Lewiston

  • Law

As is customary with these unfortunately recurring events, we send our thoughts and prayers and sincere condolences to all those affected by the shooting in Lewiston, Maine yesterday. Our hearts go out to every single one of those affected by another senseless tragedy.

  • Tropicana demolition on track for late 2024 if A’s receive relocation approval. [TNI]
  • Motel near Strip should have stopped woman from being trafficked, lawsuit alleges. [RJ]
  • Judge rejects hotel price fixing lawsuit, but it can be refiled. [RJ]
  • Dozens of Culinary Union members arrested on Strip for blocking traffic during rally. [RJ]
52 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 26, 2023 5:56 pm

The Supreme Court certainly is not producing much this year.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 27, 2023 3:45 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

And what they have produced has been largely garbage on my appeals. The law clerks are subpar this year apparently.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 26, 2023 5:58 pm

What percentage of attorneys do you think max out their 401k / Roth contributions every year? On the one hand, it seems like this should be very easy to do for almost every attorney in town. On the other hand, we attorneys notoriously suck with money.

What say ye?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 26, 2023 6:20 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

I'm going to guess very few max it out. Did you see that article earlier this week that 401K is not as reliable as it once was? Did it make you nervous?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 26, 2023 6:26 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

100% of the attorneys in my firm max out up to the match limit because as the managing partner I sit them down and explain the concept of "free money." Max out to the contribution limit? 2 out of 6.

Support Staff? 4 out of 7 contribute to the match limit. 0 out of 7 max out under our plan.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 26, 2023 6:29 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

11:20,

OP here. I did not see that. Link?

I ask mostly out of regret. For the first several years I didn't max out the contribution limit, but could have with even modest discipline. I've maxed out for five years consecutively, but can't shake the regret of all the value I lost by not maxing out in the first years.

I try to tell younger attorneys how important it is to max out. The time value of money is massive. You get an immediate reduction on your income tax. They don't seem to listen. To be fair, I didn't listen either.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 26, 2023 6:55 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

To NOT max out 401k and Roth while making a $600 per month payment on a BMW is financial suicide.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 26, 2023 6:57 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Pray tell, how is 401k not as reliable as it once was? This should be good.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 26, 2023 7:18 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

"On the other hand, we attorneys notoriously suck with money."

That may be true, but it doesn't need to be. I think the problem with lawyers is that we tend to want all the trappings of being a lawyer before we are actually able to afford those trapping. So many of us do stupid financial stuff in the short term that prevents us from doing really cool financial stuff in the long term.

For me, the key was paying off my law school loans as quickly as possible. That freed up a lot of money so that we could invest and live. For my first four years of practice I drove my shitbox paid-for law school car and put $600+ from every paycheck plus 100% of every bonus check toward my student loans. The other associates at my firm snickered behind my back; but now, 11 years out, they are still making student loan payments and I haven't made one in over 7 years. Now I snicker.

I paid off $126k in just under 4 years. We lived in a one bedroom apartment on Charleston, didn't eat out, and drove shitty cars; but we got rid of the law school loans quickly. Now we live in a big nice house with a really small mortgage and drive great cars with no car payments.

There is no secret to it. It's the same as most things. Do you want to make a short intense sacrifice or a long drawn-out sacrifice?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 26, 2023 7:42 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

@11:57 because the market sucks right now and I can earn 5% guaranteed through my high yield savings account. Why would I max out my 401k contribution in this economy? I max out up to my employer match, but for the time being I'm NOT meeting the annual contribution max because I'm taking that money and putting it into savings for guaranteed earnings.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 26, 2023 7:50 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

12:18 "the trappings of being a lawyer before we are actually able to afford those trapping" – damn your right! I wish I would have known you when I started, I bought the typical new money stuff a Rolex, Boxster, etc. haha I'm embarrassed now

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 26, 2023 7:53 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

"Why would I max out my 401k contribution in this economy?"

Because you can't time the market. Because after December 31, 2023 the 401k contribution limit disappears, and by April 15, 2024 the same of the 2023 Roth (assuming you don't file for an extension). Because you get an immediate reduction on your 2023 taxes.

