The RJ is out with the first part of their family court endorsements. [RJ]
Group seeking to recall Governor Sisolak turns to federal court for an extension on collecting signatures. [TNI]
Federal judge Andrew Gordon has asked the Nevada Supreme Court if gun makers can be liable for deaths. [News3LV]
Nevada is the only state not accepting unemployment claims from gig workers. [Nevada Current]
This was mentioned in the comments already, but February bar exam results were posted Friday with a pass rate of 52%.
Hackers are demanding $21 million ransom for data from a law firm representing clients like Elton John and Lady Gaga. [The U.S. Sun]
A reader wants to know if any firms are requiring coronavirus testing before allowing employees back to work and whether they are requiring employees to sign waivers?
I would also love a conversation about what firms are doing (beyond the testing issue) in light of COVID 19, particularly which are not treating employees and staff fairly. There's mention of it in the comments from yesterday.
I don't know but I do want to know how firms are planning on re-opening. I haven't been in the office since mid-March. So far there have been no discussions about when we will be required to be back in the office.
Wait, are you saying other firms have not been working from their offices?
Guest
Anonymous
May 13, 2020 5:41 pm
We have created COVID-19 guidelines which every employee has to sign acknowledgment of receipt. We also state that masks can be provided upon request, however employees are encourage to bring their own cloth mask.
Guest
Anonymous
May 13, 2020 5:43 pm
Read the RJ endorsements, completely inappropriate. "Vote Mary Perry." We "urge" you to vote for. Is this is a newspaper or the candidate's website. Completely improper.
Mary gets my vote. She is smart and won't take crap from people in court. Fred does not have the temperament and Sara lacks experience. I think this endorsement for Mary Perry is fair. Also, Fred and Sara chose not to participate in the endorsement interview so this was an easy pick for the RJ.
10:43–I'm not taking up for Mary Perry, but from a journalistic standpoint, there was nothing inappropriate or improper about how it was handled.
Had it been a news story, it would NOT have been appropriate. But editorials are of course for the purpose of offering their opinions and endorsements.
So, that being the case there was nothing technically inappropriate or improper.
However, I will strongly agree with you as to the limited point that they should take heed to be a bit more circumspect and dignified as to the method and degree to which they support her, to avoid questions and concerns being raised.
Phraseology does matter, and affects one's credibility. They should have mentioned something about each candidate, and concluded with something like "The RJ supports Mary Perry."
But, you're right that they went a little too far with the cheerleading. The tone should not be "Vote Mary Perry!" or "We Urge you to vote for Mary Perry!"
It should simply be that they support Mary Perry or she is the best of the three choices in their estimation.
It is true that if the tone goes too far, and is too enthusiastic, people may question whether some sort of conflict of interest is present.
I, for one, don't think there is any conflict that has not been disclosed. I think it is that Ms. Perry tends to espouse a conservative philosophy, which is in line with the RJ's conservative editorial board policy.
Where are you going with this OP? Is this US or worldwide? What do you think the final US death toll will be for covid when its all said and done next spring?
We're already past 80,000 and probably have a year to go. It's entirely possible we will keep averaging 2,000 deaths per day, or worse. When are the "it's just a bad flu" crowd people doing to stand down with these stupid arguments?
So 61,000 deaths in 2017. That's close to 80,000. We've already cleared 80,000 and we're humming along with no end in sight.
I'm not saying that means we have to shut everything down. Everything is a balancing act here. But let's not fudge numbers or pretend that our current 80k is anywhere close to where the final number will be.
The shut down is a complete public policy failure. In addition to shutting the economy down the social justice warriers and career politcians want the feds to fund a bail out from their decision to shut the economy down and decades of spending too much.
@ 11:22
Maybe it wasn't you, but a few weeks ago someone with similar sentiments was crying something like "millions" of deaths. Yes, we have to take COVID-19 seriously. It will be with us until there is wide spread vaccination. No, Chicken Little, the sky is not falling. The virus has been overhyped, which is all it appears that 10:53 was saying.
11:41, I was following your comment until "and decades of spending too much?" So the SJWs want a bail out from decades of spending too much? It doesn't make any sense, it's like federalist mad libs. Just throw in buzz words and see what sticks. Also, which social justice warrior expanded the deficit from a half billion in 2015-16 to $984 billion in 2019?
