“You are right, it’s not illegal,” Reed said. “But why didn’t they disclose it at the meetings, because it doesn’t make them look like they’re impartial.”
This is so disingenuous. The VERIFIED Petition for Judicial Review explicitly claims money was “laundered” (that’s the Petition’s language) from the Church through the Kaempfer Crowell to the City Council members. That’s an allegation of a crime.
Guest
Anonymous
August 19, 2024 12:26 pm
Anyone has watched the trial. Why is Rob using a grease pencil?
Weird question. I watched part of the data extraction expert. It looks like Rob started casing German and planning this weeks in advance. To this point, I always assumed the attack was prompted by the public records email the day prior to the murder. The prosecution implied that in their opening arguments, even putting up a calendar on the screen showing the information request email on September 1 and the murder on September 2. Now, this data shows Rob was looking up German’s address on Google Street View and his car information (VIN, etc) weeks prior. Also, how does Rob have the ability to look up the license plate, year make and model of a private citizens vehicle?
The argument I’d make goes something like this: Telles was angry for many months over German’s reporting. The anger grew when Telles lost the primary election, blaming it on German’s reporting. The public records request and County saying they were going to do a document dump in early September is what sped up whatever Telles had been planning, figuring if he killed German before the County released the records (or before German could put them to use), the reporting would not happen.
Because of the prohibition on putting defendants in shackles and handcuffs it becomes a major risk. In the US district court a few years ago, a gang member leapt over the table and attempted to stab a witness during trial with a pencil before he was shot dead by the marshal. I think many courts moved to markers or other soft-tipped writing instruments after that.
Guest
Anonymous
August 19, 2024 12:36 pm
If Uber wants to cap attorney fees at 20%, I think it equally applicable to cap Uber’s take of any ride fees at 20%.
I understand Uber takes as much as 40% of some ride fees, which, unironically, seems to track certain PI firm rates.
Let’s just call taking more than 20% of anything as usury under the statutes.
Guest
Anonymous
August 19, 2024 1:42 pm
The more I read on this Uber thing the angrier I get. I read that they had knowledge of the SA history/records for some of their drivers and let them drive anyway. Uber is an irresponsible company that does not care for their customers. Just the bottom line.
Oh no… PI attorneys aren’t going to be able to send their clients to the slimy doctors to get 80 unnecessary medications/procedures and then stick them with attorneys fees after they squander a case cause they are largely not actually good lawyers.
(This does not apply to all PI attorneys/cases… just a large portion of em)
But the new proposal won’t change that. Maybe attorneys will charge less, but inflate the markup more. Or more likely they charge that anyway on a settlement. It will likely come mostly into play when there is a very contested case.
I agree. I think the reaction has largely been hyperbolic.
I’m mostly just poking fun at the doomsday reactions from the PI attorney that have been constant on the blog. Most of them to the tone of “I’m a fighter of justice. You know who’s the real victim here? Joe Dirt who’s got slight shoulder pain from a fender bender. Now he’s not going to be get legal representation he deserves and get a demand letter for $10 million sent on his behalf to the GREEDY insurance company.”
ID Attorney here. I think this is terrible Idea. Decreasing access to justice wont prevent the egregious cases or the ones who take advantage of clients. It will prevent cases which most need litigating. Why are we ok with restricting contractual rights?
We can make adjustments to how PI attorneys are compensated. However, ultimately, we will live in one of two worlds:
(1) A world with broad access to justice, where parties are free to contract on terms they agree to. In this world, there will be some marginal claims pursued.
(2) A world with narrow access to justice, where the parties are constrained, by statute, as to the contracts they can enter into. In this world, there are fewer marginal claims.
Ultimately, we have to decide whether we want to live with one of two evils- marginal claims or narrow access to justice.
Prediction: Settlement multiples will get back to 3/4x the specials like it used to be years and years ago because PI lawyers will litigate out of principal.
You can’t back up multiples of specials unless juries are willing to pay that. And in most cases they aren’t. I’ve had or seen several low impact trials over the past two or three years where juries at short trial granted almost nothing for pain and suffering. Client acting would need to improve and attorneys will likely only lean into cases where the photos are egregious–totaled vehicles, etc.
While it will take some time, I think that it will and I am specifically talking about settlement amounts as Plaintiff evaluated pre-litigation. In the interim, what will also increase is the number and severity of bad faith actions, as Insurance cos push back on the increased aggression with which these are litigated.