The math on what you propose just doesn't make any sense. You're telling me that when you retire you'll be better off not maxing out in 2023 because you invested in tbills? I guess that's true if you're retiring NEXT YEAR. But if you're still 5-7+ away from retirement, your strategy is dumb.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 26, 2023 7:55 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

12:50 PM,

That's not what 12:18 PM is talking about. It's things like eating out and going on vacations that incinerate money that could have been used to pay down debt and/or save towards retirement. It's pretty common for attorneys to feel entitled to those kinds of things and then act against their own long-term interest.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 26, 2023 8:32 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

12:42 either
A. Is a year or two from retirement;
B. Never took a basic finance course; or
C. Honestly believes that the American economy will permanently melt down and never come back (in which case, instead of placing money in his savings account, he should instead be using that same money to buy guns, ammunition, and canned food).

I'll guess it's B

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 26, 2023 8:48 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

One does not need to have taken Finance 101 to cringe at 12:42's comment.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 26, 2023 8:52 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Notoriously bad with money attorney here. My firm offers 401k and Roth. I was under the impression you can only elect to max out one. Is that correct? Can I max out both a 401k and a Roth simultaneously? Also, is the 401k still the better vehicle than a Roth for us youngsters?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 26, 2023 8:54 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Bitcoin!

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 26, 2023 9:03 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

A 401k can be either pre-tax or Roth (after tax). If you contribute to pre-tax 401k it will reduce your taxes this year, but you will pay taxes on all of the 401k funds in the future when you withdraw the money. If you contribute to a Roth 401k all contributions are made post-tax and all of the money grows tax free, great for youngsters whose 401k account at retirement will mostly be interest on the principal contributions. The Roth 401k contributions will not reduce your taxable income this year though.

An IRA is another retirement account that can be either pre or post tax. For a youngster, I'd recommend going post tax, it hurts a little more today, but it will pay off huge in the future when all of your retirement account is tax free!

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 26, 2023 9:08 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

1:52 took the same basic finance course as 12:42. JK JK. 1:52, a roth is just a type of retirement account in which you pre-pay taxes. So there are roth 401(k)s and roth IRAs. So when you do your 401(k) you can usually choose between pre-paying taxes (Roth) or having that money taxed when you take it out (traditional). You cannot do both, but you can do a half/half approach.

12:42, you may get 5% return, but it's on after-income-tax money, and you get taxed on your returns. I'd think putting that into a tax advantaged retirement account would be the better option. My 401(k) even has a fixed fund that offers 3.5%, and that's without the double taxation on income and investment returns.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 26, 2023 9:08 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

1:52,

OP here. You can max out both. Pre-tax 401k contribution limit for 2023 is $22,500, Roth is $6,500.00. Your spouse can make a Roth contribution even if he doesn't work. If you think your current income tax bracket is less than what it will be in retirement, prioritize matching your pre-tax 401k first, then the Roth then the remainder of the pre-tax 401k limit. Of course, if you can do all of it, that is best. Generally, as 2:03 PM notes, younger attorneys should focus on the Roth (after matching the pre-tax 401k).

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 26, 2023 9:14 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

I was going to write EXACTLY what 2:03 wrote. But then I read 2:03's post and did not need to.

Main point: if you're young, put as much in Roth vehicles as you can and do it now. Roth is the best thing Congress ever did for us. One day, and that day will be soon, they are going to get rid of Roth. It's too good for us and bad for them to allow it to continue.

So do it big and do it now!

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 26, 2023 9:14 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Also, 12:42, can't you buy t-bills in your Roth or 401k? I am pretty sure you can.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 26, 2023 9:51 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

1:52, you can't do both. The $22,500 limit is for all 401(k) contributions, whether roth or traditional. The $6,500 limit is for all IRA contributions, both whether roth or traditional. You can't do $22,500 traditional 401(k) then more in a roth 401(k). IRS no likey.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 26, 2023 10:03 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

2:14: That's what she said …

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 26, 2023 10:05 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

With all this financial discussion, does anyone have a financial advisor they really like? I'd like to sit down with a professional and figure out a game plan for finances

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 26, 2023 10:39 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

I would give you mine, 3:05 PM, but it's a relative and I don't want to blow my anonymity.

As far as other personal finance advice goes, there is usually quite a bit of helpful info on the /r/personalfinance subreddit.

