- Quickdraw McLaw
- 60 Comments
- 151 Views
- The State Bar of Nevada has cancelled the Annual Meeting scheduled for this summer in New Orleans. [NVBar]
- Are any you following the RJ’s judicial debates? Here are ones for Department 21 and Department S? Are these worthwhile? Anything interesting coming out of them?
- Nevada Democrats filed suit regarding the upcoming mail-in election. [TNI]
Saw on Linked-in that Lackman is running to be on the board of governors. I've had cases against him and he is a good guy. Not sure who else is running but he has 1 of my 4 votes. When does voting begin?
Definitely agree with this. I worked with him through young lawyers section and he is a top notch guy
If he works for Akerman, Lachman, hello no, I will not vote for him.
Democrats want mail-in voting and ballot harvesting so they can cheat. Hell No!!
Bad news, folks! He's on to us!
FYI New Administrative Order extending the prior orders has been issued.
All discovery continued until 30 days after this order expires
I can't find reference to the time for filing an Answer. Has that time been extended by any of the Orders?
I don't want to unnecessarily alarm anyone, but as a recent addition to the ranks of the Nevada unemployed, the situation looks bleak. There are not a lot of jobs out there right now–understandably. Especially if you're looking for lawyer jobs. Those of you who are still employed should take a moment and appreciate what you have. I have enough savings to get through this, but damn, if it's not a little depressing.
Ditto. Getting my PPP today bought me even more time before I'm robbing liquor stores.
Hello 11:12 – I too lost my job – I'll be very open in this anonymous post – in front of my wife and children I must be a calm leader and such – but it sincerely terrifies me – I do all of the common sense things looking but in essence I'm met with "are you kidding, we're not hiring during this Pandemic." I was forced to apply for unemployment and have heard nothing from them. I know people will say I should have saved more and perhaps that is true but I am fairly young and only have a couple months savings. Anyway, I have nothing to offer you except knowing that you are not alone. Take care.
What areas of law did you now unemployed lawyers practice in?
Clear Counsel law group is looking for a new(ish) lawyer for PI. May not be your area of expertise, but may be worth reaching out.
I'm 11:44 and I practiced in Family Law. Thank you for asking.
We should be supporting one another – has anyone created a fund or anything to support newly out of work attorneys if they need resources for their families? Hang in there, folks, I know it is hard to ask for help but please get what you need to make it through this.
If any Family Law attorneys are looking for an opportunity, JK Nelson Law is looking for someone. Go check out their job posting.
I don't know anything about Ochoa as a family court judge. He was briefly assigned to do 10% of the contested probate cases. I've never seen a judge so lazy and asleep at the wheel. He never bothered to learn anything about probate or trusts. He never read the briefs. He asked questions in oral argument about as frequently as Clarence Thomas. He was too intimidated to wade into it, so he just rubber stamped the Commissioner. When I had oral arguments in front of him, I felt like I as talking to someone in a vegetative state. After a while, it didn't bother me. I liked it because I could count on him to always behave this way. And he always did. I used that to the benefit of my clients.
I had him for one family law case (the only one I have ever handled). He did a good job. But the other side was beyond bad, so it wasn't difficult.
He's always tried to understand the issues in family cases when I've been in front of him. Seems to be very kind – could some of the issues you're mentioning be staff related? I am not him or trying to defend him, I have heard the same rumors about lack of attention to cases but never actually experienced that issue on my matters so I wanted to ask.
He is an embarrassment Never read anything. Never on time. And honestly really harmed some families.
Contemplating my career choices, I spent some time looking at the salaries of government civil attorneys on transparentnevada.com for 2019. I was surprised by how well they do. Below is the comp for Henderson and City of Las Vegas civil attorneys. I didn’t want to post names, even though they are public, and changed them for the year they passed the Bar. On top of their pay, they get a 4 day work week. Henderson attorneys get 8 weeks of vacation, not sure about Las Vegas. The benefits are super high because of the state pension system that pays them 75% of their highest 3 years of salary after they retire. The pay seems really good, especially for the younger attorneys in Henderson. I know partners in decent firms who make less.
