reports and recommendations.
It seems to me that, as a matter of state constitutional law and more broadly historical tradition in this country, that the Nevada Supreme Court would assert inherent regulatory power over lawyers who practice law in courts of law, so any attempt to eschew that authority by the legislature would probably run afoul of inherent power of the courts to regulate practice before the courts and separation of powers troubles, at least when deciding who gets to practice law in courts.
The legislature, rightly it seems to me, can also exercise its plenary power to regulate the health, safety, welfare, and morals of any person subject to Nevada's jurisdiction, especially as relates to the occupational licensing of lawyers and who gets to "practice law" in Nevada generally, whatever that actually means, up to the point that it interferes with the powers properly belonging to the judicial department. Depending on how nicely (or not nicely) the Nevada Supremes decide to play along, changes might ultimately take state constitutional reform or else could be mired in inter-branch conflict for years.
As noted earlier, the only reason states are taking a fresh look at any of this in the first place is because, first, SCOTUS said, "hey, states, your professional licensing agencies, if they're dominated by industry insiders and don't have sufficient non-industry, actual state control and oversight, you don't have immunity from antitrust litigation." And second, thanks to doctrinal shifting in First Amendment jurisprudence as relates to compulsory state-mandated licensing fees, states are worried their integrated bars are going to have sustainability problems. Funny, it's as though integrated state bars are starting to feel like what it's like to be a labor union under conservative legal control.
The PDJ in AZ is not "O'Brien" but "O'Neill." And it may have been modeled on Colorado but it is different since lawyer discipline in Colorado is handled by the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel under the state supreme court. The Colorado Bar is also voluntary. In Arizona, the Bar still has its hand in lawyer discipline and comes down harder on solos and small firms and of course, it is a compulsory-membership bar. You don't want that system in Nevada. "Very fair"? LMAO. See: https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/2015/12/25/arizona-state-bar-discipline/77850702/
and https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/2014/04/16/divorce-case-stirs-ethics-allegations-judge/7765749/
You are correct, It was a typo. Arizona was modeled after Colorado with discipline handled by a PDJ appointed by the Supreme Court (Judge Lucero in Colorado; Judge O'Neill in Arizona). And yes Judge O'Neill is a stern guy but he is fair and even handed. Even the Jack Levine article that you link to proposes more control to the PDJ not less.
So you attach one article that says that the PDJ system in Arizona is too easy on lawyers, specifically big firms, and one article that says that the PDJ was corrupt when he was a Superior Court Judge. You don't think that State Bar of Nevada comes down harder on solos than big firms? Look around. Then-Justice Cherry even made this point during the Mandatory Audits debate that our SBN picks on solos and smalls and the big firms can get away with murder.
Yeah that old divorce allegation that never went anywhere. That is not an indictment of a PDJ system that some disgruntled litigants went after a Judge. You write not like someone who ever sat on Discipline cases panels but someone who went through a Discipline hearing in Arizona. Bret Whipple is that you?
Jack Levine is an old suspended lawyer first admitted in '64. He is a gadfly and well known critic. Doubt that he is the best source. If you are facing discipline, you don't want to be facing an appointed judge in Arizona. If it gets before the Judge, you are in serious trouble no matter what. We do not want that system here. Folks should lay off the State Bar. The alternative is far worse.
I have a question for people who might know. I saw this week that a long-time Nevada lawyer (who I liked and respected) resigned from the State Bar and his resignation was accepted by the Supreme Court. I have always wondered what would lead someone to resign rather than just go Inactive once one reaches retirement age?
If you go inactive, SBN charges you for the application. Also, you need ton submit annual disclosures. Who needs that crap when you're old and want to hang it all up?
I don't remember having to pay any fee when I changed my status from active to inactive, but yes you still have to timely submit all of the disclosure forms every year and worse, pay an annual fee for the privilege of not being authorized to practice law.
I can see the logic in charging a one time fee to change your status (active to inactive; inactive to active) but to charge inactive members a fee every year to not practice law seems like nothing more than a blatant money grab simply because they can. Really, what does the inactive member receive for their ~$150/year? A copy of the bar magazine (which can be read for free online, annual electronic disclosure forms (no cost to the bar to have the member go to the website to complete and submit in light of the same forms being used for active members; access to the group discount codes for the contracted vendors [discounts are no better than AAA or AARP or other generally available discounts])
One of the biggest jokes for an inactive member is the disclosure forms themselves… Malpractice insurance… if you are not authorized to practice law and the policy is a claims made policy, only covers the claims made during the policy period (current practice issues), unless you are talking about a recently inactive member or tail coverage there wouldn't be any applicable insurance. Client trust account.. If the attorney properly wound down their practice they wouldn't still have clients thus how would they be holding their client's property? And my favorite… Pro Bono hours… If the member is not authorized to practice law how could they have performed Pro Bono legal services?
I can certainly understand the logic of having the member complete a final set of disclosure forms at the time they change their status to inactive (and even a new set upon returning to active status) but having them do it every year when you know by definition that nothing is changing is the height of stupidity.
I guess those that occupy the ivory tower known as the State Bar of Nevada checked their common sense at the door when they entered their Taj Mahal.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article229990224.html
This is very sad. Ulrich Smith.
Is this Nevada attorney Ulrich Smith or just someone who shares the name?
The picture in the article is of Ulrich Smith, the Nevada attorney