The Sands case with the hard drive (referenced in the KTNV article) was pretty bananas.
“During that hearing, a dispute arose over whether Sands’ attorneys had possession of emails that Jacobs sought in the case. Attorneys told then-Clark County District Court Judge Elizabeth Gonzalez they did not; in fact, they did have a hard drive that contained the emails.”
You’d think there would have been some disciplinary proceedings based on that…
I am no defender of Justin. However the Court was very specific in the Sands case at the tome that the sanctions ran to the Sands and not to Holland & Hart. I believe the judge when she says that if she felt that Justin did something sanctionable she would have sanctioned him.
This is what happens when judges don’t take their ethical responsibility seriously to report known misconduct. It just emboldens attorneys to do it again and again. Jones is a minor example of that relative to the known misconduct we all see and don’t recognize how “tip of the iceberg” it may be.
This is ridiculous as applied to this case. The Court (a jurist who was often tough on attorneys) held a multi-day evidentiary hearing on the issue and listened to the witnesses and evidence (including making the attorneys take the stand and be subject to cross-ex) and found the sanctionable conduct went to the party. If you want to talk about how certain judges engage in not taking ethical responsibilites seriously, there are lots of poster children for that argument. But “THIS” is not one of those cases.
So in her long tenure on the bench, how many reports of attorney misconduct did Gonzalez make? Surely the odds are that given the amount of time she was on the bench there must have been some reportable misconduct that occurred in front of her, right?
I was one of her law clerks during her years on the bench and will tell you that Judge Gonzalez is and was close friends with one of the members of the Office of Bar Counsel and did refer matters to the State Bar as well as directly sanctioning attorneys and parties that were in front of her.
I have known Betsy since she was at Beckley Singleton. She had the highest ethical standards both in private practice and on the bench. I don’t think she would hesitate to report serious misconduct, but you’d be spending your entire day filling out bar complaints if you reported every sketch-ish thing that every attorney ever did.
I want to second this and also indicate the way that the State Bar views misconduct in court: they defer to the Court. So Justin’s testimony in the Sands case was well publicized back then and nothing came of it. Why? Because the State Bar deferred to the Court policing itself. What brought Justin in front of the State Bar this time? Because Elayna Youchah did find conduct which she believed did merit investigation.
So it’s not a prior bad act when the Bar might be forced to actually prove something with dubious evidence, but it’s a prior bad act when they want to prejudice the panel without actually needing to prove it…
I third this and have always thought that she was likely the hardest working attorney I knew.
Guest
anonymous
February 7, 2025 10:32 am
Re the Patrick Kang mold case: After reading all of defense counsel’s snark in the article, I took a quick look through the docket. This case went through arbitration (exemption was denied) and the arbitrator awarded right around $50k (and that was for all plaintiffs combined but I didn’t add it up),after which the *Defendant* filed a trial de novo and demand for removal from the short trial program. So the $50k-ish case is now going to cost them $6.6m plus costs, interest, and likely attorney fees. Their supposed appellate issues (most of which will likely turn out to be abuse of discretion standard of review – and therefore a <50% chance of reversal) are going to have to do a lot of heavy lifting here. But hey, there will be a ton of billable hours!
I would also note that this case was tried before Judge Sturman. Whatever your opinion of her might be (and I’ve won some and lost some in her courtroom) she is a pretty meticulous judge who makes a good record. So good luck with the “this was just a shakedown” argument.
I spoke with an attorney at their firm. My understanding is the jury awarded the exact amount of the arbitration award. The jury was directed to send a message, and it sounds like the message was that they shouldn’t have requested the new trial.
It did not work out well for Billy Bush. So in this exchange, who is Billy and who is Donny?
Guest
Anonymous
February 7, 2025 11:52 am
“Government attorney are scrambling”
Not surprising. Anyone who has had anything to do with federal agencies has first hand knows of agency bloat. Not obvious to the public, the really hard work for many agencies is often farmed out to contractors.