I never knew that City governments paid so well. Are these jobs really that cush? In Las Vegas, the higher paid attorneys have 30 plus years of practice. In Henderson there is only one attorney with that kind of experience, and they are the 5th highest paid and only make $8K more than a 2009 grad. Does Henderson have enough litigation to justify paying 10+ lawyers this much money?
Henderson Civil Lawyers
Bar Year/ Total Pay / Benefits / Total Pay & Bens
2002 / $227,401 / $72,227 / $299,628
2000 / $191,580 / $67,085 / $258,666
2000 / $179,956 / $63,763 / $243,720
1997 / $179,886 / $63,763 / $243,649
1981 / $179,886 / $63,763 / $243,649
2005 / $177,611 /$63,104/ $240,715
2006 / $177,584 / $63,109 / $240,694
2007 / $177,565 /$63,104/ $240,669
2008 / $173,004 / $61,808 / $234,813
2004 / $172,251 /$61,594 /$233,845
2007 / $172,036 / $61,533 / $233,569
2009 / $171,414 /$61,356 /$232,771
Las Vegas Civil Lawyers
Bar Year /Total Pay / Benefits / Total Pay & Bens
1985 / $262,822 /$72,196 / $335,018
1989 / $200,726 /$68,519 / $269,246
1991 / $203,105 /$59,206 / $262,311
1981 / $190,786 /$64,895 / $255,681
1981 / $185,883 /$59,699 / $245,683
1997 / $157,175 /$61,268 / $218,483
2006 / $161,628 /$51,856 / $213,484
1981 / $158,909 /$51,959 / $210,869
2003 / $147,663 /$57,345 / $205,008
2004 / $143,096 /$55,501 / $198,597
2013 / $141,569 /$46,805 / $188,374
Tax payer money is the sweetest money around. Spend with wild abandon. Who cares? The slaves will make more.
amen
Most Henderson City civil attorneys make around $160k and Las Vegas Civil Attorneys generally make $120k. And that's how its been for a while now.
R.J.'s Judicial Debates are beyond worthless, but at no fault of the R.J., which is at least giving the candidates a forum, and attempting to provide some info. to the public in ignored, down ballot races.
The fault lies with the candidates. Candidates tend to simply drone on about their experience, which, generally speaking, is something voters don't care about. In fact, usually the person with the most experience does not win.
The question of who has the most experience is largely irrelevant and misleading. First, it might not really be the type of experience which is ideal for the positon in question. Secondly, and more importantly, quantity seldom equates to quality. There are people who have practiced a long time who seem to be far lesser attorneys than some who have practiced a much shorter period.
So, a word of wise to the candidates–don't waste time boring people with your resume. Instead, give some perspective on your vision of the positon in question.
If a candidate is running against an incumbent, the focus should not be on the challenger's experience, but instead why should the public remove an entrenched incumbent. Make the race about the incumbent and their performance.If someone, who runs against an incumbent decides to run a so-called dignified race, and only discusses their own experience, and does not discuss why the incumbent should be removed, that challenger will invariably lose.
And if it is a race for an open seat, give lawyers and the public some perspective of how you view the job. Obviously, I get that one can not, without inviting ethical scrutiny, discuss how they will resolve certain types of cases. But there is still a lot of latitude, but no one exploits and utilizes that. Instead, judicial candidates presume they are confined to simply making statements that if elected they will "follow the law", and/or "read everything submitted."
Since very few candidates, if they win, ever keep those promises, this information is useless.
1:36–that reminds me of a race years ago where a candidate actually did say something kind of interesting. It's true a candidate can't say they will give the maximum on all DUI cases or anything like that, but there is far more room, as to what is ethically permissible, than people think.
This candidate suggested that perhaps we should start looking at Motions For Summary Judgement a little differently.
This candidate suggested that there are too many cases where a judge denies the motion, and finds that there are disputed facts, even when:(1) The disputed facts can at time be almost incredible to believe; and (2) Months of discovery has provided no meaningful information to support such disputed fact.
Note that such candidate did not imply he would rule differently than the law mandated. He understood that "question of disputed fact" remains the focus. But he suggested that there is a lot of subjective wiggle room as to what constitutes a disputed fact, particularly if months, or even years, of pre-trial discovery and case preparation does not flesh out any of the so-called disputed facts, or provide them any meaningful support.
