The Supreme Court issued an order adopting the proposed rule changes in ADKT 0522 (heads up if you try to print it, it is 365 pages long). That means the newly amended Rules of Civil Procedure, the Rules of Appellate Procedure, and the Nevada Electronic Filing Conversion Rules will go into effect prospectively on March 1, 2019. The Supreme Court is creating a redline of the new rules next to the old rules that should (hopefully) be available next week here.
Such an amazing person, so very sad. Will miss you Lou.
Guest
Anonymous
January 3, 2019 6:25 pm
RIP Mary. Far too young.
Guest
Anonymous
January 3, 2019 6:58 pm
Fuck Cancer!
Guest
Anonymous
January 3, 2019 7:18 pm
RIP Mary. For anyone that would like to pay their respects, a celebration of life will be held at JW Marriott Las Vegas Resort & Spa in the Parian Ballroom, 221 N Rampart, LV, from 4-6 p.m. today.
Guest
Anonymous
January 3, 2019 7:23 pm
Dear State Bar,
In watching the way Clear Counsel is being hung out to dry, I am convinced that I will never, ever voluntarily participate in any kind of practice take over in any way. What a nightmare. Talk about no good deed going unpunished.
Absolutely. I cannot believe how gutless the State Bar has been on this matter. You wanted their help. They stepped up to help you. They are saving you money and volunteering to try to fix a mess not of their doing. And you are sitting with your thumbs in places thumbs do not belong and letting them get roasted. Shame on you State Bar.
OBC is being run like it is headed up by a guy who has never been in private practice. Wait– it is being headed up by a guy who has never been in private practice.
According to news reports, Attorney Dunkley used his trust account to be a sugar daddy and gamble, didn't pay clients their PI settlements, etc. SBN shut down his practice, and asked Clear Counsel to step in to try and help Dunkley clients. Metro detective castigates Clear Counsel, claiming they were unhelpful, and haven't been trying to help find more victims.
Crickets from SBN and OBC while they let Clear Counsel get slammed.
To: 11:23 and 1:45. It may be a little more involved than Clear Counsel tries to help clean up the mess, and all they get for their efforts is abuse.
A few question and observations arise. Was there some case sharing and other joint efforts by CC and Dunkley in the past? There seems to be an implication that there was. So, in addition to cleaning up the mess, could there be some possible benefits for C.C.? For example, on cases that were already settled, and the funds received, they can tell the clients that Dunkley blew all the money. But there may be many cases where no settlement has yet occurred. If that is the case, CC presumably can eventually settle those cases, and receive an attorney fees share. I realize that at this time all money is frozen, and the Bar would control and monitor any incoming money(from Dunkley cases) pending final decisions on how to disburse all those funds, etc. But as to relatively new cases, that may not settle for more than a year or so, presumably those clients future settlement funds would not be frozen and controlled by the Bar, but would instead flow to the clients and to Clear Counsel. But these arrangements can vary dramatically. However, we should not assume that future settlements(which is money that rightfully belongs to the individual clients)would instead need to be redirected to the communal pool of funds, and then distributed among those who have been wronged.
Clear Counsel may be the altruistic individuals some of these comments portray them as, or it all may be a little more involved. Perhaps they will never financially benefit from any of this, and will only incur hardship and heartache, and perhaps they never had any real connection to Dunkley. But do we in fact know all that to be the case? Like in the Graham case, the Cassidy law firm is to be applauded for all they have done, but once the storm passes, along with the great sacrifices they are making, could they not eventually benefit from cleaning up all these Probate cases? We can't assume that in both the Graham case and the Dunkley case that no attorneys will ever benefit and that all funds received in the future will go toward the massive compensation amounts to be disbursed among victimized clients. Cassidy themselves are heavily into advertising, and are very savvy and adept financially IMO. What is often not reported is that the arrangements set up by the Bar, although primarily focusing on victim reimbursement, do allow some levels of compensation for lawyers who agree to help clean up the mess.
So, why do we assume Clear Channel will never receive a red cent for cleaning up the Dunkley mess, or that the Cassidys will never receive anything for helping with the Graham debacle. Has that ever been directly represented as being the case?
