- Quickdraw McLaw
- 44 Comments
- 426 Views
Over at Above the Law there is a post about Atrium LTS, a “new” way of offering legal services. Actually it is two entities, one a law firm and the other a service provider for the law firm/law firms. Take a look at it and let us know what you think. Do you see this finding traction? Would it work in Las Vegas? Also, the founding partner is quoted as saying it will not be a lifestyle firm, but rather a workstyle firm where “ambitious lawyers come to dominate the future.” What do you think about that?
who is doug ansell
who is the asshole that keeps asking "who is doug ansell"?
BLAWG IS DED
I bet its William Onyeabor. That guy is funky.
11:00 AM,
You look sooo good, fantastic man!
Whether Atrium or some other entity, AI will displace many lawyer jobs. Hopefully everybody has their student loans paid off when this happens!
Either Ansell, or Voldemort.
Bloomberg has already started using AI and indicated they eliminated over 500,000 billable hours a year for mergers and transactional legal work. Technology is coming fast. Adapt or die.
Yeah, technology is coming, as is outsourcing to India and other well educated but underemployed parts of the world.
Atrium just seems like another middle man though, trying to sneak in and grab some profits from services already being provided.
If this is how they view lawyers then I don't think they'll attract any clients you would want:
"Gone are the days of expensive legal staff collecting, copying and pasting signature blocks and charging companies for time spent on administrative tasks."
Tierra Jones OMG! I thought Department X was horrible with Walsh. But honestly Jones is a more decisive, less legally grounded replacement. Please someone worthwhile run against her.
Sorry dude, she's set for life as is the way for incumbents when an entirely uninformed electorate picks judges.
I like her personally but no way she is anywhere close to being qualified either in experience or demeanor.
umm she was appointed after a merit selection process so flaw isn't in elected judges is it? I don't know about her personally but appointment would be worse, right, b/c once appointed they're never removed in pure appointment system.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Come on people.
Thanks (although not a dude). I have had 4 hearings in the last month where she has been utterly lost but has that Susan Johnson "Even when you show me I am not right I am still right" thing. Personally she may be fine. But she is completely out of her element on the bench.
@12:59 confirmed BK hottie!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tierra is a nice person, but remember she did not have 1 day of civil experience when appointed over the other 2 finalists. (Coffing and Rodriguez) So what we do? put her in an all civil dept.
I though the whole point of appointing her was all her criminal experience:
http://gov.nv.gov/News-and-Media/Press/2017/Governor-Sandoval-Appoints-Tierra-Jones-and-Mark-Bailus-to-Eighth-Judicial-District/
I understand that was the stated reason. I think we understand that was not the real reason. Plus I heard (instead of being exiled to the Phoenix Building like all new judges are) that she was keeping Courtroom 10B because it had the jail access for her to be able to have criminal cases, only to give her an all civil department.
This was entirely predictable. And we would not be having these problems with Terry Coffing. When we appoint a judge for any other reason than her ability to competently do the job, we err.
Coffing is the wrong color.
2:29 was trying to say the same think 2:33 said. But 2:29 was being nicer about it.
I think people should give her a chance and give her an opportunity to overcome what surely must be an inevitable learning curve.
My clients who are losing tens of thousands of dollars due to incompetence do not wish to give her a learning curve. She blew an issue that was a slam dunk for around $100,000 now that my clients have to appeal. Her inevitable learning curve need not come at the expense of litigants.
Well yeah, every judge ever appointed in Clark County at least in the last 20 years starts with a civil caseload because judges with more seniority are waiting in the wings for a criminal caseload. Less work, more fun, more photo opps
I think the mistake is in ever having a judge who went to Boyd.
I have a civil and criminal background. Maybe I should run. Wait, I don't have an ego. Nevermind.
While I give Jones credit for doing her best, can you imagine being thrust into a court where you have zero experience? are we surprised that she is having issues? How do i tell my clients that she is " a nice person, good criminal attorney, but has no idea what a contract looks like?"
Sounds no different than what we have already.
Except for the nice part….
She doesn't have an all civil docket. She hears criminal matters as well.
So it would have been better to select one of the other two (Coffing or Rodriguez) and have them deal with the learning curve on the criminal cases?? There will be a learning curve for any new judge, whether appointed or elected, as few are completely experienced in both criminal and civil law. And two words for those who feel the electoral route is the only way to go – Elizabeth Halverson – that worked out real well, didn't it? For those who say Coffing wasn't the right color (@2:29 & @2:33), is that really why you believe Jones got the appointment? I just looked at the makeup of the District Court bench (including Family Court) and I guess I could see why some might think that's why she got the appointment. But the only thing left to say after that is:
Careful people – your pointy hats are showing.
Troy Mothereffing Fox
Appointments are better in the sense that the true weirdos and oddballs are usually eliminated during the intense vetting process, while with elections such individuals can slip through(I have the ultimate example but I decline to speak ill of the dead).
So, appointments usually do assure that of the three finalists none of them are really "out there" or have real checkered pasts, personally and/or professionally.
But that does not always mean that the three finalists are all highly qualified, and it certainly does not mean the most qualified of the three gets appointed. When it is down to the final three, politics and diversity come into play.
I don't have a problem with diversity coming into play and that being a consideration. I don't have a problem if based on diversity and other factors that a person who is a little less qualified than the other finalists gets appointed. My problem is when an individual far less qualified that the other finalists gets important–situations where the chasm in quality is so dramatic that the appointee winds up being incompetent in many respects, and really overwhelmed by the job. And the poster is right on who says the learning curve must not be so dramatic that people's rights are dramatically affected.
I can't speak to the specific situation these posters are addressing, but those are my general observations on the issue.
So naive. Appointments are politically correct. If the applicant is a person who is a member of an identity group and has pressure to be brought, they can advance. Generally it is all government lawyer types and occasional private practice. Credentials and experience give way to politics. You don't get better judges in an appointed system. You just get lawyers out of the process and it is totally political and EEO. I will stick with the elective system. I get my say at the ballot box and in the surveys.
Troy Marquis on his appointment circuit again…nobody is biting. You will not take away my right to vote for judges. I do vote. I have influence, and I tell people when a judge is biased, and fucks people over. Keep that in mind when you make decisions, and treat people like shit.
I miss Judge Scann.
Hey 10:02. It's 4:34 here. Before you call me "so naïve", please let me know if you are in the habit of constantly arguing with, and calling names to, people who actually agree with you.
Are you simply programed to be very contentious? Do you vigorously argue with judges who are agreeing with you? Do you ever have the ability to get out of your own way?
Perhaps I'm being way too harsh on you and your only oversight was that you skimmed my post, without really reading it.
My observations are almost EXACTLY the same as yours. I in no way defended the appointment system, and in fact I, like you, indicated it is largely controlled by politics, and often diversity concerns(although I am somewhat more understanding of diversity concerns than you are).
My only very minor positive remark about the appointment process is that once it is scaled down to three final candidates, usually the intense vetting process has, more often than not, at least eliminated Halversonian types or people with serious skeletons in their personal and professional closets.
So, reading my original post as well as yours, where are any major issues we disagree on?
My advice to you, really listen, particularly if you are in court, and read more closely. You will have a tough career if you condemn and call names to people who are largely agreeing with you. I would hate to imagine how you react to people who truly do have different views and opinions from you.
So much for:"I have a dream that some day content of character is the basis of judgment rather than skin color."
Do you mean it regarding the appointment or the discussion here?
Save Ma Border!
Save Scotti from himself.
Hardy v. Scotti. First one into a straitjacket win from the mental decline the bench has caused wins.
I put $50 on Scotti.