Many Nevada attorneys badly want to be on the bench in any capacity they can-whether full-time judge or hearing master, or alternate judicial officer, etc.
Most of them, when seeking the position , tout their experience and knowledge-certainly important characteristics for an effective judicial officer, but fortitude, strength and some degree of courage is also critical.
In many of these positions it is not merely a risk, but rather a virtual guarantee, that you will eventually encounter dangerously disturbed and/or highly out-of-control hyper- emotional individuals who will either directly threaten, or at least allude to, danger to the judge or even the judge's family.
Far more often than not, this is just a venting highly troubled individual, who has no intention or capacity to follow through, and probably knows nothing about whether the judicial officer even have a family or not. And, yes, occasionally the threat may constitute a legitimate risk to the safety of the judge and/or family. An internal court security record should be made of all such behaviors, and when appropriate should be reported to law enforcement as well, and all proper precautions should be taken. Yes, of course, all such threats must be taken very seriously
But to indirectly, and of course unintentionally, reward such vicious behavior with a recusal of judge each time a direct, or even oblique, threat is made, demonstrates the system as being very weak, afraid to protect victims, and easily intimidated and rendered virtually helpless. We wind up empowering these disturbed parties, and it sends them a clear(but, of course, totally unintended) message to keep up the threats.
In no way am I blaming judicial officers for being very troubled and upset when threats are made against them or their family. I would off course feel the same way they do if in their position. And if they see fit to have that party reported to law enforcement based on these threats to the judge and his/her family, that is fine as well if the judge, and/or court security personnel, determines it is warranted under the specific circumstances
So, do whatever you need to within reason and law, but NEVER recuse from the case, which telegraphs to that individual that unless a subsequent judge rules 100% to their liking, then just keep up the threat and intimidation game and all the subsequent judges will scatter for coverage as well.
11:43-It is too long, but in the time you took to post it's too long you probably could have at least skimmed it.
Candidly, I wasn't going to read it either, but glancing at it reminded me of someone. He had been a top prosecutor, and subsequently a great criminal defense attorney. My colleagues and I thought he would make a great judge-particularly for criminal calendar.
But he said he could never serve as a judge as he is too thin-skinned, and would recuse from a case if a defendant threatened him or his family. And he believed that raises ethical implications as a judge has a duty to sit and rule.
I agree that post in question is too long and verbose, and I don't agree with some of it.
But I have always been curious about the question of in what circumstances should a judge recuse based on a threat. If that occurs too often, or without seemingly compelling justification, it does tend to send a de-stabalizing message to the public, and any victim involved, about the integrity and ability of the system to protect the public in general, and the victim in particular.
When I clerked, we were told to never tell a Judge about a threat. We told the Marshalls / Bailiffs at family court as we were instructed to do. At family cour, you can imagine.
The system can't work if judges recuse for threats, just like it can't work if judges recuse when they're sued by a litigant or the litigant says mean things in the press.
Worth noting, though, that that's not what's reported in the RJ article. The RJ article is about criminal stalking and intimidation, including allegedly leaving objects on the HM's property, not just empty threats. And it's not the HM recusing, it's other judges.
12:02, that is the way it should be handled. When situations are miss-handled and get out of hand, the matter seems to feed and grow momentum, and everyone reflexively recuses once re-assigned to their department.
Judges need to be insulated from a lot of this. Otherwise, each time they are told of some threat the story grows out of proportion to what actually occurred.
Guest
Anonymous
July 5, 2023 10:20 pm
Vegas Inc is another of these "awards" that are bought and paid for, right? Or is it a voting popularity contest? These can't be real, unbiased nominations, judging by most of the names on this list.
Greenspun Media Group (https://www.gmgvegas.com) makes a pretty penny in advertising dollars off of these lists. Just pick up a copy of a Las Vegas Weekly (which GMG also publishes), and you'll see the same list and many of the attorneys' firms with advertisements congratulating them on such a prestigious honor. It's a nice promotional tool for the firms and CV filler for the attorneys, but ultimately it's no different than a paid listing in a volume of "Who's Who Among American High School Students."
Guest
Anonymous
July 6, 2023 4:48 pm
Agree, there are people in certain specialities that you have never heard of and Vegas Inc. does some good marketing.
I am first again and the last time it was indeed my day!
Figured the Nevada Supreme Court would be on vacation this week but they're issuing four published decisions tomorrow.
Is there a new RSS feed (or some other notification) for when new opinions are published?