Guest
Anonymous
February 7, 2025 12:05 pm
Kimball Jones USAA Verdict? Gloria Sturman
Patrick Kang Mold Verdict? Gloria Sturman
From the Review Journal: When Shimer texted Guymon what he needed to bring, Guymon responded with: “Condoms,” according to the report.
A detective wrote in the report that Shimer told Guymon he would “have to pick up some condoms,” and Guymon replied that “he already had some for Shimer.” Funny how Shimer never asked why do I need them for? Are we going to make water balloons? What is sad is the BAR will accept these lies as being true.
Text messages between two persons are lies? I missed that evidentiary rule if there’s dominion and control, which Shimer already established by calling it locker room talk.
Agreed. That’s perhaps what makes the texts so disappointing. The adage “boys will be boys” just doesn’t cut it anymore. Either you knew or should have known what was happening on that boat (allegedly), or when your friend and professional colleague says “no rly bring lots of condoms” you perhaps decline the invitation. I once heard in law school, “never put anything in a text message you don’t want read in open court.” Gary clearly didn’t learn that lesson. John should have known better. He’s such a good guy.
6:43 AM-Just receiving the text makes you look bad. Responding to it is worse. However, the text exchange does not show any criminal activity is underway. We have become so used to freely using texting as the main means of communication. Plus we say things in texts that we would never say in person. It is the surveillance that is the problem and taking texts out of context and blowing them up in the media. Another lawyer is falling.
The Sands case with the hard drive (referenced in the KTNV article) was pretty bananas.
“During that hearing, a dispute arose over whether Sands’ attorneys had possession of emails that Jacobs sought in the case. Attorneys told then-Clark County District Court Judge Elizabeth Gonzalez they did not; in fact, they did have a hard drive that contained the emails.”
You’d think there would have been some disciplinary proceedings based on that…
I am no defender of Justin. However the Court was very specific in the Sands case at the tome that the sanctions ran to the Sands and not to Holland & Hart. I believe the judge when she says that if she felt that Justin did something sanctionable she would have sanctioned him.
Betsy was/is no shrinking violet.
This is what happens when judges don’t take their ethical responsibility seriously to report known misconduct. It just emboldens attorneys to do it again and again. Jones is a minor example of that relative to the known misconduct we all see and don’t recognize how “tip of the iceberg” it may be.
This is ridiculous as applied to this case. The Court (a jurist who was often tough on attorneys) held a multi-day evidentiary hearing on the issue and listened to the witnesses and evidence (including making the attorneys take the stand and be subject to cross-ex) and found the sanctionable conduct went to the party. If you want to talk about how certain judges engage in not taking ethical responsibilites seriously, there are lots of poster children for that argument. But “THIS” is not one of those cases.
So in her long tenure on the bench, how many reports of attorney misconduct did Gonzalez make? Surely the odds are that given the amount of time she was on the bench there must have been some reportable misconduct that occurred in front of her, right?
I was one of her law clerks during her years on the bench and will tell you that Judge Gonzalez is and was close friends with one of the members of the Office of Bar Counsel and did refer matters to the State Bar as well as directly sanctioning attorneys and parties that were in front of her.
I have known Betsy since she was at Beckley Singleton. She had the highest ethical standards both in private practice and on the bench. I don’t think she would hesitate to report serious misconduct, but you’d be spending your entire day filling out bar complaints if you reported every sketch-ish thing that every attorney ever did.
I want to second this and also indicate the way that the State Bar views misconduct in court: they defer to the Court. So Justin’s testimony in the Sands case was well publicized back then and nothing came of it. Why? Because the State Bar deferred to the Court policing itself. What brought Justin in front of the State Bar this time? Because Elayna Youchah did find conduct which she believed did merit investigation.
So it’s not a prior bad act when the Bar might be forced to actually prove something with dubious evidence, but it’s a prior bad act when they want to prejudice the panel without actually needing to prove it…
I third this and have always thought that she was likely the hardest working attorney I knew.
