Bill requires judicial candidates have trial experience, seeks end to secrecy of judicial discipline. What do you think about judges having to have 10 trials under their belt? [Nevada Current]
Gary Guymon doesn’t show up in court for his initial appearance. [RJ]
Bad romance: many Nevada governments lack relationship policies. [RJ]
Bill would clear way for Nevada colleges to pay student athletes. [KTNV]
Henderson police chief fired after ultimatum. [8NewsNow]
CSN loses $7.4M in “ghost students” scheme. [8NewsNow]
AG’s price-fixing ban draws fierce business opposition. [TNI]
Not Vegas, but Trump ramps up attacks on law firms with order targeting Perkins Coie. [NYT; Politico]
Most of the other name partners were all in Michigan except Joseph. I’m assuming (no actual knowledge) I’m assuming that over time there was just less and less interaction between michigan and nevada groups
Have a friend there – There were 5 partners in Nevada. As per the prior post, its a split. Garin Law is now same partners, attorneys, staff, etc. And Joe’s really the face of the office – he’s great. Most of the lawyers in that office are great but I hope I never need them – mostly legal malpractice group.
Guest
Anonymous
March 7, 2025 9:13 am
Very, very few attorneys have 10 trials. The stats that were posted here recently suggest that the average attorney goes to trial less than once a year.
Evidentiary hearing = trial? Maybe it’s all in how they define it. Even with a hearing at least (well hopefully) the lawyer was actually in a courtroom before blessing the rest of us with their decision to become a judge.
How about a requirement that civil judges need 10 civil trials under their belt, rather than just 10 trials period? Enough with the DAs and PDs who don’t know their left hand from their right hand.
I don’t understand Nevada’s obsession with legal prerequisites – the 15 years to get on the Court of Appeals is the strangest to me. We have a commission that vets candidates and whose job is to weed out anyone who is not actually up to the job. We have voters who can reject anyone they deem unqualified. I don’t know why we’d prohibit someone who would be the best person for the job just because they’ve “only” been practicing for 14 years or “only” have tried 9 cases.
Separately, if this requirement goes through, I imagine people who want to be in the running for judgeships will start getting slotted in as do-nothing eighth and ninth chairs to check that box.
You guys realize that most dockets are split. So the suggestions below that, for example, civil judges have 10 trials under their belt is actually silly. Many civil judges who started purely civil now have split dockets. And vice verse. A trial is a trial. Yes I agree judges should have done at least 10.
Civil litigation is not won at trial, it is won in the discovery phase. Imposing a trial requirement on judicial candidates overlooks the case-management skills that judges will use in half of their pending matters, and will guarantee that new judges come almost exclusively from criminal practice backgrounds. I am all for having some baseline requirements to run for judicial office, but this specific proposal needs to be reconsidered.
Trump has already bullied major news organizations into submission, extorting bogus multi-million dollar settlements from them. The public should be suspicious of news reports from any of these compromised organizations. Without reliable watchdogs, the public’s ability to know and understand what the government is doing is dramatically diminished.
Now, Trump is going after another non-governmental entity which our Republic relies on, private lawyers. Trump has calculated, probably correctly, that most (perhaps nearly all?) lawyers and law firms will choose some form of self serving acquiescence or outright subservience over standing up for truth and law.
We are incrementally losing our democracy. No act, alone, is the end of democracy. A Trump apologist can push back on any given episode or incident and dismiss concerns as hysteria. Collectively, however, there is little question about how far we’ve descended since 2016. It doesn’t help that the Democratic Party is flailing in incompetence and chained by its own rigid dogmas about identity politics. Identity politics don’t fucking matter right now you dipshits. Rome is burning. Democrats are worse than having no opposition at all. Their stupidity continually gives more power to Trump. If this is all they can do, for the sake of the country, please shut the fuck up and go away.
Anyway, with Trump’s aggressive assault on the administrative state, media and legal profession, something will eventually have to give. We cannot continue on like this for 4 years, or probably even 1 year. Either Trump will collapse or democracy will. Scary times.
You seem thoughtful about what you believe but IMHO you seem more like Chicken Little. There are a lot of lessons from that short tale and it is a solid read.
Since when is using the judiciary by filing defamation actions for actual obvious defamation and surviving MTD “extorting bogus settlements”? This opening biased, hyperbolic and ultimately false political opinion guts the rest of your rant, so TL:DR
If you think you can’t trust the news to report everything trump does wrong then I don’t think you have watched the news, it is their favorite thing. At least trump will do an interview and say what he thinks, Biden refused to even answer questions because he was a vegetable.
Guest
Anonymous
March 7, 2025 10:16 am
WTH is going on with Henderson PD? The union states that “this was a long time coming” but the chief does not even make it two years and the two previous chiefs were run out of town too? This is like the UNLV situation never being able to retain a leader which leaves a rudderless ship drifting. A little more troubling that this is the visionary/leader of a very large, armed police force.
