Happy Nevada Day! If your firm is working today, why? If you have any ability to close the office, you should, in the words of the late Patrick Stewart, “Make it so.”
It’s the last day of early voting if you plan to get that out of the way before Tuesday.
Judge weighs pause on enforcement of ‘nonfunctional’ grass law. [RJ]
ACLU gets temporary order over alleged voter intimidation at Clark County rec center. [News3LV]
Christa Pike says she’s in constant pain and blames her failed execution on ‘incompetence”. [RJ]
URGENT: Proposed Overhaul of Nevada Attorney Discipline Rules Raises Serious Due Process Concerns
On **November 4th at 3:00 PM**, the Nevada Board of Governors will consider sweeping proposed changes to the rules governing attorney discipline in Nevada. These proposals have not been widely circulated among Nevada Bar members, yet they could fundamentally alter the rights and procedural protections available to every attorney facing disciplinary proceedings.
These are not merely technical or administrative changes. They raise serious concerns about due process, fundamental fairness, and an attorney’s ability to meaningfully defend against disciplinary allegations.
I recognize that this notice comes late, but I strongly encourage every member of the Nevada Bar to attend this meeting and consider exercising their right to provide public comment. These rules affect all of us, regardless of our practice area or whether we have ever faced a disciplinary complaint.
**A brief summary of the proposed changes and their potential consequences follows:**
1. Restricting the Right to Present Expert Testimony
Bar Counsel Daniel Hooge proposes prohibiting experts on the Rules of Professional Conduct from offering opinions on the ultimate issues in a disciplinary case, including whether a rule was violated and what sanction is appropriate.
This restriction could substantially undermine the ability of attorneys to present meaningful expert testimony in their defense, effectively limiting the value of expert witnesses in precisely the matters where their expertise may be most important.
2. Limiting the Right to a Full and Fair Hearing
The proposal would limit disciplinary hearings to **three hours per side** in cases where the potential sanction is admonition, diversion, or reprimand.
This arbitrary time restriction fails to account for the complexity of the allegations, the number of witnesses, or the evidence that may need to be presented. It also disregards the potentially significant professional and reputational consequences of even these lesser disciplinary sanctions.
A disciplinary proceeding should not become a truncated process simply because the proposed sanction is characterized as less severe.
3. Substantially Restricting Motion Practice and the Ability to Challenge Legally Deficient Claims
The proposal would dramatically curtail the ability of attorneys to file dispositive motions, including motions for summary judgment and most motions to dismiss.
Under the proposed changes, the only permitted dispositive motions would be:
– A motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; and
– A motion to dismiss for improper service.
This would eliminate summary judgment and prevent attorneys from seeking dismissal of claims that are legally insufficient or otherwise lack merit before proceeding to a full disciplinary hearing.
The practical consequence is that attorneys could be forced to defend against legally deficient allegations through an entire hearing, even where those claims could otherwise be resolved as a matter of law.
Additional proposed restrictions include:
– Limiting motions to 10 pages and replies to just 5 pages.
– Eliminating pre-hearing briefs that allow the parties to identify and frame the issues for the disciplinary panel.
These restrictions could significantly impair an attorney’s ability to prepare and present a meaningful defense.
4. Eliminating the Protections Afforded by the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure
Perhaps most concerning, Bar Counsel proposes petitioning the Nevada Supreme Court to remove the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure from disciplinary proceedings altogether.
Doing so could eliminate important procedural safeguards that have governed disciplinary proceedings for decades and raise substantial questions about the continued validity and interpretation of prior disciplinary decisions based on those rules.
WHY YOUR PARTICIPATION MATTERS
Attorney discipline is an important function, and accountability is essential to maintaining public confidence in our profession. But accountability must coexist with due process. The integrity of the disciplinary system depends not only on its ability to prosecute misconduct, but also on its commitment to fairness, transparency, and the fundamental right of every attorney to defend themselves.
**Due process should not depend on whether you are the attorney facing the complaint. It is a protection that belongs to every member of our profession.**
Please make your voice heard. These proposed changes deserve meaningful scrutiny and input from the Nevada Bar membership before they move forward.
### MEETING DETAILS
**DATE:** November 4th
**TIME:** 3:00 PM
**LOCATION:** State Bar of Nevada
3100 West Charleston Blvd., Suite 100
Las Vegas, NV 89102
**IMPORTANT DEADLINE:** According to the applicable public comment policy, registration to speak will close at **8:00 AM on Sunday**. If you intend to provide public comment, please register as soon as possible.
Please share this with your colleagues and other members of the Nevada Bar. The more informed and engaged our membership is, the better the opportunity for meaningful discussion and consideration of these proposed changes.
**Our professional rights and due process protections are worth showing up for.**
hahaha does it really matter? When was the last time a MSJ was granted re a disciplinary matter? What percentage of OBC recommendations are not rubber stamped? hahaha
Seriously? Making a streamlined process that limits your ability to defend yourself. A process that only benefits Bar Counsel is wrong on its face. Your license is your life. Yes, make you voice heard.
I work for a regional firm. If you are a Nevada only firm you should be off.
Working today because the federal courts do not celebrate Nevada day.
