I'm licensed in Utah, Arizona, and Nevada. I drove a Panel Member down to the Nevada State Bar once and waited in the little room to the left. While hanging out down there waiting, I heard with my own ears, a OBC member say, "yeah, fuck her, what's she gonna do, she's a SOLO." Now I do not know the context, maybe "she" was a murderer and deserved whatever she was getting, but I did not like the tone, etc. Sounded very creepy to me.
I know who "she" is and you are correct. The OBC are a bunch of cowards whereby there is no substantive or procedural due process. Since that date it has been transmitted far and wide that they (State Bar of Nevada) are afraid to go after the bigger fish and stay focused on the low-hanging fruit of solos who it is difficult for. And understand that many of "her" colleagues have been tipped via various social media sites and private chat rooms. OBC is a garbage group.
Good. Most solos are terrible attorneys. And only the worst of the worst draw the attention of bar counsel. If they were prosecuted more aggressively by bar counsel it would improve the reputation of the profession and send a worthy message.
Yeah, 132. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. You are dead wrong.
I know solos that are the best of the best. I know a few hacks too, but I am of the opinion that the successful solos are typically very good attorneys and are the easiest to work with. The ones who struggle financially are the hacks and are headed for bar trouble, but there is no question that OBC targets solos unfairly compared to Biglaw and their resources.
OBC is staffed by glorified gubment shills that don't want to work any harder than they have to.
1:32–"Most solos are terrible attorneys."–Really!? You feel comfortable and confident making that kind of really sweeping, unfair conclusion? Being a solo in not inherently problematic. There are certain areas of the law, whereby if one is sufficiently skilled, does not take on too many cases and does not take on cases that are too intense and time demanding for his/her practice, and who have solid support staff, can do quite well. That said, I would acknowledge that I have seen many solos who take on cases which are far beyond their abilities and talent, and which require many hours they cannot devote to the project, and intense paperwork demands they cannot possibly meet, etc. And this is compounded if they have not much of a support staff. I know a solo who primarily emphasizes volume cases–more simple domestic matters, some misdemeanor cases which he invariably negotiates–things of that sort. But he recently had a major medical malpractice case fall into his lap(the patient was one of his past divorce clients, and apparently did not know how to look for a specialist in med. mal., but simply called the one lawyer he happened to know). To me it appears to be a promising case, and I advised him to refer it to a larger firm that has a good track record in that area, and accept a nice referral fee. But greed took over, and he is keeping it. He has no support staff. He is in for quite a shock once the initial discovery requests and motions start arriving.
I basically agree with 2:01 in that there are many good solos, but there are also solos who do NOT appreciate their own limitations, and take on cases far too complex and time-consuming because the case seems potentially valuable and they don't want to share with another firm. In the example 2:01 gives(and I myself have seen this occur) it is beyond ludicrous for a solo attorney, who has no real support staff and basically handles uncontested divorces and a few misdemeanor cases, to take on a complex med. mal. case. And I have seen the same thing occur. So there are in fact a lot of greedy, ego-driven delusional solos who take on massive litigation in areas they have never handled before. So, yes, most of us have seen that. But still, I believe the majority of solos are pretty solid.
2:01, 2:15, I realize most lay people don't happen to know who the best attorneys are in given areas. But, still, in this day and age, it is not difficult to research and inquire about such matters. So, it is difficult for me to have too much sympathy for a victim of med. mal. who does not have the sense, nor do family members apparently have the sense, to make some inquiries, rather than simply calling up the lawyer who handled an uncontested divorce for the med. mal. victim or his/her family member .Extreme laziness, mixed with extreme stupidity, has a very steep price. That is quite harsh, but none of us made those rules. We just live by them.
Guest
Anonymous
May 11, 2022 5:22 pm
Lovely,the mindset of your Nevada Supreme Court. Go after solos.
Guest
Anonymous
May 11, 2022 5:45 pm
Agree with 10:27. OBC is a garbage group. They act like they win something if they screw a solo over.
Guest
Anonymous
May 11, 2022 5:54 pm
Judge with a screwdriver tantum, OBC gone to hell, do you miss Rob Bare yet? (and Trevor Atkin too?)
I do not. I had a matter in front of him years ago. He made a terrible ruling. A couple years later the matter was finally resolved and the full extent of his mistake was clear, but that didn't help the client. Even when you ultimately prevail after a bad ruling, the fees and costs to the client are never really recouped.