Also, there is the concept of future referrals. On a much smaller scale, I was involved with taking over most of a practice years ago. I took the remaining cases from a retiring attorney–mostly domestic and criminal cases. It was initially difficult on account that they had already, to a large extent, prepaid the retiring attorney, which meant I attended a fair number of uncompensated hearings, etc. But, eventually, on the more involved cases that persisted on for a period, I was able to collect fees, and the whole experience over time wound up as an excellent referral source. So, it was difficult for the first year, but it eventually paid off.
But times change. Exposure and liability are real issues now. So, I agree with the posters who insist that in today's climate, never agree to take over the practice of an embattled attorney. Also, never agree to be a mentoring/supervising attorney pursuant to conditions set by the Bar for an attorney in serious discipline proceedings. These duties can include controlling the finances, which can expose the well-intentioned attorney to problems with their own E & O carrier, etc.
Some of what 3:22 says has some validity, but I believe in both the Graham case, and the Dunkley case, that any eventual financial benefits that Cassidy Law Firm or Clear Counsel receive, will be a mere pittance in comparison to the huge sacrifice and heartache they endure.
But 3:22 and the others are right on point that it is generally a bad idea to take over in these situations and try and clean it all up. Same goes for agreeing to mentor, and control the funds of, a disciplined lawyer. It definitely creates liability concerns for the attorney who stepped in and agreed to monitor and control the finances.
As far as any concern Metro has about Clear Channel not ferretting out other victims, they have their hands more than full(and, in fact, over-flowing)dealing with the actual documented victims. To expand their duties to locating more victims seems most unfair. It will all happen in time anyway. Clear Counsel will eventually review all existing files, so a few more victims may come to light as to settlements that were ripped off. This is probably already occurring via such additional victims calling up for a case status. So, this all happens,and perhaps on a very timely basis, as part of the organic process. Metro does not realize that further investigation is usually not really necessary as most P.I. clients are constantly phoning their attorney's office. So, new victims are probably being consistently and regularly uncovered by such natural progression. Nothing much proactive beyond that may really be necessary.
Now there was some reference in an earlier article to how some of these clients are being responded to. Apparently, some are simply being told that Dunkley gambled away and spent all their settlement, and that's that. So, perhaps the Bar and Metro would like to see a more diplomatic approach employed, but the approach taken by Clear Counsel is quite understandable.
Many clients are often not too sophisticated, and nuance and diplomacy may simply lead them to believe there is some hope and that their funds are not necessarily lost. And based on the desperation, emotional upheavel, and resulting loss of objectivity, it can be dangerous to sugar-coat,qualify, speak with lack of directness, etc.
So, unfortunately, quick and direct is often in everyone's best interest. It focuses and clarifies, and let's the client absorb such blow and move forward(with whatever their dwindling options may be).
The more time one spends speaking with such clients, the more a picture arises,(via discussion, implication,, qualifiers, and other "what ifs…")that the client has some actual and viable options to recoup all their money.
Far better, IMO, to tell them the attorney stole all the money, and then, if they don't already know, provide them the contact info. for Bar counsel handling the case.
I think Clear Counsel is not being treated fairly, although admittedly a lot of facts are probably not reported.
They agreed to deal with the known victims. I don't believe they have a responsibility to try to hunt down additional victims. It will all come to light anyway. They presumably have every client file, and will eventually contact everyone, if they have not already. In fact, these clients, as the above poster suggests, probably already contacted Clear Counsel. Eventually, if some of the files do not reflect documentation of a settlement, the attorneys will contact the adjusters to determine if any settlement funds were in fact sent.
And although it may seem flippant and insensitive to tell inquiring Dunkley clients that their attorney gambled and spent the entire settlement, this may not be the time and context for undue diplomacy.
Make it quick so the client knows exactly what happened so they know the cards they are holding.
Clear Counsel is in a bad situation and very likely was not told how bad it was. I was part of a group that came in to clean up an attorney's files when the attorney had problems. It was FAR worse than the State Bar represented. The State Bar provided little to no support and frankly little to no recognition. The State Bar is repugnant in turning angry clients against CC instead of the State Bar handling those matters. The State Bar knew of the problems before it ever handed them off to CC.