Guest
Anonymous
May 13, 2020 6:50 pm
Can we talk about the wannabe constitutionalists who are freaking out over government recommendations for the public to wear masks in public? Yes, there are actual requirements that certain employees or business owners who come into contact with others to wear masks, but I'm seeing a huge freak out over just simple masks in public. Like in the store. First of all, the public isn't required to in general. But also, it's entirely within a business' rights to require its customers to wear masks.
Have you ever heard of no shirt, no shoes, no service? This is just an extension of that. But the other one just applied to poor people and hippies, so no skin off your back.
But also, try putting yourself in the business's shoes. They're trying to protect their employees as well as their other customers AND trying to limit their future liability for the inevitable "I got COVID at your business because you negligently didn't require masks during a pandemic" lawsuits. They're coming. It just makes good business sense to require them. So just like the hippies need to put shoes on, you can put a mask on for the 10 minutes it takes you to go to the store. Stop whining.
How do you make reasonable and rationale comments during times of a global pandemic, that has now become politicized by the overwhelmingly majority of people. Are you Matthew McConaughey?
Hey opposing counsel, you sent me an email and cc'd your assistant, I replied and cc'd your assistant AND my assistant, when you respond back why the $#%! do you only cc your assistant and not mine?!?!?!? I get it if it's a one time thing, but you consistently engage in the gameplay and waste my time by making me forward your emails to my assistant.
I get your point, but don't worry about which legal assistants in each firm are, or are not receiving, it. As long as you always receive the communications, that is what matters, and you can then decide whether you need to transmit it to a staff member.
Of a million times more importance is to make certain they don't send something to a judicial department and fail to c.c. you.
And that analysis does not end simply on account that you are listed for c.c. purposes at the bottom of the letter. You need to verify that it was actually received. Some wormy firms will send communications to a judge, which are clearly beyond procedural concerns and are intended to influence the merits, and they will not send you a copy, even if you are ultimately listed as a c.c. recipient at the bottom of such communication.
In such instances, it's important to keep on top of it, and contact the judicial law clerk and/or JEA and red flag this issue that the opposing side is sending letters to the judicial department, and you are not receiving copies thereof, even if you may be listed on the bottom as a c.c. recipient.
That's the kind of dynamic you should be concerned about, where real life harm can come to your case.
But don't unduly fret about what seems like a minor "ego" and/or "control" issue of "yes I received the letter but why didn't you also c.c. my assistant like you c.c.d yours?"
Something like that seldom matters in the scheme of things.
I think my advice is sound, and I suspect you may be a relatively young attorney. You will soon gain a much better sense of proportion as to what to be concerned about.
End of pompous, unsolicited lecture.
Actually, I need to re-open the lecture for a minute. If you have a bad feeling about the integrity and practices of the other lawyer or firm, that feeling may be important. Remember that a common practice for unscrupulous lawyers is to send an undue amount of correspondence to chambers.
And these communications often begin with something like "This communication only concerns a procedural or administrative calendaring matter, and does not concern the merits."
That is usually a lie. If there is merely a procedural or calendaring matter they would have called you and resolved it prior to contacting the department.
They are contacting thee department for one purpose only–to affect the merits and perhaps poison the well against your side.
It is no coincidence that some judicial departments return all such correspondence and stamp it as "Unread" even when it purports to only be a communication for procedural purposes.
I had the same reaction as 1:36(who needs to communicate a little more concisely) Who cares if your legal assistant is c.c.d Simply forward the email or letter to her if it is important.
The real damage is when certain law firms make a habit of sending letters to a judge. I hate that.
And no one sends such letters if it is merely a minor procedural matter. These are intended to influence the court as to the merits. The content is what is important, not the conclusion by the lawyer that "This is merely procedural, and does not involve the merits of the case."
Judges view such letters as almost always being an attempt to influence them. Otherwise the attorneys would have sent a joint communication about the calendaring issue.
An exception may be that it may be okay to send a letter(with proper c.c. to opposing counsel) requesting that the court sign a submitted order form the hearing, as the other side has still not signed it.
If someone has cc'd their assistant on an e-mail to me, then I try to do the same in my response. I have always felt that this is to my advantage as the assistant often monitors the email more closely than the attorney does, and if I am trying to schedule a depo or, check on the status of a stipulation or something, it is far easier if that person is just kept in the loop. Problem is that about one time out of four I will inadvertently hit "reply" instead of "reply all." And I never send a letter to a judge without first letting the other side know that it is coming, cc'ing them contemporaneously via email, and keeping the tone/content as neutral as possible.