Re the Patrick Kang mold case: After reading all of defense counsel’s snark in the article, I took a quick look through the docket. This case went through arbitration (exemption was denied) and the arbitrator awarded right around $50k (and that was for all plaintiffs combined but I didn’t add it up),after which the *Defendant* filed a trial de novo and demand for removal from the short trial program. So the $50k-ish case is now going to cost them $6.6m plus costs, interest, and likely attorney fees. Their supposed appellate issues (most of which will likely turn out to be abuse of discretion standard of review – and therefore a <50% chance of reversal) are going to have to do a lot of heavy lifting here. But hey, there will be a ton of billable hours!
I would also note that this case was tried before Judge Sturman. Whatever your opinion of her might be (and I’ve won some and lost some in her courtroom) she is a pretty meticulous judge who makes a good record. So good luck with the “this was just a shakedown” argument.
The real shocking thing is the jury only awarded $47,000 in punitives.
It is an oddly specific number. Wonder how they got there.
I spoke with an attorney at their firm. My understanding is the jury awarded the exact amount of the arbitration award. The jury was directed to send a message, and it sounds like the message was that they shouldn’t have requested the new trial.
Ouch. Wonder what policy limits/exclusions from coverage they had on a mold claim. Someone will have some explaining to do.
Nice to see a slumlord taking it in the shorts once in a while. I wonder what they were charging her for that apartment?
After the Trump/Billy Bush locker room talk thing, how would anyone with an ounce of PR common sense think that is a decent excuse/explanation.
It worked out pretty well for that Trump guy though (twice!)
It did not work out well for Billy Bush. So in this exchange, who is Billy and who is Donny?
“Government attorney are scrambling”
Not surprising. Anyone who has had anything to do with federal agencies has first hand knows of agency bloat. Not obvious to the public, the really hard work for many agencies is often farmed out to contractors.
Kimball Jones USAA Verdict? Gloria Sturman
Patrick Kang Mold Verdict? Gloria Sturman
Well I know of one high powered Plaintiff’s firm that recuses her saying she is pro defense.
She may have been a defense attorney but she is not pro defense.
How to Avoid ICE arrests
Courtesy of the Babylon Bee humor
https://babylonbee.com/news/9-inefficiencies-in-government-computer-systems-identified-by-doge-workers?utm_source=The%20Babylon%20Bee%20Newsletter&utm_medium=email
From the Review Journal: When Shimer texted Guymon what he needed to bring, Guymon responded with: “Condoms,” according to the report.
A detective wrote in the report that Shimer told Guymon he would “have to pick up some condoms,” and Guymon replied that “he already had some for Shimer.” Funny how Shimer never asked why do I need them for? Are we going to make water balloons? What is sad is the BAR will accept these lies as being true.
He also said he was kicking $500 in for the girls
$500? Should’ve asked Matt Gaetz, he could have gotten him a minor discount
Then he said it was for gas for the boat. How ridiculous.
Text messages between two persons are lies? I missed that evidentiary rule if there’s dominion and control, which Shimer already established by calling it locker room talk.
If you know Shimer, you would know that he is the classical nice guy who does not deserve to be caught up in this. Seriously. No I am not Shimer.
Agreed. That’s perhaps what makes the texts so disappointing. The adage “boys will be boys” just doesn’t cut it anymore. Either you knew or should have known what was happening on that boat (allegedly), or when your friend and professional colleague says “no rly bring lots of condoms” you perhaps decline the invitation. I once heard in law school, “never put anything in a text message you don’t want read in open court.” Gary clearly didn’t learn that lesson. John should have known better. He’s such a good guy.
6:43 AM-Just receiving the text makes you look bad. Responding to it is worse. However, the text exchange does not show any criminal activity is underway. We have become so used to freely using texting as the main means of communication. Plus we say things in texts that we would never say in person. It is the surveillance that is the problem and taking texts out of context and blowing them up in the media. Another lawyer is falling.
Nice guy who according to the texts took a boat ride with some hookers and some condoms.
Nice guys always use condoms.
Looks like I need some new friends….none of mine have a boat loaded with hookers.
Guymon and Shimer….https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avaSdC0QOUM