Mystery Goo

  • Law

  • Apparently, a Las Vegas lawyer was shot twice yesterday, but he survived and is in the hospital. Well wishes to the as-of-yet unidentified victim. [@LasVegasLocally]
  • 7 shot, 1 fatally near UNLV. [RJ]
  • Boyd Law School opens downtown immigration clinic. [RJ]
  • Gaming Control Board asks Resorts World president about RobinHood702. [Nevada Current]
  • The Arizona Bar erroneously sent an email to every licensed attorney yesterday indicating they hadn’t paid their fees. [Tucson Sentinel]
  • The mysterious black droplets plaguing East Las Vegas are bee poop. [KTNV]
28 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
March 4, 2022 6:24 pm

The attorney who I think was involved is male. Recognized the name. There is a real disconnect in this profession. There is a mental health crisis. The stress and nastiness of the judges and lawyers in those town drove my spouse to suicide. You people are sick, and I hope you people get help and lives. Afterlife is forever.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
March 4, 2022 6:34 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Who was it? What name did you recognize?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
March 4, 2022 7:38 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

@10:24
First, let me express my condolences to you for your loss of your spouse. Yes, nasty people are on the rise. In the legal community, there is a general decline in professionalism. Some lawyers confuse good lawyering with bad manners. Others are unable to argue hotly contested legal issues without resorting to personal attacks. Some judges are insecure and equate power with disparagement.

In particular, there is a segment on this blog, some of whom are not lawyers, who "live" to find something nasty to say no matter the topic.

I wish you well.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
March 4, 2022 8:12 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Dear 10:24 I also wish you well and am so sorry for your loss. I truly do not know why some lawyers delight in acting horrible to other people – especially in my area of Family Law. I apologize for all of them. Although not perfect I do not include myself in that group. Maybe it's because I went to law school in my 40s after I had already had the pain of divorce and custody problems and am more empathetic. I don't know. I just feel sad for what our profession has become. Truly sad.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
March 4, 2022 8:37 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

With due respect to the admins, this Blog has become much better. It used to be a forum of nastiness and personal garbage that was beyond the pale. With that said, our profession is becoming nastier, not nicer. The NSB and NSC had put out a professionalism and courteousness theme a few years back. They abandoned it as pretty much being hopeless. How much of that was occasioned by Justice Hardesty being allowed to bully his fellow members of the Court is for one to speculate.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
March 4, 2022 9:47 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

12:12 back. There is probably enough blame to go around but I think a lot of it in Family Law has to do with what the Judge's allow. Real quick story. I was used to screaming, interrupting, not following procedure because that's what worked and won at family court. I finally did a civil law case downtown and interrupted yelling at opposing counsel (trust me this actually worked in family court) and wow did the judge chew my ass. Embarrassed me to death haha.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
March 4, 2022 10:08 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

The civility arguments irritate me on a number of levels. First, it is always the old attorneys who complain and then they are the WORST to deal with and will flat out lie to the judges…and they get away with it because they are old and have been around for 800 years. Second, there seems to be a school of thought that civility involves only in person and in court behavior. There is an attorney in town who attacks me personally in his filings every time we have a case together. I suppose I should appreciate that I'm living rent-free in his big dumb head, but don't expect me to be courteous or civil to a person who regularly insults me to the court. Finally, when an attorney blatantly (and more importantly, demonstrably) lies to the court about me and/or my client in filings or outright misstates the holding in caselaw, but slaps on a polite face and talks pretty in court is NOT being civil. IMO that is worse than screaming/interrupting.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
March 4, 2022 10:33 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

12:12 back. I agree with you 2:08 and I have never figured out what to do in that case. I want to retaliate and then I think I should rise above it. I really don't know. As our first duty is our client, we should focus. But then again how do we let opposing counsel say flat out lies. I've had them outright fabricate things out of whole cloth, just 100% fiction. Maybe they are trying to throw me off my game. I'll probably out myself here, but one time opposing counsel filed a stipulation to dismiss a hearing, we went to court in another matter and she told the judge she had that hearing (why it was relevant does not matter here), and I smiled and said we just signed the stip. She continued to lie and I got sterner in that hearing. Anyway, I filed my one and only bar complaint against her for lying and included the transcript and the stip. The bar did nothing and dismissed it out of hand. I'm not saying she should have been disbarred but c'mon that was an OUTRIGHT lie in court.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
March 4, 2022 10:43 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Original poster, thank you for the well wishes. To the few decent in the profession, keep your head up. Leave the bullshit, opposing counsel or judicial at the door. Do not believe the shit you read in filings or orders from judges. 95 percent are out and and out lies. Get help, with a licensed professional. Believe in karma. It is real.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
March 4, 2022 11:02 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

I think the whole issue is that we deal with the nastiness and lack of civility as being the problem, while in actuality it is more accurate to call it a symptom of a problem.