I am with 1:36 on this one: Who cares? You cc'd your Assistant because you wanted your Assistant to see you email. I don't know if you want your Assistant in on every communication in a case. That is between you and your assistant. If you send something to me and I want my assistant to act on it, I will fwd it to my Assistant.
In this same vein, when I send an email and the response back is cc'd to every attorney and paralegal in the firm (KGE I am looking at you), I presume that they have some rationale within their firm for such reasons but I am not replying to everyone in your firm.
I think OP makes a valid point. Hes talking about REPLY emails not new correspondence or written letters to judges. I find older lawyers tend to have no idea how to properly understand the difference between reply all and reply.
In OP scenario, use reply all. Its not difficult. He's not asking you to memorize his assistant's email address. Just click the reply all email so everyone that you both think should het the email gets it.
In scenario where firmwide email is sent asking, "has anyone recently drafted a motion to….", use reply.
2:18– I hear your concern and disagree. I am sending correspondence to whom I want to send it. I don't know who are your side of the table you want to see what correspondence; that is between your client and your staff. And really that is the concern: I have opposing counsel who list their client as a cc: on their emails. I am not sending replies that are even cc'd to opposing party.
I routinely hit "reply all" and cross my fingers. No point in cutting out all the CCs and BCCs, right?
Guest
Anonymous
May 13, 2020 7:58 pm
Not to divert the topic of conversation, but does anyone have any more dirt on why Eglet reported Dennis Prince to the Bar for using firm money on personal items?
The letter of reprimand stated that Prince paid back the entire $150k to Eglet, so wtf did eglet report him?
I would love someone from Eglet's office weigh in on the matter…
The real question is why did the Nevada State Bar Counsel even get involved? It was not a Bar matter involving client funds. We know the Nevada Supreme Court kisses up to Eglet, and he owns the AG. But one would like to think Bar Counsel would be neutral.
Guest
Anonymous
May 14, 2020 1:07 am
Re: Judge Gordon article. It just occurred to me that we were never told the truth about the shooting that happened right here in our town. Why believe we will ever know about Corona? Just get ready for the new normal, I guess.
I would also love a conversation about what firms are doing (beyond the testing issue) in light of COVID 19, particularly which are not treating employees and staff fairly. There's mention of it in the comments from yesterday.
I don't know but I do want to know how firms are planning on re-opening. I haven't been in the office since mid-March. So far there have been no discussions about when we will be required to be back in the office.
Wait, are you saying other firms have not been working from their offices?
We have created COVID-19 guidelines which every employee has to sign acknowledgment of receipt. We also state that masks can be provided upon request, however employees are encourage to bring their own cloth mask.
Read the RJ endorsements, completely inappropriate. "Vote Mary Perry." We "urge" you to vote for. Is this is a newspaper or the candidate's website. Completely improper.
Mary gets my vote. She is smart and won't take crap from people in court. Fred does not have the temperament and Sara lacks experience. I think this endorsement for Mary Perry is fair. Also, Fred and Sara chose not to participate in the endorsement interview so this was an easy pick for the RJ.
10:43–I'm not taking up for Mary Perry, but from a journalistic standpoint, there was nothing inappropriate or improper about how it was handled.
Had it been a news story, it would NOT have been appropriate. But editorials are of course for the purpose of offering their opinions and endorsements.
So, that being the case there was nothing technically inappropriate or improper.
However, I will strongly agree with you as to the limited point that they should take heed to be a bit more circumspect and dignified as to the method and degree to which they support her, to avoid questions and concerns being raised.
Phraseology does matter, and affects one's credibility. They should have mentioned something about each candidate, and concluded with something like "The RJ supports Mary Perry."
But, you're right that they went a little too far with the cheerleading. The tone should not be "Vote Mary Perry!" or "We Urge you to vote for Mary Perry!"
It should simply be that they support Mary Perry or she is the best of the three choices in their estimation.
It is true that if the tone goes too far, and is too enthusiastic, people may question whether some sort of conflict of interest is present.
I, for one, don't think there is any conflict that has not been disclosed. I think it is that Ms. Perry tends to espouse a conservative philosophy, which is in line with the RJ's conservative editorial board policy.
Who cares who the RJ endorses? I want to know who Voldemort endorses!