Sorry the State Bar should be on the forefront and should be stepping up to tell Metro to back off and be more worried about doing its own job finding victims than expecting that CC has some liability to go find victims. If the Metro wants to ferret out victims, Metro can do its own audit. If the State Bar wants to ferret out victims, then the State Bar can pay for an audit.
It is for this EXACT reason that I would never put my firm in the position of taking over any mess from the State Bar.
It is time for the Board of Governors to DO something about the State Bar. Until there are real, structural changes (which would require a thorough house-cleaning), we should all just vote out the incumbents each time they are up to be reelected.
I am doing the same thing with judges, except for two or three of them, you incumbent aholes are getting voted out.
Guest
Anonymous
January 3, 2019 8:54 pm
Off topic, totally unrelated
Where do y'all go to get cost bonds or smaller bonds ($1,000.00) issued without having to put down the full amount yourself?
Last time I had a non-resident cost bond ($500.00) last year and I went to Cragin and Pike, they blew me off – I remember 10-15 years ago, they were the "go to" for this type of bond. Apparently this type of business is too small for them now.
I don't put down the full amount myself. In fact I never post bonds for clients. Clients need to be posting their own cash bonds.
Guest
Anonymous
January 4, 2019 1:08 am
According to the LVRJ article, David Clark represents Randy Goldberg. From recollection, David Clark was Bar Counsel or Associate/Deputy Bar Counsel when Randy was suspended. Wouldn't David Clark's representation of Randy Goldberg be unethical as David Clark arguably was adverse to Randy Goldberg at the time of suspension? Undoubtedly, David Clark has had access to Randy Goldberg's disciplinary file maintained by the "policing" organization — that being the State Bar.
The 3 days that were formerly tacked on for mail and electronic service are now gone. Does that mean that, if requests for admission were served electronically on December 2, and not responded to yet, they are now admitted?
Stan Hunterton was able to get the State Bar to list no address for him. How do I get the State Bar to make me anonymous also?
https://www.nvbar.org/find-a-lawyer/?usearch=Hunterton
RIP Lou. Very very sad. He was a great friend.
Such an amazing person, so very sad. Will miss you Lou.
RIP Mary. Far too young.
Fuck Cancer!
RIP Mary. For anyone that would like to pay their respects, a celebration of life will be held at JW Marriott Las Vegas Resort & Spa in the Parian Ballroom, 221 N Rampart, LV, from 4-6 p.m. today.
Dear State Bar,
In watching the way Clear Counsel is being hung out to dry, I am convinced that I will never, ever voluntarily participate in any kind of practice take over in any way. What a nightmare. Talk about no good deed going unpunished.
Absolutely. I cannot believe how gutless the State Bar has been on this matter. You wanted their help. They stepped up to help you. They are saving you money and volunteering to try to fix a mess not of their doing. And you are sitting with your thumbs in places thumbs do not belong and letting them get roasted. Shame on you State Bar.
OBC is being run like it is headed up by a guy who has never been in private practice. Wait– it is being headed up by a guy who has never been in private practice.
Someone enlighten us re what is happening there.
Call and ask for Kim Farmer, or Terry Coffing, they will get to the bottom of it for you.
Ask Andrew Craner. He promised transparency for us.
According to news reports, Attorney Dunkley used his trust account to be a sugar daddy and gamble, didn't pay clients their PI settlements, etc. SBN shut down his practice, and asked Clear Counsel to step in to try and help Dunkley clients. Metro detective castigates Clear Counsel, claiming they were unhelpful, and haven't been trying to help find more victims.
Crickets from SBN and OBC while they let Clear Counsel get slammed.
Thanks. No good deed goes unpunished, I guess.
To: 11:23 and 1:45. It may be a little more involved than Clear Counsel tries to help clean up the mess, and all they get for their efforts is abuse.