Henderson PD
As I recall, one or more of the past Chiefs were let go because the police union didn’t like them. Seems like the union is running the city counsel.
The way things are over there they are all being set up to fail.
Guest
Anonymous
March 7, 2025 2:42 pm
Settle this debate: Discovery Cutoff is defined in NRCP 16.1 as “a deadline on which discovery will close.” Does that mean written discovery may be propounded up until that date or discovery must be propounded 30 days earlier so that responses are due by that date?
Discover should be propounded more than 30 days earlier so that you get responses while discovery is still going AND you still have time to file a motion to compel.
At least that’s the general practice I’ve seen. Not sure if there’s a rule directly on point.
My position is that discovery is to be concluded (responses received) by the Cutoff and thus must be propounded no later than 30 days before the Cutoff. I have an opposing counsel who propounded written discovery 2 days before the cutoff and asserts that it just has to be propounded by the cutoff.
Yes, I’ve litigated this exact issue and that was the result – must propound in time for responses to be due before the cutoff. I think there’s case law but I can’t remember off the top of my head.
I have on a half dozen occasions in my 20+ successfully defended this position in front of the Disc. Comm. I always tickle the 30 days before discovery cutoff, so that if something is served after that date, I can laugh and laugh and laugh. I have also served discovery at nearly midnight on the 30th day before, so as to “compel” a stip to extend discovery.
I have seen a Discovery And Mandatory Settlement Conference Order that addresses this question:
“All discovery shall be completed on or before __________, 2025. Counsel are reminded that ‘completed’ does not mean merely ‘propounded’, but means that the discovery responses are due, and/or depositions scheduled to be completed, on or before the deadline.”
Anytime I receive discovery requests served such that my response is due on the day after discovery cut-off or later, I object to every request as late and past the discovery cutoff date; sign & send.
There are partner-level attorneys in this town screwing this up. Amateur hour. Serve 30 days before or suffer the consequences. This discussion really makes me chuckle. Go read the rules, bruh.
Off topic, but he website for Lipson Neilson law firm says they’re permanently closed. Anybody got info?
They are now Garin Law Group. Same attorneys. Same phone number. Same location.
Most of the other name partners were all in Michigan except Joseph. I’m assuming (no actual knowledge) I’m assuming that over time there was just less and less interaction between michigan and nevada groups
Have a friend there – There were 5 partners in Nevada. As per the prior post, its a split. Garin Law is now same partners, attorneys, staff, etc. And Joe’s really the face of the office – he’s great. Most of the lawyers in that office are great but I hope I never need them – mostly legal malpractice group.
Very, very few attorneys have 10 trials. The stats that were posted here recently suggest that the average attorney goes to trial less than once a year.
Evidentiary hearing = trial? Maybe it’s all in how they define it. Even with a hearing at least (well hopefully) the lawyer was actually in a courtroom before blessing the rest of us with their decision to become a judge.
Bench trials vs. Jury trials vs. Evidentiary hearings. . . .
This legislation will perpetuate the appointment and election of PDs and DAs. Without question!
Oof. Good point.
How about a requirement that civil judges need 10 civil trials under their belt, rather than just 10 trials period? Enough with the DAs and PDs who don’t know their left hand from their right hand.
Or even 5.
Second this. If you’re running for a position that has a civil docket – you need civil experience.
former DAs make some of the best civil judges. I give you: Wall, Togliatti, Bell
thats… not enough examples
Both Wall and Bell spent more time as defense attorneys than as DAs.
I don’t understand Nevada’s obsession with legal prerequisites – the 15 years to get on the Court of Appeals is the strangest to me. We have a commission that vets candidates and whose job is to weed out anyone who is not actually up to the job. We have voters who can reject anyone they deem unqualified. I don’t know why we’d prohibit someone who would be the best person for the job just because they’ve “only” been practicing for 14 years or “only” have tried 9 cases.
Separately, if this requirement goes through, I imagine people who want to be in the running for judgeships will start getting slotted in as do-nothing eighth and ninth chairs to check that box.
if you want 10 jury trials you will attract prosecutors and public defenders.
The majority of trials held in the RJC are criminal. Shouldn’t we have judges who have actually tried criminal cases presiding over criminal cases?
You guys realize that most dockets are split. So the suggestions below that, for example, civil judges have 10 trials under their belt is actually silly. Many civil judges who started purely civil now have split dockets. And vice verse. A trial is a trial. Yes I agree judges should have done at least 10.
Great, so the worst of both worlds. And to say “a trial is a trial” is sort of insane.
You can’t tell me with a straight face that our civil bench in the 8th district passes muster.