They used to have an RSS feed that you can add to Outlook and get the new cases every week, but it seems it's gone now 🙁
Sigal is rarely on the smart side of any issue.
If she's getting paid, it seems smart to me.
Should we start a countdown to when she inevitably withdraws or subs in new counsel?
She's like asking a bear to teach math
@11:30 Bold of you to assume she's getting paid.
Many Nevada attorneys badly want to be on the bench in any capacity they can-whether full-time judge or hearing master, or alternate judicial officer, etc.
Most of them, when seeking the position , tout their experience and knowledge-certainly important characteristics for an effective judicial officer, but fortitude, strength and some degree of courage is also critical.
In many of these positions it is not merely a risk, but rather a virtual guarantee, that you will eventually encounter dangerously disturbed and/or highly out-of-control hyper- emotional individuals who will either directly threaten, or at least allude to, danger to the judge or even the judge's family.
Far more often than not, this is just a venting highly troubled individual, who has no intention or capacity to follow through, and probably knows nothing about whether the judicial officer even have a family or not. And, yes, occasionally the threat may constitute a legitimate risk to the safety of the judge and/or family. An internal court security record should be made of all such behaviors, and when appropriate should be reported to law enforcement as well, and all proper precautions should be taken. Yes, of course, all such threats must be taken very seriously
But to indirectly, and of course unintentionally, reward such vicious behavior with a recusal of judge each time a direct, or even oblique, threat is made, demonstrates the system as being very weak, afraid to protect victims, and easily intimidated and rendered virtually helpless. We wind up empowering these disturbed parties, and it sends them a clear(but, of course, totally unintended) message to keep up the threats.
In no way am I blaming judicial officers for being very troubled and upset when threats are made against them or their family. I would off course feel the same way they do if in their position. And if they see fit to have that party reported to law enforcement based on these threats to the judge and his/her family, that is fine as well if the judge, and/or court security personnel, determines it is warranted under the specific circumstances
So, do whatever you need to within reason and law, but NEVER recuse from the case, which telegraphs to that individual that unless a subsequent judge rules 100% to their liking, then just keep up the threat and intimidation game and all the subsequent judges will scatter for coverage as well.
TLDR. Must be a day off?
11:43-It is too long, but in the time you took to post it's too long you probably could have at least skimmed it.
Candidly, I wasn't going to read it either, but glancing at it reminded me of someone. He had been a top prosecutor, and subsequently a great criminal defense attorney. My colleagues and I thought he would make a great judge-particularly for criminal calendar.
But he said he could never serve as a judge as he is too thin-skinned, and would recuse from a case if a defendant threatened him or his family. And he believed that raises ethical implications as a judge has a duty to sit and rule.
I agree that post in question is too long and verbose, and I don't agree with some of it.
But I have always been curious about the question of in what circumstances should a judge recuse based on a threat. If that occurs too often, or without seemingly compelling justification, it does tend to send a de-stabalizing message to the public, and any victim involved, about the integrity and ability of the system to protect the public in general, and the victim in particular.
When I clerked, we were told to never tell a Judge about a threat. We told the Marshalls / Bailiffs at family court as we were instructed to do. At family cour, you can imagine.
The system can't work if judges recuse for threats, just like it can't work if judges recuse when they're sued by a litigant or the litigant says mean things in the press.
Worth noting, though, that that's not what's reported in the RJ article. The RJ article is about criminal stalking and intimidation, including allegedly leaving objects on the HM's property, not just empty threats. And it's not the HM recusing, it's other judges.
12:02, that is the way it should be handled. When situations are miss-handled and get out of hand, the matter seems to feed and grow momentum, and everyone reflexively recuses once re-assigned to their department.
Judges need to be insulated from a lot of this. Otherwise, each time they are told of some threat the story grows out of proportion to what actually occurred.
Vegas Inc is another of these "awards" that are bought and paid for, right? Or is it a voting popularity contest? These can't be real, unbiased nominations, judging by most of the names on this list.
take a look at their list and decide for yourself
Greenspun Media Group (https://www.gmgvegas.com) makes a pretty penny in advertising dollars off of these lists. Just pick up a copy of a Las Vegas Weekly (which GMG also publishes), and you'll see the same list and many of the attorneys' firms with advertisements congratulating them on such a prestigious honor. It's a nice promotional tool for the firms and CV filler for the attorneys, but ultimately it's no different than a paid listing in a volume of "Who's Who Among American High School Students."
Agree, there are people in certain specialities that you have never heard of and Vegas Inc. does some good marketing.