Ask and ye shall receive: https://veteransinpolitics.org/2020/05/veterans-in-politics-international-endorsements-and-recommendations-for-the-supreme-court-and-civil-criminal-judicial-candidates/
In 2017 flu season, 80,000 people died, including 180 children, and 900,000 people were hospitalized, making it the worst flu season in 40 years.
https://healthjournalism.org/blog/2018/09/last-years-flu-season-death-toll-and-2018-19-flu-coverage/
#sheep #lemming
#hoaxer #nomasks #sellingsanitizer
Where are you going with this OP? Is this US or worldwide? What do you think the final US death toll will be for covid when its all said and done next spring?
Let's go with data from the source:
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2017-2018.htm
We're already past 80,000 and probably have a year to go. It's entirely possible we will keep averaging 2,000 deaths per day, or worse. When are the "it's just a bad flu" crowd people doing to stand down with these stupid arguments?
So 61,000 deaths in 2017. That's close to 80,000. We've already cleared 80,000 and we're humming along with no end in sight.
I'm not saying that means we have to shut everything down. Everything is a balancing act here. But let's not fudge numbers or pretend that our current 80k is anywhere close to where the final number will be.
The shut down is a complete public policy failure. In addition to shutting the economy down the social justice warriers and career politcians want the feds to fund a bail out from their decision to shut the economy down and decades of spending too much.
@ 11:22
Maybe it wasn't you, but a few weeks ago someone with similar sentiments was crying something like "millions" of deaths. Yes, we have to take COVID-19 seriously. It will be with us until there is wide spread vaccination. No, Chicken Little, the sky is not falling. The virus has been overhyped, which is all it appears that 10:53 was saying.
11:41, I was following your comment until "and decades of spending too much?" So the SJWs want a bail out from decades of spending too much? It doesn't make any sense, it's like federalist mad libs. Just throw in buzz words and see what sticks. Also, which social justice warrior expanded the deficit from a half billion in 2015-16 to $984 billion in 2019?
Can we talk about the wannabe constitutionalists who are freaking out over government recommendations for the public to wear masks in public? Yes, there are actual requirements that certain employees or business owners who come into contact with others to wear masks, but I'm seeing a huge freak out over just simple masks in public. Like in the store. First of all, the public isn't required to in general. But also, it's entirely within a business' rights to require its customers to wear masks.
Have you ever heard of no shirt, no shoes, no service? This is just an extension of that. But the other one just applied to poor people and hippies, so no skin off your back.
But also, try putting yourself in the business's shoes. They're trying to protect their employees as well as their other customers AND trying to limit their future liability for the inevitable "I got COVID at your business because you negligently didn't require masks during a pandemic" lawsuits. They're coming. It just makes good business sense to require them. So just like the hippies need to put shoes on, you can put a mask on for the 10 minutes it takes you to go to the store. Stop whining.
How do you make reasonable and rationale comments during times of a global pandemic, that has now become politicized by the overwhelmingly majority of people. Are you Matthew McConaughey?
Signed,
A "reasonable and rationale" constitutionalist.
*How dare
Pet peeve of the day:
Hey opposing counsel, you sent me an email and cc'd your assistant, I replied and cc'd your assistant AND my assistant, when you respond back why the $#%! do you only cc your assistant and not mine?!?!?!? I get it if it's a one time thing, but you consistently engage in the gameplay and waste my time by making me forward your emails to my assistant.
12:46–that's getting into the weeds a bit.
I get your point, but don't worry about which legal assistants in each firm are, or are not receiving, it. As long as you always receive the communications, that is what matters, and you can then decide whether you need to transmit it to a staff member.
Of a million times more importance is to make certain they don't send something to a judicial department and fail to c.c. you.
And that analysis does not end simply on account that you are listed for c.c. purposes at the bottom of the letter. You need to verify that it was actually received. Some wormy firms will send communications to a judge, which are clearly beyond procedural concerns and are intended to influence the merits, and they will not send you a copy, even if you are ultimately listed as a c.c. recipient at the bottom of such communication.
In such instances, it's important to keep on top of it, and contact the judicial law clerk and/or JEA and red flag this issue that the opposing side is sending letters to the judicial department, and you are not receiving copies thereof, even if you may be listed on the bottom as a c.c. recipient.
That's the kind of dynamic you should be concerned about, where real life harm can come to your case.
But don't unduly fret about what seems like a minor "ego" and/or "control" issue of "yes I received the letter but why didn't you also c.c. my assistant like you c.c.d yours?"