2:24 demonstrates the problem of how we evaluate judges. Ideally, we would want to have some real exposure to a lot of the judge's work over a period of years before we evaluate him/her. But the hard truth is that considering that there are now so many judges, our evaluation of a particular judge may often be limited to just one or two anecdotal experiences. And if those one or two experiences result in us losing a motion we believed we should have won, we will naturally start viewing such judge as a bad one, even if most of our colleagues disagree. And that is what is occurring here as I believe that 2:24(despite despising Barker for how he ruled on matter of 2:24's) would experience difficulty in recruiting converts to his position that Barker was an awful judge. He was not, and I never heard anyone(except 2:24) ever suggest that he was.
2:24 here – I get what you're saying and most of the time I'd agree with you, but this was particularly egregious. I can't say more without revealing who I am and I don't want to do that in this instance. For what it's worth, I had high hopes for Barker prior to going in front of him. I had heard good things about him and was pretty disappointed by just how wrong he got it.
Guest
Anonymous
May 11, 2022 7:20 pm
Honest question that I know I'm going to get pummeled for. But here goes. Is it that OBC targets solos for the sake of targeting solos, or is it that the majority of discipline worthy conduct happens in solos that don't have the guardrails that larger firms are able to put in place?
12:20 In my experience there is some truth in that, but I emphasize "some," having worked in both, I do believe it would have been harder to, for example, steal from a Trust Account in a larger firm. However, there were MORE violations in the large firm I worked for. I believe the NSB, largely based on the prejudices of the individuals in the OBC, does target SOLOs because they do not have the resources to fight back against the Bar. Also, you may not have known these two points: 1) Most of the OBC staff are juiced in and in some cases, related to the BOG members (not necessarily by blood but via marriage, previous business, etc. and 2) Cases are often referred to and fought by the larger firms – let that sink in for a minute. So Attorney X gets a fee dispute adverse finding and it is not the NSB but a large firm that does the legal work. That creates an obvious conflict of interest. How likely will the OBC be to prosecute the larger firm who is actually working with the NSB.
7:35 – 5:19 back, it always strikes me as strange that lawyers who are supposedly trained in argumentation, so easily resort to insults on an anonymous blog. My post was not insulting, it addressed my experience and was clearly labeled as such but you jumped right to insults. I wish I had time to draw you a flowchart but I will guide you to your own research. Take any random name from the OBC and then start Googling or run a BeenVerified report and with most, you will see a direct relationship to a Member(s) of the BOG. Now that is not always a bad thing and may be the result of networking and such and occasionally may be a good thing. But in my experience, as I am very involved in the social circles, they are almost always juiced in. Further, as I am one of the rare people born in Vegas and worked on the Strip for many years, I will say that this ethic has a long history in Vegas. However, what works for Valets jobs really shouldn't be the way the NSB operates.
Which job does she have in OBC? Oh yeah, none. And she worked in another department as a nonlawyer before he was elected to BOG. But please, tell us which others you are "sure" are out there? Lol.
Richard Dreitzer does not work for OBC i think he is at Fennemore. Can anyone name one OBC that is related to a BOG? False information like this very damaging.
12:20 is right. OBC does not "go after" anyone. They respond to a complaint. Large firms generally do not let disputes get to the point of a formal complaint. They have designated risk managers that step in and resolve issues, usually by offering discounts on the bill.
Hey, 10:45, only Hogge works in OBC. Barker and Isaacson have been gone for years, and Dreitzer never worked in the office (she's not an attorney). As 10:38 said, nobody in OBC has any connection to BOG. If you know different, please share but, of course, you won't/can't.
Hey,235,get a life. I am sorry you don't like 5 names given to you. All work for the bar. Posts are talking about BOHs and OBC. Who defends the bar? Leverty pretty much picked Hogge.
Wow….. Have you read what Ginn says about the last election (re: women empowerment)? I mean, we all know it's true, but I'll be damned if I say it publicly so it can be cited later by opponents.
That was the surest way of saying "I don't really want to be elected so kick me out after the primary." He just complained about his practice sucking. Besides that, he is actually one of the solo hacks, we discussed yesterday that is a crap lawyer and would make a terrible judge.
I have known Dotson for a very long time. I remember her as a young sweet, if somewhat disorganized rookie. Now I haven't come into contact with her for quite some time, but if she hasn't changed, she will be getting my support and my vote.
11:19 did that question really warrant busting out allcaps? The link all at the top doesn't specifically identify Ginn by name. 11:14's question was reasonable.
I don't think so Tim. I prefer to look a hair deeper to find the answer to my question before asking for a referral. But, that's me.
#GenXersRule
#millenialsandgenzssuck
Because a person didn’t realize that a link posted above concerned a person not named in the post, that makes that person a bad lawyer? (I’m not the original poster, by the way.) This is a gossip blog, not a MSJ. You must be fun at parties.