Civil litigation is not won at trial, it is won in the discovery phase. Imposing a trial requirement on judicial candidates overlooks the case-management skills that judges will use in half of their pending matters, and will guarantee that new judges come almost exclusively from criminal practice backgrounds. I am all for having some baseline requirements to run for judicial office, but this specific proposal needs to be reconsidered.
You must not have any trial experience.
Re: Perkins Coie
Trump has already bullied major news organizations into submission, extorting bogus multi-million dollar settlements from them. The public should be suspicious of news reports from any of these compromised organizations. Without reliable watchdogs, the public’s ability to know and understand what the government is doing is dramatically diminished.
Now, Trump is going after another non-governmental entity which our Republic relies on, private lawyers. Trump has calculated, probably correctly, that most (perhaps nearly all?) lawyers and law firms will choose some form of self serving acquiescence or outright subservience over standing up for truth and law.
We are incrementally losing our democracy. No act, alone, is the end of democracy. A Trump apologist can push back on any given episode or incident and dismiss concerns as hysteria. Collectively, however, there is little question about how far we’ve descended since 2016. It doesn’t help that the Democratic Party is flailing in incompetence and chained by its own rigid dogmas about identity politics. Identity politics don’t fucking matter right now you dipshits. Rome is burning. Democrats are worse than having no opposition at all. Their stupidity continually gives more power to Trump. If this is all they can do, for the sake of the country, please shut the fuck up and go away.
Anyway, with Trump’s aggressive assault on the administrative state, media and legal profession, something will eventually have to give. We cannot continue on like this for 4 years, or probably even 1 year. Either Trump will collapse or democracy will. Scary times.
You seem thoughtful about what you believe but IMHO you seem more like Chicken Little. There are a lot of lessons from that short tale and it is a solid read.
10:07, I certainly hope that you are not an attorney.
Who is “Chicken Little” and what tf are you talking about?
face palm
Since when is using the judiciary by filing defamation actions for actual obvious defamation and surviving MTD “extorting bogus settlements”? This opening biased, hyperbolic and ultimately false political opinion guts the rest of your rant, so TL:DR
To what “actual obvious defamation” do you refer?
@9:58
Oh gee whiz. Chicken Little, the sky is falling.
You should probably get some professional help. No one knows what you are talking about. Just blabbering nonesense.
If you think you can’t trust the news to report everything trump does wrong then I don’t think you have watched the news, it is their favorite thing. At least trump will do an interview and say what he thinks, Biden refused to even answer questions because he was a vegetable.
WTH is going on with Henderson PD? The union states that “this was a long time coming” but the chief does not even make it two years and the two previous chiefs were run out of town too? This is like the UNLV situation never being able to retain a leader which leaves a rudderless ship drifting. A little more troubling that this is the visionary/leader of a very large, armed police force.
Henderson PD
As I recall, one or more of the past Chiefs were let go because the police union didn’t like them. Seems like the union is running the city counsel.
The union loves chaos because then the union runs the department.
The way things are over there they are all being set up to fail.
Settle this debate: Discovery Cutoff is defined in NRCP 16.1 as “a deadline on which discovery will close.” Does that mean written discovery may be propounded up until that date or discovery must be propounded 30 days earlier so that responses are due by that date?
Discover should be propounded more than 30 days earlier so that you get responses while discovery is still going AND you still have time to file a motion to compel.
At least that’s the general practice I’ve seen. Not sure if there’s a rule directly on point.
My position is that discovery is to be concluded (responses received) by the Cutoff and thus must be propounded no later than 30 days before the Cutoff. I have an opposing counsel who propounded written discovery 2 days before the cutoff and asserts that it just has to be propounded by the cutoff.
It must be propounded such that the responses are due before discovery cut-off. 100% sure of that
Yes, I’ve litigated this exact issue and that was the result – must propound in time for responses to be due before the cutoff. I think there’s case law but I can’t remember off the top of my head.
I have on a half dozen occasions in my 20+ successfully defended this position in front of the Disc. Comm. I always tickle the 30 days before discovery cutoff, so that if something is served after that date, I can laugh and laugh and laugh. I have also served discovery at nearly midnight on the 30th day before, so as to “compel” a stip to extend discovery.
This is a good practice pointer that a revision to NRCP 16.1 could fix
I have seen a Discovery And Mandatory Settlement Conference Order that addresses this question:
“All discovery shall be completed on or before __________, 2025. Counsel are reminded that ‘completed’ does not mean merely ‘propounded’, but means that the discovery responses are due, and/or depositions scheduled to be completed, on or before the deadline.”
That judge is smart. Who is doing that?
Anytime I receive discovery requests served such that my response is due on the day after discovery cut-off or later, I object to every request as late and past the discovery cutoff date; sign & send.
I assume with no substantive response?
There are partner-level attorneys in this town screwing this up. Amateur hour. Serve 30 days before or suffer the consequences. This discussion really makes me chuckle. Go read the rules, bruh.