You think PI lawyers are hated. No. The less schooled and skilled ones are the ones losing those cases. The good ones will increase their bottom line even with the proposed contingency fee haircut. You might even see a number of smaller PI practitioners and mills refer out, shut down or consolidate.
I guess one of the key questions (and assumptions by Uber) is that the low impact low damage cases won’t be taken by PI attorneys because of the smaller margins. This is probably untrue. The lower tier attorneys have proven that they will take almost any case. I’m not sure that will change. And, the bigger firms may even be willing to take lower “quality” cases as they need to maintain volume more than ever. Maybe I’m missing something but it seems the likely winners are the medical providers as a higher percentage will be available to pay out their liens.
I think it means most of them won’t unreasonably hold out for a policy limits settlement though. They’ll churn and burn them through their paralegals prelit where 20% is still profitable in large volumes.
Rob is having to watch the video of himself and the staffer exit the back seat of his car, all in front of the jury. Law & Crime network has a camera permanently on Rob in a split screen, and Rob is squirming and just pulsating embarrassment, frustration and defeat. It’s rough to watch.
Yes, the whole way. Which raises a great problem- how do appeals get funded? So Uber gets to pay for appeals when they lose, but the prevailing party functionally doesn’t? Sounds fair.
Not anytime soon, the legislature won’t. The legislature in 2025 will have 40 days to consider the initiative. The legislature can enact the initiative into law. It can reject the petition or take no action in 40 days, which sends the initiative to the ballot at the next general election. If the legislature rejects it, the governor may propose and the legislature may enact an alternative proposal on the same subject within the 40 days, and both the petition and the legislature’s alternative go to the ballot, and whichever one gets the most votes at the general election becomes law. Either way, through direct enactment or enactment by the ballot box, the legislature cannot amend or repeal it for 3 years. So yeah, the legislature won’t be able to fix this anytime soon.
For small cases, Uber/Ins Co gets three bites at the apple. Arbitration, Short Trial and appeal. No wonder why so many PI attys blow off the arbitration with a minimal effort, and why the insurance co de novos every arbitration award.
The court came out with the statistics last year. I don’t remember them exactly offhand, but I think like 85% of arb cases settle pre-arbitration which is great. Of the 15% that go to arbitration though, I think like 90% of them get de novo’ed. I think that says more about the PI friendly arbitrators than anything. If reasonable awards were being handed out there’d be no reason to de novo. It just doesn’t make sense. But when some PI attorney moonlighting as an arbitrator gives their buddy 4x generals on meds of 10k for a max arbitration award there is nothing to lose by seeking a trial de novo to try and get an award between 10 and 20k. Especially if you already have an offer out for 20k.
Any firm that is “local” only. The firms that have national ties are funding multiple layers of management. Avoid firms that use salespeople or have multiple account managers. Get itemized bills — sometimes you have to specifically ask for them — to be sure you’re comparing apples to apples.
The locals are few and far between these days. Oasis was about the last big local firm, and they were bought by Lexitas when Bill LaBorde decided to retire. There may be some solos out there that I am not familiar with, as I’m only doing a handful of depos per year at this point in my career.
Manning, Hall, Salisbury. Rocket Reporters. Western Reporting Services. All American. They all have solid, experienced reporters who don’t want to play the games the nationals play.
Guest
Anonymous
August 19, 2024 4:20 pm
that first link, the 9th cir decision, is fascinating. There is a contingent of federal judges who would like to abolish federal habeas corpus. So a three-judge 9th cir panel upheld a district court order granting federal habeas. Then, the abolitionists couldn’t get a majority vote on the en banc reconsideration, so we get this statement to SCOTUS asking to summarily reverse. Strikes me as inappropriate. It’s like the 9th Cir filing an amicus brief against themselves.
Very interesting, except that it seems to me that the abolishment of federal (or any other habeas corpus) might violate a little thing called Article I, Section 9, Clause 2, so there is that.
There is recent case law basically stating that it’s a discretionary remedy so that’s where the hat hangs. Playing the “even if he’s entitled still don’t have to grant” card.
Steve Wolfon (no tie) observed Telles’ trial during the testimony of Taylor Tolliver.
Guest
Anonymous
August 19, 2024 5:43 pm
I understand ending with Gatus as she was the homicide detective on the case. It was a very ineffective conclusion to the case. I was expecting her to tie up the loose ends; there really were not any loose ends for her to tie up. Still think he gets convicted by a mile.