Working today because I have work to do; and there’ll be fewer emails, im’s, and phone calls today. Not none, but fewer.
working but on my couch with my family.
This time of year is depressing for so many of us with no family here. I know it is for me.
If I knew who you were, I would invite you to our house for dinner.
I’ll see you around 7:00. I’ll bring one bottle of red and one bottle of white.
Sounds good!
Bring a six pack. Not Coors or Bud.
Hi All,
URGENT: Proposed Overhaul of Nevada Attorney Discipline Rules Raises Serious Due Process Concerns
On **November 4th at 3:00 PM**, the Nevada Board of Governors will consider sweeping proposed changes to the rules governing attorney discipline in Nevada. These proposals have not been widely circulated among Nevada Bar members, yet they could fundamentally alter the rights and procedural protections available to every attorney facing disciplinary proceedings.
These are not merely technical or administrative changes. They raise serious concerns about due process, fundamental fairness, and an attorney’s ability to meaningfully defend against disciplinary allegations.
I recognize that this notice comes late, but I strongly encourage every member of the Nevada Bar to attend this meeting and consider exercising their right to provide public comment. These rules affect all of us, regardless of our practice area or whether we have ever faced a disciplinary complaint.
**A brief summary of the proposed changes and their potential consequences follows:**
1. Restricting the Right to Present Expert Testimony
Bar Counsel Daniel Hooge proposes prohibiting experts on the Rules of Professional Conduct from offering opinions on the ultimate issues in a disciplinary case, including whether a rule was violated and what sanction is appropriate.
This restriction could substantially undermine the ability of attorneys to present meaningful expert testimony in their defense, effectively limiting the value of expert witnesses in precisely the matters where their expertise may be most important.
2. Limiting the Right to a Full and Fair Hearing
The proposal would limit disciplinary hearings to **three hours per side** in cases where the potential sanction is admonition, diversion, or reprimand.
This arbitrary time restriction fails to account for the complexity of the allegations, the number of witnesses, or the evidence that may need to be presented. It also disregards the potentially significant professional and reputational consequences of even these lesser disciplinary sanctions.
A disciplinary proceeding should not become a truncated process simply because the proposed sanction is characterized as less severe.
3. Substantially Restricting Motion Practice and the Ability to Challenge Legally Deficient Claims
The proposal would dramatically curtail the ability of attorneys to file dispositive motions, including motions for summary judgment and most motions to dismiss.
Under the proposed changes, the only permitted dispositive motions would be:
– A motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; and
– A motion to dismiss for improper service.
This would eliminate summary judgment and prevent attorneys from seeking dismissal of claims that are legally insufficient or otherwise lack merit before proceeding to a full disciplinary hearing.
The practical consequence is that attorneys could be forced to defend against legally deficient allegations through an entire hearing, even where those claims could otherwise be resolved as a matter of law.
Additional proposed restrictions include:
– Limiting motions to 10 pages and replies to just 5 pages.
– Eliminating pre-hearing briefs that allow the parties to identify and frame the issues for the disciplinary panel.
These restrictions could significantly impair an attorney’s ability to prepare and present a meaningful defense.
4. Eliminating the Protections Afforded by the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure
Perhaps most concerning, Bar Counsel proposes petitioning the Nevada Supreme Court to remove the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure from disciplinary proceedings altogether.
Doing so could eliminate important procedural safeguards that have governed disciplinary proceedings for decades and raise substantial questions about the continued validity and interpretation of prior disciplinary decisions based on those rules.
WHY YOUR PARTICIPATION MATTERS
Attorney discipline is an important function, and accountability is essential to maintaining public confidence in our profession. But accountability must coexist with due process. The integrity of the disciplinary system depends not only on its ability to prosecute misconduct, but also on its commitment to fairness, transparency, and the fundamental right of every attorney to defend themselves.
**Due process should not depend on whether you are the attorney facing the complaint. It is a protection that belongs to every member of our profession.**
Please make your voice heard. These proposed changes deserve meaningful scrutiny and input from the Nevada Bar membership before they move forward.
### MEETING DETAILS
**DATE:** November 4th
**TIME:** 3:00 PM
**LOCATION:** State Bar of Nevada
3100 West Charleston Blvd., Suite 100
Las Vegas, NV 89102
**ZOOM LINK:** To be announced
**SIGN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT:**
https://nvbar.org/about-us/board-of-governors/meeting-dates/
**IMPORTANT DEADLINE:** According to the applicable public comment policy, registration to speak will close at **8:00 AM on Sunday**. If you intend to provide public comment, please register as soon as possible.
Please share this with your colleagues and other members of the Nevada Bar. The more informed and engaged our membership is, the better the opportunity for meaningful discussion and consideration of these proposed changes.
**Our professional rights and due process protections are worth showing up for.**
I don’t understand why this is even necessary. Is there some issue with the way we do things now?
Yes, due process annoys Hooge.
hahaha does it really matter? When was the last time a MSJ was granted re a disciplinary matter? What percentage of OBC recommendations are not rubber stamped? hahaha
ALL OF THEM ARE because the entire story is framed by BAR COUNSEL!!!
Seriously? Making a streamlined process that limits your ability to defend yourself. A process that only benefits Bar Counsel is wrong on its face. Your license is your life. Yes, make you voice heard.