As it stands now, are there any judges who can be relied on to grant summary judgments if a party's assertions acquires no support deep into the discovery process. I've seen judges dump a few fringe cause of actions, but seldom dismiss the main cause of action which centers the case, even when it remains unsupported after much discovery and time passage.
Issues discussed by 1:36 and 1:48 color all political races, not just judicial ones. For example, in presidential races, more often than not, the candidate with the most experience loses. The loser spends the race droning on about their experience, while their far less experienced rival focuses on some sort of so-called vison.
Just look at the last two cycles where a new President was elected. In '08, assuming that it was a bit of a stretch for the Republicans to claim that Obama's experience was primarily limited to being a "community organizer", it is true that he had only like two years of experience in the U.S. Senate at the time he declared he'd run for President, while John McCain had over 20 years as a Senator.
So, Republicans emphasized McCain's long years of Senatorial service, and that voters should rely on such experience and play it safe by electing him. But the Democrats realized that it would be beyond absurd to get into a pissing contest with the McCain camp about which candidate has more political experience(since McCain had like 10 times as many years in the Senate as Obama did) instead focused their campaign on platitudes and themes, and vision–change is coming, etc. And it worked.
And this last race in 2016, when Hillary touted her Senate experience and Secretary Of State experience, that was all used by the Trump camp as a negative against her. In fact, obviously a large part of Trump's theme, and apparent appeal, was his total lack of political experience in the government–which positioned him as the plain and tough speaking outsider
who was going to drain thee swamp and all that.
So, the Obama camp and the Trump camp both wisely avoided emphasizing their candidate's(quite limited) political experience, and instead focused on a thematic campaign.
On the one hand, these three posts are too long just to make the point that one's experience is largely irrelevant in campaigns.
But, on the other hand, perhaps the point needs to be drummed home and repeated as this mistake keeps occurring.
For example, it is very ineffective for judicial candidates to emphasize what firms they worked for, for how many years at each firm, etc.
No one cares.
What voters apparently care about, in judicial races, is your gender, how you look on a sign, and do you have a name they can easily pronounce.
I am going to say something that may sound harsh but its a decision our firm has made: we are going to use this crisis as an opportunity to upgrade our staff. This virus is going to provide us cover to rotate out staff that we should have rotated out long ago but did not have the heart and to pick up better players that are being cut elsewhere.
I wonder if your new hires will fully appreciate that loyalty isn't your strong suit. When the economy improves, and they leave and take clients with them, I hope you'll understand that your former associates and clients are just "upgrading".
Wow. 4:11. You couldn't let them go before because you didn't have the "heart", but now when there's a crisis and most firms aren't hiring, you're going to let them go. Jesus. Psychopaths walk among us. :O
God bless you! 4:11 is doing the right thing. Cull the less productive and don't look back.
4:11 – You are a self-centered coward. It is probably too late for you to fix it, but it is important that you know that and adjust accordingly (especially if you have kids).
I am taking you at your word that these people suck and should be fired. But it is clear from your post that you knew this information prior to the lock down. However, you waited (probably a fair amount of time) until there was no hope for these people to find other employment for months, and then you fired them to make things easier on your own conscience. Did these people do something personal to you to deserve such a vindictive response??
I am incredibly interested how (in your mind) you have rationalized this to go about your life believing you are still a decent person. Although I am sure this is probably a pattern.
P.S. I am also impressed by the incredible lack of self-awareness that led you here to brag about your cowardice.
It's also just bad business sense. Law firms are terrible at managing poor performers, but if you have to let one go when things are good, people will blame the employee. When you let staff go when things are bad, people will think your firm is hanging on by a thread. A decade later "Latham" is still a verb.
There are some asswipes on here. It is a pandemic, and you are screwing over your employees. Yesterday, you have trolls going after posters, because they don't want to vote for sitting judges. Grow the fuck up.
4:11 is displaying compassion and common sense. Best to lay off the slackers during a national crises when generous unemployment is available, and future employers will not question why they are looking for work. Fire the slackers during the good times, and the first question any future employer has is: why you looking? what's wrong with you?