Telles has got this. He’s been preparing his testimony meticulously for months. Pam will not be ready for he is bringing. He wins his acquittal if he performs.
Guest
Anonymous
August 20, 2024 9:45 am
Today Telles takes the stand. Wolfson and his cronies must be shaking in their boots.
You save him for last and spend every moment between now and then trying to talk him out of testifying. Rob had a bad habit of thinking he was the smartest guy in the room despite all of the evidence to the contrary.
You hired a good lawyer. There is no way Bob is telling Rob to testify. Someone the other day quoted the lines from Presumed Innocent when Sabich wanted to testify and Stern said that while he thought he would testify passionately, with every word he would confirm for the jury that he was passionate enough to kill. Exactly what Telles would/will do.
I never knew the guy, but when he was first arrested there were comments from people who went to law school with him. It sounds like he has a long history of thinking he’s the smartest guy in the room and refusing to admit he has ever been wrong. I also heard he had threatened to sue the SBA over some kind of sexual harassment issue. Seems like this trial is a predictable, albeit extreme, end to his legal career.
Re: Lone Mountain Temple Lawsuit
“You are right, it’s not illegal,” Reed said. “But why didn’t they disclose it at the meetings, because it doesn’t make them look like they’re impartial.”
This is so disingenuous. The VERIFIED Petition for Judicial Review explicitly claims money was “laundered” (that’s the Petition’s language) from the Church through the Kaempfer Crowell to the City Council members. That’s an allegation of a crime.
Anyone has watched the trial. Why is Rob using a grease pencil?
Weird question. I watched part of the data extraction expert. It looks like Rob started casing German and planning this weeks in advance. To this point, I always assumed the attack was prompted by the public records email the day prior to the murder. The prosecution implied that in their opening arguments, even putting up a calendar on the screen showing the information request email on September 1 and the murder on September 2. Now, this data shows Rob was looking up German’s address on Google Street View and his car information (VIN, etc) weeks prior. Also, how does Rob have the ability to look up the license plate, year make and model of a private citizens vehicle?
Run any type of skiptrace program and you can get asset reports. Federal law has cut back on what you can see but vehicles is not a hard get
The argument I’d make goes something like this: Telles was angry for many months over German’s reporting. The anger grew when Telles lost the primary election, blaming it on German’s reporting. The public records request and County saying they were going to do a document dump in early September is what sped up whatever Telles had been planning, figuring if he killed German before the County released the records (or before German could put them to use), the reporting would not happen.
All CCDC inmates use them at trial. Apparently pens or sharpened pencils create a security risk.
Can be used to stab into carotid artery.
Because of the prohibition on putting defendants in shackles and handcuffs it becomes a major risk. In the US district court a few years ago, a gang member leapt over the table and attempted to stab a witness during trial with a pencil before he was shot dead by the marshal. I think many courts moved to markers or other soft-tipped writing instruments after that.
If Uber wants to cap attorney fees at 20%, I think it equally applicable to cap Uber’s take of any ride fees at 20%.
I understand Uber takes as much as 40% of some ride fees, which, unironically, seems to track certain PI firm rates.
Let’s just call taking more than 20% of anything as usury under the statutes.
The more I read on this Uber thing the angrier I get. I read that they had knowledge of the SA history/records for some of their drivers and let them drive anyway. Uber is an irresponsible company that does not care for their customers. Just the bottom line.
All true, but they will likely succeed here by pitting the public against unlikable billboard lawyers.
Time to light the Steve-Signal, then. I will put Steve Parke and his hilarious signs up against the slimy twits at Uber corporate anyday.
Best signage in the business. Period.
Oh no… PI attorneys aren’t going to be able to send their clients to the slimy doctors to get 80 unnecessary medications/procedures and then stick them with attorneys fees after they squander a case cause they are largely not actually good lawyers.
(This does not apply to all PI attorneys/cases… just a large portion of em)
But the new proposal won’t change that. Maybe attorneys will charge less, but inflate the markup more. Or more likely they charge that anyway on a settlement. It will likely come mostly into play when there is a very contested case.
2:20 here
I agree. I think the reaction has largely been hyperbolic.