Something like that seldom matters in the scheme of things.
I think my advice is sound, and I suspect you may be a relatively young attorney. You will soon gain a much better sense of proportion as to what to be concerned about.
End of pompous, unsolicited lecture.
Actually, I need to re-open the lecture for a minute. If you have a bad feeling about the integrity and practices of the other lawyer or firm, that feeling may be important. Remember that a common practice for unscrupulous lawyers is to send an undue amount of correspondence to chambers.
And these communications often begin with something like "This communication only concerns a procedural or administrative calendaring matter, and does not concern the merits."
That is usually a lie. If there is merely a procedural or calendaring matter they would have called you and resolved it prior to contacting the department.
They are contacting thee department for one purpose only–to affect the merits and perhaps poison the well against your side.
It is no coincidence that some judicial departments return all such correspondence and stamp it as "Unread" even when it purports to only be a communication for procedural purposes.
I had the same reaction as 1:36(who needs to communicate a little more concisely) Who cares if your legal assistant is c.c.d Simply forward the email or letter to her if it is important.
The real damage is when certain law firms make a habit of sending letters to a judge. I hate that.
And no one sends such letters if it is merely a minor procedural matter. These are intended to influence the court as to the merits. The content is what is important, not the conclusion by the lawyer that "This is merely procedural, and does not involve the merits of the case."
Judges view such letters as almost always being an attempt to influence them. Otherwise the attorneys would have sent a joint communication about the calendaring issue.
An exception may be that it may be okay to send a letter(with proper c.c. to opposing counsel) requesting that the court sign a submitted order form the hearing, as the other side has still not signed it.
Don't try to influence or trick the court into doing anything either. Submit a timely, proper order. We can smell that a mile away.
If someone has cc'd their assistant on an e-mail to me, then I try to do the same in my response. I have always felt that this is to my advantage as the assistant often monitors the email more closely than the attorney does, and if I am trying to schedule a depo or, check on the status of a stipulation or something, it is far easier if that person is just kept in the loop. Problem is that about one time out of four I will inadvertently hit "reply" instead of "reply all." And I never send a letter to a judge without first letting the other side know that it is coming, cc'ing them contemporaneously via email, and keeping the tone/content as neutral as possible.
I am with 1:36 on this one: Who cares? You cc'd your Assistant because you wanted your Assistant to see you email. I don't know if you want your Assistant in on every communication in a case. That is between you and your assistant. If you send something to me and I want my assistant to act on it, I will fwd it to my Assistant.
In this same vein, when I send an email and the response back is cc'd to every attorney and paralegal in the firm (KGE I am looking at you), I presume that they have some rationale within their firm for such reasons but I am not replying to everyone in your firm.
I think OP makes a valid point. Hes talking about REPLY emails not new correspondence or written letters to judges. I find older lawyers tend to have no idea how to properly understand the difference between reply all and reply.
In OP scenario, use reply all. Its not difficult. He's not asking you to memorize his assistant's email address. Just click the reply all email so everyone that you both think should het the email gets it.
In scenario where firmwide email is sent asking, "has anyone recently drafted a motion to….", use reply.
2:18– I hear your concern and disagree. I am sending correspondence to whom I want to send it. I don't know who are your side of the table you want to see what correspondence; that is between your client and your staff. And really that is the concern: I have opposing counsel who list their client as a cc: on their emails. I am not sending replies that are even cc'd to opposing party.
I routinely hit "reply all" and cross my fingers. No point in cutting out all the CCs and BCCs, right?
Not to divert the topic of conversation, but does anyone have any more dirt on why Eglet reported Dennis Prince to the Bar for using firm money on personal items?
The letter of reprimand stated that Prince paid back the entire $150k to Eglet, so wtf did eglet report him?
I would love someone from Eglet's office weigh in on the matter…
I'm shocked. SHOCKED! That Eglet is a petty douche.
The real question is why did the Nevada State Bar Counsel even get involved? It was not a Bar matter involving client funds. We know the Nevada Supreme Court kisses up to Eglet, and he owns the AG. But one would like to think Bar Counsel would be neutral.
Re: Judge Gordon article. It just occurred to me that we were never told the truth about the shooting that happened right here in our town. Why believe we will ever know about Corona? Just get ready for the new normal, I guess.
We don't believe Corona and we don't believe in masks.