My advice is to make sure you budget every month. Use YNAB, Every Dollar or Mint. That doesn't take a professional to assist you. Sit down with your spouse on a regular interval (month, week or bi-weekly) to go through everything. Set rules and follow them. The more disciplined you become, the more money you have to save for retirement and to achieve other goals.

My spouse and I have been working towards several goals for a while. We are on schedule to be debt free and have our kids college paid for by the end of January. It feels fucking awesome. And to be very clear, my default nature is to be a stereotypical attorney that is shitty with money. With a plan and a discipline anyone can overcome the natural attorney shit for financial brains.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 26, 2023 10:41 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Also, Dave Ramsey is a massive, self-righteous dumbass. Don't listen to what he says. What a fucking moron. He is totally oblivious to the reality of today's personal finances. The clown is stuck in the late 80's.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 26, 2023 10:44 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Ultimately, you must be very careful about which 401k plan you use. The fees can be astronomical and eat away at all your earnings. If you want to get a financial advisor, make sure the advisor is a fiduciary. Many "financial advisors" are salespeople. The financial advising industry is not regulated.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 26, 2023 11:53 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Dave Ramsey tells the truth, whether 3:41 wants to accept it or not. If you actually do what he says to do, you'll get rid of your money problems and you'll become wealthy.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 27, 2023 12:41 am
Reply to  Anonymous

As for Dave Ramsey, I don't totally agree with either of the dramatically opposing views offered of him on this thread. I think the truth, like most things, lies somewhere in the middle.

4:53 categorically insists that if you follow Ramsey's mandates that you will get out of debt and really prosper, while 3:41 condemns Ramsey as being beyond worthless and stuck in the 80's with his erroneous and obsolete advice.

I agree with 3:41 to the point that Ramsey's specific advice as to specific current investment, strategies, is not his strong suit. He's not the guy wealthy investors and speculators should go to to enhance their market wealth even more.

I think his strength is when he advises average, often lower to mid income, consumers, about basic financial decisions. So, in that sense, 4:53 is right to the extent that some of those people should listen to him.

Some of the advice to these people in modest financial range seems obvious(e.g. don't buy that car at this time; hold off on buying that house; stop with the expensive vacations and eating out till things stabalize; that time share is a dumb idea; etc.) but it is amazing how many people need this basic common-sense advice and won't listen to friends, family and co-workers, but will listen to a financial adviser who has a prominent media platform.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 27, 2023 12:55 am
Reply to  Anonymous

5:41-I pretty much had the same reaction.

I think it is quite ill-advised for someone who is a successful investor, and who often plays the market, to consider Ramsey a go-to guy.

But he can be effective at telling people of modest means(who ignore the same advice offered by others) to avoid stupid financial pitfalls–e.g it's stupid to co-sign for your worthless, irresponsible family member; or that reverse mortgage you are considering would be a horrible decision, etc.).

And BTW, did you ever meet anyone who did not bitterly regret having co-signed? I haven't. Never heard anyone say: "I'm glad I helped my son out when he was only earning $18. per hour, but wanted that Ford F-150. He certainly kept his side of the bargain and faithfully and timely made all of those $849.58 per month payments. Worked out swell, and I never got contacted by the creditor about any missed or late payments."

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 27, 2023 1:07 am
Reply to  Anonymous

Being asked to co-sign is something anyone would dread being asked to do, and those who were not yet asked should pray that day never comes.

It is guaranteed to be a horrible result regardless of whether you agree to co-sign or you decline. If you decline, the relationship is damaged forever.
If we agree, at some point we eventually get stuck with the unpaid balance.

No matter how certain we are that our significant other, or sibling, or grown child, or whoever, would never stiff us, the creditor knows better. And they are almost always right.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 27, 2023 2:08 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

3:51 here. When I criticize Dave Ramsey, the response is always the same. "Well, some of his advice isn't good, but for middle and lower income class people it's great." You see that in this thread. As if having upper middle class incomes makes us better with money. Look at this thread, there's a consensus that we lawyers ARE BAD WITH MONEY. The fact that we make $200k or $300k decisions doesn't insulate us from making bad money choices. Yet we "tsk tsk" the unwashed masses and proleteriat as too stupid to understand sound financial advice and figure that the pablum of Dave Ramsey is just fine for them.

