- Quickdraw McLaw
- 52 Comments
- 140 Views
The marijuana-themed February issue of Nevada Lawyer magazine contains an article written by Stan Hunterton, bar counsel, and Phil Pattee, assistant bar counsel called “New Marijuana Laws, Business, and Lawyers: Let’s Be Careful Out There.” If you haven’t already, give it a read and then let us know what you think. Are there any issues you are concerned with that are not addressed by the article? Is their analysis right? Has your practice been affected by the legalization of marijuana?
My thoughts are that Stan Hunterton is an evil human being who needs to be removed from his position and has set the State Bar back decades. My thoughts on the article is that it is incredibly overly simplistic and provides no useful information. If the totality of advice that the OBC can provide is "Be careful", well it is just further evidence that the OBC is of little utility and use to members of the Bar.
Having dealt with Phil Pattee a couple of times, I would say they are two peas in a pod.
Hardesty. Vote him out. Run.
Sounds like there is a fundamental misunderstanding as to the function/purpose of the OBC. Some seem to think it exists to protect the attorneys. It exists to protect the public from those few attorneys that victimize the public by violating the rules of professional conduct.
That being said, the OBC or the Bar should have a system in place for the benefit of the majority of attorney's that want to do the correct thing but are confused as to the application of the rules to a particular situation.
The Ethics Hotline is supposed to provide that safety valve function. Whether it is officially under the OBC or spun off to a separate part of the bar is not that important. It does need to be staffed by qualified and competent people that are up to date on the latest interpretations of the rules and can analyze a specific situation under the current rules. There should be a safe harbor rule so that any attorney that obtains guidance from the hotline and actually follows the recommendation given gets a free pass in terms of discipline from OBC if the recommendation was incorrect.
I agree with the imposition of discipline where the attorney violates the rules either because they didn't bother to seek guidance or didn't like the guidance given. When they do in fact seek guidance and do what the ethics expert instructs them to do I do not agree with discipline as they demonstrated an intent to comply with the rules and did everything they could to do it.
Yes this! It'll only add $200/yr to your bar dues and require you to get OBC approval before every decision you make. Sign me up!!
There is no misunderstanding. There is a fundamental disagreement regarding how those duties are carried out. And if you believe that the OBC only goes after "those few attorneys that victimize the public", then you truly have no knowledge as to what has been going on with the OBC over the past 3 years.
Spoken like someone who ran afoul of the rules and got caught with their hand in the cookie jar.
1:17 that is an absolute BS comment from you. I had an experience with these OBC idiots a few years ago that cost me about twice as much in attorney fees as what was at issue, and involved no "cookie jar" issues, illegality or dishonesty on my part, or harm to a client. Please take the time to learn what you are talking about before shooting off your mouth.
To: 1:31: Again, spoken like someone who ran afoul of the rules and got caught with their hand in the cookie jar(as proven by your own words, such as "I had an experience with these OBC idiots a few years ago that cost me about twice as much in attorney fees as what was at issue…").
So, 1:31, why does 1:17 need to take all this time you suggest in order to "learn" what they are talking about when: (1) They already knew exactly what they were talking about; and(2) You immediately proved it by essentially admitting that you didn't care to balance and reconcile your trust account, and attracted a disciplinary proceeding on account of it.
1:31 may become a frequent flyer as to discipline matters as they have learned nothing and are extremely bitter and angry that the Bar has the unmitigated audacity to expect 1:31 to keep their hands off their client's monies.
1:31, 1:17 here. You presume, incorrectly, that I don't know the facts. But thank you for confirming my suspicion about you.
Wow that escalated quickly since I am 12:57 and I am not 1:31 (although thanks for presuming we are the same person).
Actually the comment that I made at 12:57 was spoken like someone who is involved in Bar matters not as party (hint). I am not the subject of any disciplinary actions, just someone who observes them closely. The comment was directed at the fact that OBC goes after much more than "hand in the cookie jar", which I would argue does victimize the public because the money in the cookie jar is not your money. There are accounting errors and then there are cases where other peoples' monies are purloined. If there are victims, those offenses should be dealt with sternly. If there are no victims, the OBC needs to truly rethink its approach.