The problem is a complex structure of a highly adversarial system which, in many respects(whether intentionally or not) promotes, and even rewards, highly aggressive, uncooperative and obstructive behavior.

For just one example of many countless examples, often there is a strategic benefit when some really difficult attorney denies an extension ,continuance, or a reasonable accommodation, as playing hard ball empowers the attorney to railroad through a result unduly harmful and punitive to the opposing side who was denied the accommodation.

All of which suggests that we need to examine, and revamp the basic structure, as well as the basic behavioral approach, of how we are dealing with this civility issue.

We get too distracted with discussing rudeness and interruptions, without zeroing in on plugging some specific holes that are actually causing the real harm to clients.

Someone yelling at us in court and interrupting us(although unsettling) is not the major problem. The problem is that he/she denied you an accommodation, and sand-bagged you, even though the accommodation would have occasioned no real prejudice to his/her client.

And that there is a real inconsistency as to how this is approached greatly exacerbates the problem. A few judges may exercise their discretion to unwind the harm to the best extent the rules provide, but many of them will do little or nothing because the A-Hole attorney acted within the rules and was not required to grant such extension or continuance.

And the problem is then compounded in that many judges act as if the standard, as to whether real prejudice would have been visited upon the client of the obstructive attorney if the accommodation was granted,is to be solely determined by the subjective view of the obstructive attorney.

The judges appear to yield to the concept that they must defer to the subjective viewpoint of the difficult attorney when he/she insists "Yes, my client would have been prejudiced if I granted the continuance!"

Far more judges should engage in an objective analysis as to whether any realistic real harm would be caused to the side agreeing to the accommodation.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
March 4, 2022 11:09 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Commissioner Yamashita used to give attorneys the business when he found out they had not allowed a reasonable extension of accommodation. He didn't fine or formally sanction anyone, but it was very appropriate public shame for violating what should be professional norms. Judge Lane out in Pahrump is also good about doing this. We need more of that.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
March 4, 2022 11:11 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

3:02-I usually don't read posts as long as yours, but I'm glad I did because this issue is a real concern to me and others.

Now, once you get into real details and examples, I don't necessarily buy in to all your specifics.

But, your general concept, that nastiness is not the problem, but a symptom of the problem, is well worth examining, I feel.

Because, yes, the problem is not really that the attorney yelled over me in court. The ultimate problem is the attorney denied me an extension or continuance, even though it would not have harmed the attorney's client in any meaningful manner. And the attorney was in no way held accountable as the court notes that the rules don't require the attorney to agree to the professional courtesy.

So, yes, changes in how we examine matters such as that, could benefit us.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
March 4, 2022 11:15 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

3:02 thanks for taking the time to write that. I like to see posts a little longer than a sentence.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
March 4, 2022 11:22 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

There is an attorney in my practice area who outwardly is quite pious. His demeanor is polished, and at times even jovial. He uses religion to bleach his sepulcher glowing white. He engages in personal attacks, underhanded tactics and is quite difficult to work with. Basically all of the things in this thread. As a human, he is a giant, steamy turd. But that's not the real problem. The real problem is that judges buy into his pious schtick and NEVER push back against his unprofessional behavior. And while I have one person in mind writing this, there are hundred of guys like this in town. Professionalism isn't about tone or demeanor as much as it is about behavior. Judges have more power than anyone to shut this shit down. It doesn't require formal sanctions. Just push back and rebuke a few of these guys in open court. It's effortless and does wonders.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
March 4, 2022 11:33 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

3:02, I basically agree with your analysis, and it's a very important point you are making.

But there may be a major flaw in your argument, which in turn makes this problem far more complex and far more difficult to rectify.