If you follow Dave Ramsey's advice, you may get out of debt, but you will NEVER, EVER become wealthy. EVER. Let me give you a few examples of this. In Dave Ramsey's world, if you are in debt, 100% of your funds after your basic living expenses should go to paying down debt. No exceptions. No employer match for a 401(k). So the disciples of Ramsey lose the employer match. And they lose the time value of money. Keep in mind that even now, with high interest rates, the average annualized return on the stock market is still higher than an interest rate. Until recently, it was several times better. If you have a $50,000.00 debt at 3%, Dave Ramsey is going to tell you pay it off instead of investing it- even if the monthly payment leaves you with plenty left over after your living expenses. That, my friends, is a dumbass.

That leads to another bad take from Dave Ramsey. He says if you can't afford a 15 year mortgage payment, you can't afford a house. He said this FOR YEARS while mortgage rates were 3-5%. People who listened to this and did not purchase a house based on this advice can't ever get back the lost equity, Ever.

I could go on and on and on. But the idea that the working class should be contented with just paying down debt and never building wealth is repulsive. Dave Ramsey gives bad financial advice, period.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 27, 2023 3:55 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

I don't think Ramsey necessarily gives bad general financial advice; however his advice is oversimplistic. However that is necessary when you are broadcasting to millions rather than giving advice one on one. This is no different than attorneys who give general advice as to general legal principles which may or may not be the correct call for any one individual.

For example you are generally right that every employee should take the employer match if they can (PS Ramsey agrees with the "if you can" https://www.ramseysolutions.com/retirement/401k-company-match). What he does say is that you should not contribute to a company match if you are buried under consumer debt (Ramsey differentiates consumer debt from mortgages). Consumer debt is generally not at 3% interest. Your advice that employees should always do the employer match even if it results in the employee not being able to meet monthly expenses is likewise overly generalized and simplistic.

Perhaps the real lesson is that finance like law cannot be one size fits all.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 26, 2023 7:59 pm

Interesting how this blog mentions the Maine shooting, but not a peep about the terrorist attack by Hamas on the innocent people of Israel on October 7th. Yes, I did a search before posting this and there was nothing. Pretty sad, but not surprising given the ideology and political leanings of those that manage the blog. However, it would have been nice, as a Las Vegas Jewish attorney, to see the blog post the following "As is customary with these unfortunately recurring events, we send our thoughts and prayers and sincere condolences to all those affected by the horrific terrorist attacks by Hamas committed in Israel on October 7th. Our hearts go out to every single one of those affected by another senseless tragedy."

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 26, 2023 8:09 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

12:59, I am not Jewish but I completely agree with you. Also, I am sorry for all those affected.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 26, 2023 8:12 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

@12:59 your post will get thwacked. Anything perceived as even slightly pro-Israel/Jew has been thwacked. My response will get thwacked too.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 26, 2023 8:21 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Maybe some of us don't feel the need to virtue signal anonymously on a board to make us geel better than other people.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 26, 2023 8:29 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

You're right, the bloggers didn't post about the Hamas attack but there might have been good reason. If you look at the post from the day after the attacks there were immediately anti-semitic comments getting posted. Given the amount of thwacking on here and the crazy comments, it's no surprise they try and avoid certain hot topics. Then why post about shootings? I can only surmise given the history of this blog that it is an issue they care to post about on their blog. I don't think this means they don't care about Israel, but it's a local law blog.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 26, 2023 8:34 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

1:21 is that really why you think we post?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 26, 2023 8:41 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

With all due respect, that was a terrorist act in a foreign land that was awful and repugnant against the Jewish people, a terrorist act in furtherance of a political struggle. But it would have opened the door to discussion of the 7,000 Palestinians (and 2700 children) that were killed between 10/7-10/26. Israel has killed five times the number of Israeli deaths on 10/7.

The Maine shooter is a senseless tragedy that has no sane rationale. Israel/Hamas is now a war.

Finally as your comment shows, you have been allowed to post your thoughts and prayers for the last three weeks and have not done so. Why criticize the moderators for not speaking up when you yourself never spoke up?

law.dawg
Guest
law.dawg
October 26, 2023 8:46 pm

@1:29 you are spot on. Anytime we mention anything about politics, and especially international politics, the bots and trolls come out to play, posting and linking to incendiary content just to stir up trouble.