@3:08: In this day and age of computerized accounting programs I fail to understand your accounting errors argument. I would suggest that anyone still manually writing checks and reconciling their IOLTA account is per se falling below the standard of care.
Computer programs such as Quickbooks or even Quicken have been on the market for 20+ years and are reasonably priced ($50-$200). Since we all know the consequences of "errors" when it comes to the IOLTA account and the chance of such "errors" can easily be brought to a virtual zero through the use of an inexpensive computer program, I throw the BS card when I hear the problem with the IOLTA account was an accounting "error".
The truth is either the attorney either had their hand in the cookie jar, or they are kiting funds (using one client's funds to pay another client) instead of waiting for the check to clear before writing a check against the new funds as required by the rules.
I will give you three very basic (and real life) examples.
(1) Office Manager puts together the deposits for the day. Firm has a general operating account and IOLTA Account which were opened at the same time (and thus have very similar account numbers). Office manager takes the checks to the bank and erroneously deposits the general monies in the IOLTA Account and the IOLTA monies into the General Account. QuickBooks does not catch transposing accounts at the bank.
(2) Garnishments comes in from the Constable and has the case numbers on it. $10,000 on Case A where a bank account gets hit; $547.61 on Case B where a wage garnishment is received. Check is deposited into IOLTA. Client B is cut a settlement check in the sum of $10,000. Client A is cut a settlement check of $547.61. QuickBooks cuts the checks that you tell it to cut.
(3) (A frequent one) Busy practice Office manager is cutting checks to her friends and family but reconciles the account every month. Attorney is supervising but not doing the month to month reconciliations and only finds out too late. QuickBooks does not vet the payees to make sure that they are actual clients.
None of these involve an attorney with his hand in the cookie jar; all of them have resulted in attorney discipline. So throw the BS card all you want. Yes mistakes still happen.
7:31– You sound exactly like Stan, who gave a speech to the CCBA in which he stated that attorneys are all greedy. Believe it or not, there are actually quite a few discipline cases that have nothing to do with taking client monies.
I generally believe OBC is overly aggressive and misguided. However 11:52's example 3 sounds like failure to adequately supervise one's practice. If this was client money that was embezzled, you are the attorney – you are responsible.
9:20– I agree that it is failure to supervise. But would you give a multi-year suspension for failure to supervise? Sometimes the issues with OBC is not that they shouldn't do anything; it is that (as you indicate) they are overly aggressive and extremely heavy handed.
The other issue is that the OBC (and Hardesty is extremely guilty of this also) cannot or does not differentiate between people who do harm to their clients and those who do not. The standard is supposed to be about protecting the public; however if attorneys who do no harm to the clients are punished as severely as those who do, well then the message is clear: don't worry about clients. Don't worry about mitigation. And if you are going to take money, take ALOT of money because the result is the same.
Rob Bare was not hated by the members of the Bar. David Clark was not hated by members of the State Bar. Brian Kunzi (for the short time they let him hold the job) was not hated by members. They actually acted to look out of the best interests of the State Bar, its members and the public. Stan has redrawn the lines so that it is the State Bar against its members.
That seems fair…9000 NV attorneys v. Stan
11:50 hits the nail on the head. I never heard complaints about any of those guys. FWIW Phil was fair to me when I had an OBC problem.
The push was not by Stan Hunterton, but rather came from the Supreme Court, to the BOG, who then put the pressure on Bar Counsel to aggressively pursue cases and clear the backlog that had developed under prior leadership. That push began under David Clark as the time to resolve cases was growing as great as the Supreme Court's backlog. Something I think everyone will agree is not fair to either the complaining party, or the attorney.
P.S. I have absolutely no objection to going after people with their hand in the cookie jar. In that regard it would be well to ask why it took them so damn long to catch on to Rob Graham who stole millions? I find it inconceivable that no red flags were ever raised over the years.
They acted within days of receiving a complaint. No complaint, no investigation. Now because of Graham, the Supreme Court is considering a program to audit lawyer trust accounts at the expense of the lawyers. That is the real BS.