Never let a crisis go to waste: get rid of the slackers. Also, with so many employees working remotely, now is a great chance to observe who is really producing. Cull while you can. Some of the best facetimers might be unproductive if you look strictly at volume and quality of work, not hours. Cut them. Position your firm for the upside when this is all done.
Best advice ever: Hire very slowly; fire quickly.
You can also spot the team players during a time of crisis. They volunteer to come to the office, to work the long hours, to send the kids to grandma's while they work extra hours. These are the stars who should be generously rewarded.
I do not really get the general trend on here. Economic times are tough and firms are trying to survive– that means save the jobs of the good employees and the less than stellar employees. If you have an associate who is billing 100 hours a month and you find out that there is an associate who just got let go and who has good credentials, are you really arguing that you hold on to the unproductive employee and pass on employing the productive employee because times are tough?
The fact that times are tough is EXACTLY the reason that you maximize opportunities shown to your firm. There are people that were not unemployed and looking who now are looking. The argument that "let one go when things are good, people will blame the employee. When you let staff go when things are bad, people will think your firm is hanging on by a thread" misses the point that the population of the firm will remain the same, just more productive pieces added. Arguably 4:11 should have fired the bad performers even when times were good; however lets be honest. It was REALLY hard to find qualified applicants 60 days ago. There are quality workers who are unemployed and looking now.
Wow 4:11, people are dying but hey, glad you get to 'upgrade' your staff…
Damn straight! Upgrayedd
It's the type of experience that is important for candidates, not mere quantity. Trial experience is HUGE, and experience working through evidentiary issues is a close second. A civil background of some kind is helpful as well, but can be learned as has been discussed here previously.
It's also very important to be able to make a decision….an informed decision that results from reading both the law and what has been submitted by each side. Sounds simple, but these basics make or break a judge in terms of competence.
Other than that, be nice and appropriately earned respect will follow.
Hi! I’m running in Dept. 15 and have: 1) criminal and civil experience; and 2) extensive trial experience (which is generally, in my opinion, how you get proficient at the evidentiary issues). My opponents do not. I’m happy to answer any questions and I hope I can earn your vote.
Kindness and respect for others are always important.
And, yes, I do regularly read the blog as an attorney.
Tegan, you would make a great judge without a doubt. I should have added being proactive as another characteristic in my post above, and you certainly cover that area as well. Best wishes to a successful campaign.
Thanks 6:34!
Tegan– Tell us about your extensive trial experience and the flaws in your opponents' experience. Tell us what your approach to a complex civil docket.
10:21, Hardy's campaign manager is slumming.
Dave Thomas should put his main focus on Joe Hardy, because he is a crappy judge. Hardy cannabis handle the small trials.
There is no question but that Hardy is an absolute train wreck as a judge. Truly abysmal.
Ok 10:21 (whoever you are) – I have tried around 40 jury trials. The last 5 (and many before that) have been multiple week trials with potential life sentences. Neither of my opponents have any practice experience in criminal law. Neither of my opponents have significant trial experience.
I did practice at a large local firm (so I do have civil experience). I do fundamentally understand complex civil litigation.
I hope that helps.
And I see the grammatical errors but cannot fix them at this point.
Ms. Machnich: I am 10:21 and certainly no lover of Judge Hardy. However Judge Hardy has seen significant trial experience in 5 years on the bench, so much so that he is frequently reversed.
My question on the civil litigation side is, as a civil practitioner, tell me what your philosophy and approach will be to a civil litigation docket. Coming out of the PD's Office so conflicts are a concern, and knowing the makeup of Dept. XV's docket now, you are very likely to be handed a civil caseload. What changes to how Dept XV currently handles his cases (or how Mr. Breeden has proposed to handle the docket)are you proposing to bring to the bench? What large local firm and from when to when? I don't know you but dislike Judge Hardy enough that I really want to get to know your candidacy.
I will try to address all of your questions:
Hardy has a very high reversal rate, and these include jury verdicts and dispositive motions that are taken up by the parties. I do not think being a judge necessarily qualifies you to be a judge – I think the high reversal rate is, in part, because he had so little trial and courtroom experience as practicing attorney. Other than that, I don’t know why he is reversed so often (but obviously our Supreme Court does not agree with his reasoning). The vast majority (or, perhaps, all) of his referrals have been on civil cases because he has had a criminal docket for such a short period. This could be but the tip of the iceberg.