A few question and observations arise. Was there some case sharing and other joint efforts by CC and Dunkley in the past? There seems to be an implication that there was. So, in addition to cleaning up the mess, could there be some possible benefits for C.C.? For example, on cases that were already settled, and the funds received, they can tell the clients that Dunkley blew all the money. But there may be many cases where no settlement has yet occurred. If that is the case, CC presumably can eventually settle those cases, and receive an attorney fees share. I realize that at this time all money is frozen, and the Bar would control and monitor any incoming money(from Dunkley cases) pending final decisions on how to disburse all those funds, etc. But as to relatively new cases, that may not settle for more than a year or so, presumably those clients future settlement funds would not be frozen and controlled by the Bar, but would instead flow to the clients and to Clear Counsel. But these arrangements can vary dramatically. However, we should not assume that future settlements(which is money that rightfully belongs to the individual clients)would instead need to be redirected to the communal pool of funds, and then distributed among those who have been wronged.
Clear Counsel may be the altruistic individuals some of these comments portray them as, or it all may be a little more involved. Perhaps they will never financially benefit from any of this, and will only incur hardship and heartache, and perhaps they never had any real connection to Dunkley. But do we in fact know all that to be the case? Like in the Graham case, the Cassidy law firm is to be applauded for all they have done, but once the storm passes, along with the great sacrifices they are making, could they not eventually benefit from cleaning up all these Probate cases? We can't assume that in both the Graham case and the Dunkley case that no attorneys will ever benefit and that all funds received in the future will go toward the massive compensation amounts to be disbursed among victimized clients. Cassidy themselves are heavily into advertising, and are very savvy and adept financially IMO. What is often not reported is that the arrangements set up by the Bar, although primarily focusing on victim reimbursement, do allow some levels of compensation for lawyers who agree to help clean up the mess.
So, why do we assume Clear Channel will never receive a red cent for cleaning up the Dunkley mess, or that the Cassidys will never receive anything for helping with the Graham debacle. Has that ever been directly represented as being the case?
Also, there is the concept of future referrals. On a much smaller scale, I was involved with taking over most of a practice years ago. I took the remaining cases from a retiring attorney–mostly domestic and criminal cases. It was initially difficult on account that they had already, to a large extent, prepaid the retiring attorney, which meant I attended a fair number of uncompensated hearings, etc. But, eventually, on the more involved cases that persisted on for a period, I was able to collect fees, and the whole experience over time wound up as an excellent referral source. So, it was difficult for the first year, but it eventually paid off.
But times change. Exposure and liability are real issues now. So, I agree with the posters who insist that in today's climate, never agree to take over the practice of an embattled attorney. Also, never agree to be a mentoring/supervising attorney pursuant to conditions set by the Bar for an attorney in serious discipline proceedings. These duties can include controlling the finances, which can expose the well-intentioned attorney to problems with their own E & O carrier, etc.
Some of what 3:22 says has some validity, but I believe in both the Graham case, and the Dunkley case, that any eventual financial benefits that Cassidy Law Firm or Clear Counsel receive, will be a mere pittance in comparison to the huge sacrifice and heartache they endure.
But 3:22 and the others are right on point that it is generally a bad idea to take over in these situations and try and clean it all up. Same goes for agreeing to mentor, and control the funds of, a disciplined lawyer. It definitely creates liability concerns for the attorney who stepped in and agreed to monitor and control the finances.
As far as any concern Metro has about Clear Channel not ferretting out other victims, they have their hands more than full(and, in fact, over-flowing)dealing with the actual documented victims. To expand their duties to locating more victims seems most unfair. It will all happen in time anyway. Clear Counsel will eventually review all existing files, so a few more victims may come to light as to settlements that were ripped off. This is probably already occurring via such additional victims calling up for a case status. So, this all happens,and perhaps on a very timely basis, as part of the organic process. Metro does not realize that further investigation is usually not really necessary as most P.I. clients are constantly phoning their attorney's office. So, new victims are probably being consistently and regularly uncovered by such natural progression. Nothing much proactive beyond that may really be necessary.
Now there was some reference in an earlier article to how some of these clients are being responded to. Apparently, some are simply being told that Dunkley gambled away and spent all their settlement, and that's that. So, perhaps the Bar and Metro would like to see a more diplomatic approach employed, but the approach taken by Clear Counsel is quite understandable.