I’m mostly just poking fun at the doomsday reactions from the PI attorney that have been constant on the blog. Most of them to the tone of “I’m a fighter of justice. You know who’s the real victim here? Joe Dirt who’s got slight shoulder pain from a fender bender. Now he’s not going to be get legal representation he deserves and get a demand letter for $10 million sent on his behalf to the GREEDY insurance company.”
Make no mistake. The ID attorneys are way more prevalent on this blog and in particular opining on this topic.
ID Attorney here. I think this is terrible Idea. Decreasing access to justice wont prevent the egregious cases or the ones who take advantage of clients. It will prevent cases which most need litigating. Why are we ok with restricting contractual rights?
We can make adjustments to how PI attorneys are compensated. However, ultimately, we will live in one of two worlds:
(1) A world with broad access to justice, where parties are free to contract on terms they agree to. In this world, there will be some marginal claims pursued.
(2) A world with narrow access to justice, where the parties are constrained, by statute, as to the contracts they can enter into. In this world, there are fewer marginal claims.
Ultimately, we have to decide whether we want to live with one of two evils- marginal claims or narrow access to justice.
see med mal for an example of narrowing access to justice.
Prediction: Settlement multiples will get back to 3/4x the specials like it used to be years and years ago because PI lawyers will litigate out of principal.
You can’t back up multiples of specials unless juries are willing to pay that. And in most cases they aren’t. I’ve had or seen several low impact trials over the past two or three years where juries at short trial granted almost nothing for pain and suffering. Client acting would need to improve and attorneys will likely only lean into cases where the photos are egregious–totaled vehicles, etc.
While it will take some time, I think that it will and I am specifically talking about settlement amounts as Plaintiff evaluated pre-litigation. In the interim, what will also increase is the number and severity of bad faith actions, as Insurance cos push back on the increased aggression with which these are litigated.
You think PI lawyers are hated. No. The less schooled and skilled ones are the ones losing those cases. The good ones will increase their bottom line even with the proposed contingency fee haircut. You might even see a number of smaller PI practitioners and mills refer out, shut down or consolidate.
I guess one of the key questions (and assumptions by Uber) is that the low impact low damage cases won’t be taken by PI attorneys because of the smaller margins. This is probably untrue. The lower tier attorneys have proven that they will take almost any case. I’m not sure that will change. And, the bigger firms may even be willing to take lower “quality” cases as they need to maintain volume more than ever. Maybe I’m missing something but it seems the likely winners are the medical providers as a higher percentage will be available to pay out their liens.
I think it means most of them won’t unreasonably hold out for a policy limits settlement though. They’ll churn and burn them through their paralegals prelit where 20% is still profitable in large volumes.
Not much changes at SBN. Recycling is an artform there. https://nvbar.org/wp-content/uploads/NevadaLawyer_Aug2024_PresidentsMessage-AggressivenessOverrated.pdf recycled from this https://nvbar.org/wp-content/uploads/NevLawyer_Jan_2014_President%27s_Message_07.pdf
But at least no more “task force.”
Rob is having to watch the video of himself and the staffer exit the back seat of his car, all in front of the jury. Law & Crime network has a camera permanently on Rob in a split screen, and Rob is squirming and just pulsating embarrassment, frustration and defeat. It’s rough to watch.
He’s a mur-diddly-urdler
Does the 20% cap apply to prelit, lit and appeal?
Yes, the whole way. Which raises a great problem- how do appeals get funded? So Uber gets to pay for appeals when they lose, but the prevailing party functionally doesn’t? Sounds fair.
Basically, the Plaintiff gets one bite at the apple (trial) and Uber gets two bites (trial, appeal).
I do not believe that this thing will pass in any event. But if it does, the legislature will address these concerns. I have to believe that.
Hmm.. politicians (the legislature) have only their own interest at heart. They are good at rationalizing their voting.
Not anytime soon, the legislature won’t. The legislature in 2025 will have 40 days to consider the initiative. The legislature can enact the initiative into law. It can reject the petition or take no action in 40 days, which sends the initiative to the ballot at the next general election. If the legislature rejects it, the governor may propose and the legislature may enact an alternative proposal on the same subject within the 40 days, and both the petition and the legislature’s alternative go to the ballot, and whichever one gets the most votes at the general election becomes law. Either way, through direct enactment or enactment by the ballot box, the legislature cannot amend or repeal it for 3 years. So yeah, the legislature won’t be able to fix this anytime soon.