My approach to a civil docket would be one based on pragmatism. Cases must be moved along so the parties do not undergo unnecessary expense, but not with a disregard for what is reasonable for the parties. The more complex a case, the longer the discovery process (typically). I realize that unless it affects the schedule it orders, most of that goes on before the commissioner. Additionally, I think it is very unfortunate that so many cases are removed (whenever possible) to Federal Court in attempts to have the law followed. I do not think frivolous lawsuits should be allowed to stand, because there are so many important issues (even if only important to the parties) that come into the system.
As for conflicts, all of the DC judges with criminal experience who have taken the bench in the last decade have come from the DA’s office. No one questions their issue with conflicts on criminal cases. Coming from criminal practice, I’ve seen the best and worst of both sides (and the bench). The law doesn’t change because of who is arguing it.
As for changes – I would actually rule on motions in a timely fashion, citing which law I was applying, so the parties could rely on them. I would also run an efficient courtroom and waste far less time. I am not familiar with Breeden’s proposed changes – he has no criminal law experience and does not seem particularly well regarded by those he has worked with.
I worked at Snell & Wilmer for 18 months, from December 2009-June 2011. I was also a summer associate there (but that doesn’t really count). I left to go to the PD’s office, where I have remained since.
Can candidates who are running against incumbents please post their information on here? I and my family want to vote for you, especially if you are facing possible elimination in May. The comments on here persuade me, among other reasons, to vote underdog and the challenger.
Tegan Christine Machnich – Dept. 15 (yes, we have a primary).
Who are you running against? I'm too lazy to look it up. I know that #15 is Judge Hardy,but who is the third candidate? How did Judge Hardy perform on the (admittedly highly flawed) RJ Judicial Survey?
Hardy and Adam Breeden. Hardy got around 75% and has an an error rate of around 40%
2:33, 3:55–as the above posts suggest, the average voter will not know, or care, about your experience.
But, fortunately for you, a lot of them will vote for you if you are the only female candidate in the Primary. Also, if you articulate a sound reason the incumbent should be removed, that will help.
So, your road to victory will before you to exploit your gender(nothing wrong with that. Every candidate needs to exploit whatever may be at their disposal) and hope that enough of the public is exposed to whatever narrative you have as to why the incumbent should be removed, and is reasonably persuaded by it.
If you, and your campaign, approach it along those lines, you might have a real good shot.
But if you think you will win by educating(read: boring) the public with your civ. and crim. experience, keep in mind that they have like over 80 judicial races to wade through and will be looking to get through with the voting ASAP.
Hope you have a good campaign manger who will educate you that you will win based on factors like I mentioned(along with other factors), rather than you will win if you teach the public how great and experienced you are.
I don't mean to sound cynical. This is just the way it is. I've witnessed(and had involvement with three decades of judicial races, and the dynamics involved). Have you?
But I really wish you well because you obviously have enthusiasm and spirit, as well as experience(which, although of no relevance to the average voter, is of relevance to those in the legal profession) and you had the guts to identify yourself on this blog. Courage is always a highly admirable trait.
Courage and enthusiasm are great, but at the end of the day the only thing that matters in these races is cold hard cash. Hardy is from a well-connected multi-generation LDS family. He will crush Tegan in fundraising.
10:18-I think 9:17 would largely agree with you. The poster was admiring some apparent traits of the challenger, but recognized that unless she really amplifies a good reason to remove the incumbent(and has the money to widely circulate that message), it will be real difficult.
But if she does give the public a good reason to remove the incumbent, and if she has some funds to efefctively advertise such message, that, in addition to her gender, can help her.
Now as to your comment that Hardy, being entrenched in the community, and a huge fund-raising advantage will crush her, that is untrue and ignores a key point.
That key point is her gender. If everything was as it is except that she were a male, then Hardy could win huge, like 70% to 30%.
But, based on the mere fact that she is a female, she will easily crack 40% and beyond. So even though she will presumably lose, she will not be crushed–no female is ever crushed in these judicial races, even when running against a well-funded male incumbent.
Hardy,(as well as his family and his campaign people), is smart and knows that, and he will take nothing for granted.
Who is running against the Johnsons?