There is a woman in town, Linda Brown Warnick, who has called every crim guy in town regarding Graham stealing millions from her. She did this for a number of years back in 2010-11. She's crazy so nobody believed her. I actually regret not looking into it cause clearly she was right.
I agree with everything that 1:21 says except that the push was not by Stan Hunterton. The push started from Hardesty, to BoG to the sacking of David Clark and hiring of Stan. Stan was given was marching orders that excessive violence was approved, but no one I think truly believed the Draconian dirtiness with which Stan has carried out his duties. The new Sheriff has not made things safer; he is only making things nastier.
However the backlog was largely related to the Supreme Court's backlog. The Nevada Supreme Court was taking over a year to reject a CGP, send it back and then when it would come back up is still taking around a year. That is over 2 years on those cases of attorneys and clients waiting in limbo. That is the Supreme Court's doing. The Kirk-Hughes case has taken years, including over two years pending before the Nevada Supreme Court. The Nevada Supreme Court is not making the discipline process better, just nastier.
Does the state bar go after other disciplinary matters with as much zeal as stealing?
Actually arguably the OBC/NSC treats stealing relatively lightly compared to other offenses. Arguably stealing from one's clients is worse than making a mistake on one's tax return, yet the latter is punished much more harshly than the former.
Yeah this has always seemed really strange to me. In the other state in which I am licensed, any trust issue is automatic disbarment. Mishandling a client's money is the most serious thing you can do.
OBC does not dictate the punishment. OBC can request discipline, which may be accepted or rejected by the panel. Regardless of the panel's decision, final say falls to the Supreme Court. That said, I agree the Court has been far too lenient on attorneys stealing client funds. That should be an automatic bounce.
They don't dictate the punishment but they do request the punishment which the Panel can (but does not wildly) deviate. Therefore if OBC asks for 2 years, the Panel will not go 4 years. Agree that the Supremes have ultimate final say. Agree that Court has been far too harsh on people with no victims and far too lenient on people who steal from their trust account.
any thoughts on Scotti ordering RJ not to report on one autopsy out of the 58 after (Was it Williams') ruling last week that autopsy reports are public records?
Isn't he overruling Tim Williams? Authority?
Prior restraint much?
There is a new sheriff in town.
Scotti has problems.
Hardy might be worse than Scotti.
How the hell does a judge get to the point where he's about to issue a gag order to a newspaper, and not stop to consider that his oath to uphold the Constitution comes first and second, with made-up interests a very distant third? And then to justify it by saying "oh, they only asked for it to sell newspapers"??? What the hell?
The judges on the bench do not gapply the law. What a joke.
Apply
The Judges on our bench often have little idea what they are doing. Someone mentioned Hardy. I have gone from extremely frustrated with him to almost sympathetic. He is honestly in over his head and it is starting to wear on him. You can see it. He doesn't what he is doing.
* know what he is doing and he knows that he doesn't know what he is doing.
What makes you think that? I know Joe and he is smart and capable.
He used to really seem like he would work on his rulings and understand the issue. Lately he has been making decisions that demonstrate no understanding of basic fundamentals of law and are made rashly. Watch his body language on the bench. Watch how quickly the formerly mild-mannered attorney explodes at times. The lack of eye contact. Being a judge seems fun from the peanut gallery. Like Scotti, he has not adjusted well and is over his head. Maybe it is the business court docket that was more complicated than he can handle.
There are very few who are capable down at the RJC. The few that are good are Denton, Gonzales, and Togliatti. Delaney and Leavitt are nice women, I will leave it at that. The rest suck. You are getting the heave ho.
Leavitt?!?!? Bwaa ha ha ha ha! What is this an early April Fool's prank?
Sort of on topic- does your firm drug test, and if do, does it screen out people who test positive for only marinuana?
Did anyone reading this (other than those of you who are in-house for corporations with standardized drug test policies) actually have to pee in a cup to get a job as a lawyer? N.B.: your prior gig in Utah doesn't count.
No. No, man. Shit, no, man. I believe you'd get your ass kicked sayin' something like that, man.
3:52 love the Office Space reference!
My firm doesn't drug test but if it tested for marijuana I'd be out of a job.
Houston, we continue to radio. This is commAnd center. We have a problem.
You sound like you are talking about the RJC.