You want the judges to clamp down on these obstructive attorneys(and, yes, many times they should) but here's a problem with that:

You repeatedly insist the obstructive attorney's client would not be prejudiced by the attorney granting the professional courtesy. But elsewhere in your post you state that attorneys often sand-bag, and deny such courtesies and accommodations, in order to gain an advantage.

So, if they gain a strategic advantage by denying the continuance, it can then be argued that prejudice would have befallen their client if the continuance was granted–the client would not have gained a strategic advantage if their attorney had granted the continuance, and that is what constitutes prejudice to the client in the view of the obstructive attorney.

So, if we can address that real inconsistency, I would be all on board with the approach you advocate–about judges becoming more proactive to put a stop to such sandbagging.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
March 4, 2022 11:46 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

One morning my husband was rushed to the hospital with a serious medical condition. I knew I would not be able to appear at a hearing that afternoon. I contacted opposing counsel to seek cooperation with a short continuance; I explained the situation. The response was a hard, "NO." My response to counsel was, "You are a turd." I hung up on counsel. That is literally what I said. Luckily, the Department was more professional and compassionate than counsel. At the hearing, counsel relayed that I had called him a "turd." The Judge had to take a sip of water to hide her laugh. The sweetest part is that the Judge granted all of my client's requests.

I do not understand why so many attorneys/people treat each other so poorly. Everyday I see attorneys/people treating people in a way they would never want to be treated.

I am happy to to grant extensions, professional courtesies, etc.

Not going to let the "turds" get me down.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
March 5, 2022 12:14 am
Reply to  Anonymous

That is a great story, 3:46 PM. Do you mind telling us who the judge was?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
March 5, 2022 12:39 am
Reply to  Anonymous

3:46-yes granting your requests is a good result, and sends the message that the judge would not reward such behavior, but it would be nice if the judge pushed back even harder(and 3:09 points out such public shaming often works well).

Judge should say something like: "Now her husband is being rushed to hospital with(insert serious medical condition here). So, exactly what is it about the issue before us that hearing it now, rather than a week or two from now, is more important than a spouse being with their partner during a medical emergency? I'm asking because I am trying to comprehend your seemingly baffling priority system, and perhaps your moral outlook as well"

Now a few judges would say something like that, and I can think of a couple who(thankfully) would even be more forceful, like starting out with: "You cannot be serious! Her husband is being transported by ambulance with a medical emergency and you give her a hard NO when she calls you…!?"

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
March 5, 2022 1:56 am
Reply to  Anonymous

@3:46 wow…I'm really sorry.

Sadly I can relate. I was visibly ill one time and asked OC for an extension. They said they would consider my request, but attached untenable conditions to their "consideration" of my request. I appeared in court looking like death warmed over. OC lied to the judge, even though our exchange was in writing and I could disprove what they said. The judge looked at me and granted the continuance. I will never forgive that firm for their behavior.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
March 5, 2022 10:59 am
Reply to  Anonymous

I wish people would start naming these firms and attorneys. Let’s name and shame them, this is gross behavior

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
March 4, 2022 8:29 pm

Matt Beasley

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
March 4, 2022 8:56 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Don't know him, but the bar site has an address that matches the FBI shooting news. I hope that he get through this and figures things out. This is a tough profession and a tough time to live. Hang in there people.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
March 5, 2022 8:21 pm

This is all hearsay but the attorney who was shot, Matt Beasley, and two of his business partners had their houses raided by the FBI. Word on the street is that they were running a fraudulent investment scheme involving hundreds of millions of dollars. Apparently Mr. Beasley didn't want to go peacefully. But you ain't heard that from me.

anonymous
Guest
anonymous
March 5, 2022 9:01 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Well that would explain why the FBI was there to begin with. You wouldn't ordinarily see them in the garden variety DV-related barricade situations that happen about every two or three days. When you look him up on Odyssey, it doesn't appear that he was very active (which doesn't mean much if you just aren't a litigator). Some cases up until about 2016, then a long gap, then one or two more recently, but nothing that looks very substantial.

anonymous
Guest
anonymous
March 6, 2022 5:36 am
Reply to  Anonymous

There's a press release on fbi.gov talking about a Ponzi scheme involving "settlement contracts" and an IOLTA account.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
March 7, 2022 7:15 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Matt Beasley, Jeffrey Judd, and Shane Jager. Used a shield corp to funnel funds.