For small cases, Uber/Ins Co gets three bites at the apple. Arbitration, Short Trial and appeal. No wonder why so many PI attys blow off the arbitration with a minimal effort, and why the insurance co de novos every arbitration award.
The court came out with the statistics last year. I don’t remember them exactly offhand, but I think like 85% of arb cases settle pre-arbitration which is great. Of the 15% that go to arbitration though, I think like 90% of them get de novo’ed. I think that says more about the PI friendly arbitrators than anything. If reasonable awards were being handed out there’d be no reason to de novo. It just doesn’t make sense. But when some PI attorney moonlighting as an arbitrator gives their buddy 4x generals on meds of 10k for a max arbitration award there is nothing to lose by seeking a trial de novo to try and get an award between 10 and 20k. Especially if you already have an offer out for 20k.
of the low value case could a PI attorney take a case at $750 / hour. bill the heck out of it. then reduce his or her fee to be approximately 1/3?
most reasonably-priced court reporting services for depositions? go
Any firm that is “local” only. The firms that have national ties are funding multiple layers of management. Avoid firms that use salespeople or have multiple account managers. Get itemized bills — sometimes you have to specifically ask for them — to be sure you’re comparing apples to apples.
The locals are few and far between these days. Oasis was about the last big local firm, and they were bought by Lexitas when Bill LaBorde decided to retire. There may be some solos out there that I am not familiar with, as I’m only doing a handful of depos per year at this point in my career.
Manning, Hall, Salisbury. Rocket Reporters. Western Reporting Services. All American. They all have solid, experienced reporters who don’t want to play the games the nationals play.
that first link, the 9th cir decision, is fascinating. There is a contingent of federal judges who would like to abolish federal habeas corpus. So a three-judge 9th cir panel upheld a district court order granting federal habeas. Then, the abolitionists couldn’t get a majority vote on the en banc reconsideration, so we get this statement to SCOTUS asking to summarily reverse. Strikes me as inappropriate. It’s like the 9th Cir filing an amicus brief against themselves.
Very interesting, except that it seems to me that the abolishment of federal (or any other habeas corpus) might violate a little thing called Article I, Section 9, Clause 2, so there is that.
There is recent case law basically stating that it’s a discretionary remedy so that’s where the hat hangs. Playing the “even if he’s entitled still don’t have to grant” card.
Here’s the argument in front of the 3-judge panel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaA1yGjEBcc
Hostile bench and an argumentative AG.
Steve Wolfon (no tie) observed Telles’ trial during the testimony of Taylor Tolliver.
I understand ending with Gatus as she was the homicide detective on the case. It was a very ineffective conclusion to the case. I was expecting her to tie up the loose ends; there really were not any loose ends for her to tie up. Still think he gets convicted by a mile.
So telles tomorow hopefully
Would you call him first? I would call him last so I have the maximum amount of time to talk him out of his suicide mission.
call him first and then request a mistrial
Telles has got this. He’s been preparing his testimony meticulously for months. Pam will not be ready for he is bringing. He wins his acquittal if he performs.
Today Telles takes the stand. Wolfson and his cronies must be shaking in their boots.
I don’t think he does take the stand today unless he is pot committed to going out in a blaze of glory.
Telles is on tilt.
Why would he take the stand today? Dude has to lie, and it’s safer to know what all of the other testimony is first.
You save him for last and spend every moment between now and then trying to talk him out of testifying. Rob had a bad habit of thinking he was the smartest guy in the room despite all of the evidence to the contrary.
You hired a good lawyer. There is no way Bob is telling Rob to testify. Someone the other day quoted the lines from Presumed Innocent when Sabich wanted to testify and Stern said that while he thought he would testify passionately, with every word he would confirm for the jury that he was passionate enough to kill. Exactly what Telles would/will do.
I never knew the guy, but when he was first arrested there were comments from people who went to law school with him. It sounds like he has a long history of thinking he’s the smartest guy in the room and refusing to admit he has ever been wrong. I also heard he had threatened to sue the SBA over some kind of sexual harassment issue. Seems like this trial is a predictable, albeit extreme, end to his legal career.
Who in the fuck would sexually harass that dude
The allegations were that Telles was the harasser. https://www.reviewjournal.com/investigations/a-reporters-killing-revealed-a-decade-of-robert-telles-toxic-behavior-2679171/
Hahahahaha. Wrong direction, dude.
Great movie