Many clients are often not too sophisticated, and nuance and diplomacy may simply lead them to believe there is some hope and that their funds are not necessarily lost. And based on the desperation, emotional upheavel, and resulting loss of objectivity, it can be dangerous to sugar-coat,qualify, speak with lack of directness, etc.
So, unfortunately, quick and direct is often in everyone's best interest. It focuses and clarifies, and let's the client absorb such blow and move forward(with whatever their dwindling options may be).
The more time one spends speaking with such clients, the more a picture arises,(via discussion, implication,, qualifiers, and other "what ifs…")that the client has some actual and viable options to recoup all their money.
Far better, IMO, to tell them the attorney stole all the money, and then, if they don't already know, provide them the contact info. for Bar counsel handling the case.
I think Clear Counsel is not being treated fairly, although admittedly a lot of facts are probably not reported.
They agreed to deal with the known victims. I don't believe they have a responsibility to try to hunt down additional victims. It will all come to light anyway. They presumably have every client file, and will eventually contact everyone, if they have not already. In fact, these clients, as the above poster suggests, probably already contacted Clear Counsel. Eventually, if some of the files do not reflect documentation of a settlement, the attorneys will contact the adjusters to determine if any settlement funds were in fact sent.
And although it may seem flippant and insensitive to tell inquiring Dunkley clients that their attorney gambled and spent the entire settlement, this may not be the time and context for undue diplomacy.
Make it quick so the client knows exactly what happened so they know the cards they are holding.
Clear Counsel is in a bad situation and very likely was not told how bad it was. I was part of a group that came in to clean up an attorney's files when the attorney had problems. It was FAR worse than the State Bar represented. The State Bar provided little to no support and frankly little to no recognition. The State Bar is repugnant in turning angry clients against CC instead of the State Bar handling those matters. The State Bar knew of the problems before it ever handed them off to CC.
Sorry the State Bar should be on the forefront and should be stepping up to tell Metro to back off and be more worried about doing its own job finding victims than expecting that CC has some liability to go find victims. If the Metro wants to ferret out victims, Metro can do its own audit. If the State Bar wants to ferret out victims, then the State Bar can pay for an audit.
It is for this EXACT reason that I would never put my firm in the position of taking over any mess from the State Bar.
It is time for the Board of Governors to DO something about the State Bar. Until there are real, structural changes (which would require a thorough house-cleaning), we should all just vote out the incumbents each time they are up to be reelected.
I am doing the same thing with judges, except for two or three of them, you incumbent aholes are getting voted out.
Off topic, totally unrelated
Where do y'all go to get cost bonds or smaller bonds ($1,000.00) issued without having to put down the full amount yourself?
Last time I had a non-resident cost bond ($500.00) last year and I went to Cragin and Pike, they blew me off – I remember 10-15 years ago, they were the "go to" for this type of bond. Apparently this type of business is too small for them now.
You are messing with a bonding company over a non-resident cost bond? Some reason your client is not just posting cash for $500?
Re-read comment… not messing with a non-resident cost bond – that was last year.
Just looking to not have 1000 buried with clerk for indefinite amount of time.
I don't put down the full amount myself. In fact I never post bonds for clients. Clients need to be posting their own cash bonds.
According to the LVRJ article, David Clark represents Randy Goldberg. From recollection, David Clark was Bar Counsel or Associate/Deputy Bar Counsel when Randy was suspended. Wouldn't David Clark's representation of Randy Goldberg be unethical as David Clark arguably was adverse to Randy Goldberg at the time of suspension? Undoubtedly, David Clark has had access to Randy Goldberg's disciplinary file maintained by the "policing" organization — that being the State Bar.
The State Bar waived the conflict because Janeen handled Goldberg's case for the State Bar. The conflict was disclosed and waived.
the redlined version of the new rules is found here https://nvcourts.gov/AOC/Committees_and_Commissions/NRCP/Final_Documents/ADKT_522_Redline_NRCP/
The 3 days that were formerly tacked on for mail and electronic service are now gone. Does that mean that, if requests for admission were served electronically on December 2, and not responded to yet, they are now admitted?
Correction – they are gone as to e-service. You still get 3 days for mailing.
Pay attention – the changes DO NOT go into effect until March 1, 2019.