@ 12:59 and 1:12 sorry to rain on your tin foil hats but the thwackage has nothing to do with Israel, Palestine, Jews, or Muslims. It has everything to do with trying to keep this blawg from devolving into a pointless Facebook/RJ comment cesspool of nastiness. While I'm sure most of you are capable of having a constructive, reasonable discussion about international/political topics, there are some that intentionally or unintentionally can't control themselves, and ruin it for everyone. Plus, this is not, and never really has been the proper place for international/political discourse.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 26, 2023 9:13 pm
Reply to  law.dawg

Mr/Ms Dawg, I understand this and it is your blog. I do think it is sad that we cannot discuss the LEGAL implications of all these events. Intl Law, how could the shooter have been stopped via LAW, etc. But like you, I know of no way to keep out the crazies while people like me try to intelligently discuss the LEGAL part.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 26, 2023 10:03 pm
Reply to  law.dawg

@2:13 pm, it would have been nice if someone had undertaken to discuss the concepts of international law and "war crimes." Not in the sense of accusing either side, but to help us understand the concepts. Where does "international law" derive legitimacy (if anywhere)? Who defines "war crimes"? NATO bans hollow point ammo, but it is what I have loaded in all of my defensive handguns — does that make me a war criminal?

I do however understand that any discussion of the Oct 7 attack will probably degenerate into politics. Even writing this post, I find it hard not to let my position get expressed.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 27, 2023 1:37 am
Reply to  law.dawg

Respectfully, referring to @12:59 as having a tin foil hat for pointing out that the blog didn't even mention the attack on Israel only confirms @12:59's assertion about the ideology and thwacking of posts that do not confirm with their ideology. If you're going to post non-law topics, then you should do so across the board. You posted about Maine, then you should have posted about Israel. If you want to have this blog avoid trolling and be a Law Blog, then keep the topics limited to Law only.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 27, 2023 4:13 am
Reply to  law.dawg

6:37 how does the tin foil hat comment confirm the assertion about ideology and thwacking of posts that do not confirm with their ideology? Law Dawg said they did not want trolling or bots in the comments. I see little trolling and no bots in the comments on this post mentioning the Maine shooting. You "should" have your own blog with our own rules about what postings the blogmaster "should" post.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 27, 2023 4:05 pm
Reply to  law.dawg

6:37- "You posted about Maine, then you should have posted about Israel."
What I think you overlook is the point made by 1:41 above which is that the Israel/Hamas conflict is imbued with politics and hot button issues. If the moderators are required to post thoughts and prayer about a foreign nation losing 1400 citizens (including 30 children), should the moderators also be required to post thoughts and prayers about the neighboring territory having 7000 civilians (and allegedly 3000 children) killed by that same foreign nation? Should the moderators be required to offer thoughts and prayers for the 100,000 Ukrainians that have been killed? How about the 300,000 Russians estimated to be killed? Wading into a foreign nation's tragedy is imbued with politics, terrorism and oppression.

There is no politics in a madman going into a bowling alley with an assault rifle and killing children because he is mentally ill. No one is taking the opposing side in support of mental illness. I suspect if the debate goes from mourning the death of children in Maine to questions of Second Amendment rights and inflammatory politics that the moderators will take a much sterner view.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 30, 2023 2:45 pm
Reply to  law.dawg

@9:05 a.m. – "there is no politics in a madman going into a bowling alley with an assault rifle." Really? None? That's strange because right after it happened the typical anti-gun nuts, including Biden, all went on the air and started immediately calling for gun control (a hot button political issue).

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 30, 2023 3:34 pm
Reply to  law.dawg

Give it a rest, bro.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 30, 2023 3:46 pm
Reply to  law.dawg

7:45– You missed the point again that 9:05 made (and in fact agreed with you). There is no political reason or justification in a madman randomly shooting people; everyone (including you) appears to agree with that assertion. The point that 9:05 makes is that should the mourning of the senselessness of that event morph into a political discussion (such as "anti-gun nuts" rhetoric that you have shared) then it would be political and more likely to get a jaundiced eye. I hope your Monday gets better.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 27, 2023 1:47 am

Can we go back to discussing which legal jobs are paying $200k plus? I need to make a jump.