I'm licensed in Utah, Arizona, and Nevada. I drove a Panel Member down to the Nevada State Bar once and waited in the little room to the left. While hanging out down there waiting, I heard with my own ears, a OBC member say, "yeah, fuck her, what's she gonna do, she's a SOLO." Now I do not know the context, maybe "she" was a murderer and deserved whatever she was getting, but I did not like the tone, etc. Sounded very creepy to me.
I know who "she" is and you are correct. The OBC are a bunch of cowards whereby there is no substantive or procedural due process. Since that date it has been transmitted far and wide that they (State Bar of Nevada) are afraid to go after the bigger fish and stay focused on the low-hanging fruit of solos who it is difficult for. And understand that many of "her" colleagues have been tipped via various social media sites and private chat rooms. OBC is a garbage group.
Good. Most solos are terrible attorneys. And only the worst of the worst draw the attention of bar counsel. If they were prosecuted more aggressively by bar counsel it would improve the reputation of the profession and send a worthy message.
Yeah, 132. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. You are dead wrong.
I know solos that are the best of the best. I know a few hacks too, but I am of the opinion that the successful solos are typically very good attorneys and are the easiest to work with. The ones who struggle financially are the hacks and are headed for bar trouble, but there is no question that OBC targets solos unfairly compared to Biglaw and their resources.
OBC is staffed by glorified gubment shills that don't want to work any harder than they have to.
132 is either slim Kim Farmer or the OBC
1:32–"Most solos are terrible attorneys."–Really!? You feel comfortable and confident making that kind of really sweeping, unfair conclusion? Being a solo in not inherently problematic. There are certain areas of the law, whereby if one is sufficiently skilled, does not take on too many cases and does not take on cases that are too intense and time demanding for his/her practice, and who have solid support staff, can do quite well. That said, I would acknowledge that I have seen many solos who take on cases which are far beyond their abilities and talent, and which require many hours they cannot devote to the project, and intense paperwork demands they cannot possibly meet, etc. And this is compounded if they have not much of a support staff. I know a solo who primarily emphasizes volume cases–more simple domestic matters, some misdemeanor cases which he invariably negotiates–things of that sort. But he recently had a major medical malpractice case fall into his lap(the patient was one of his past divorce clients, and apparently did not know how to look for a specialist in med. mal., but simply called the one lawyer he happened to know). To me it appears to be a promising case, and I advised him to refer it to a larger firm that has a good track record in that area, and accept a nice referral fee. But greed took over, and he is keeping it. He has no support staff. He is in for quite a shock once the initial discovery requests and motions start arriving.
I basically agree with 2:01 in that there are many good solos, but there are also solos who do NOT appreciate their own limitations, and take on cases far too complex and time-consuming because the case seems potentially valuable and they don't want to share with another firm. In the example 2:01 gives(and I myself have seen this occur) it is beyond ludicrous for a solo attorney, who has no real support staff and basically handles uncontested divorces and a few misdemeanor cases, to take on a complex med. mal. case. And I have seen the same thing occur. So there are in fact a lot of greedy, ego-driven delusional solos who take on massive litigation in areas they have never handled before. So, yes, most of us have seen that. But still, I believe the majority of solos are pretty solid.
2:01, 2:15, I realize most lay people don't happen to know who the best attorneys are in given areas. But, still, in this day and age, it is not difficult to research and inquire about such matters. So, it is difficult for me to have too much sympathy for a victim of med. mal. who does not have the sense, nor do family members apparently have the sense, to make some inquiries, rather than simply calling up the lawyer who handled an uncontested divorce for the med. mal. victim or his/her family member .Extreme laziness, mixed with extreme stupidity, has a very steep price. That is quite harsh, but none of us made those rules. We just live by them.
Lovely,the mindset of your Nevada Supreme Court. Go after solos.
Agree with 10:27. OBC is a garbage group. They act like they win something if they screw a solo over.
Judge with a screwdriver tantum, OBC gone to hell, do you miss Rob Bare yet? (and Trevor Atkin too?)
Rob Bare follow his own orders instead of NSC? Did he equally go after bigger firm's?
I miss Rob Bare, both as BC and as DC Judge.
Who doesn't miss Trevor Atkin?
I miss Dave Barker
I do not. I had a matter in front of him years ago. He made a terrible ruling. A couple years later the matter was finally resolved and the full extent of his mistake was clear, but that didn't help the client. Even when you ultimately prevail after a bad ruling, the fees and costs to the client are never really recouped.
2:24 demonstrates the problem of how we evaluate judges. Ideally, we would want to have some real exposure to a lot of the judge's work over a period of years before we evaluate him/her. But the hard truth is that considering that there are now so many judges, our evaluation of a particular judge may often be limited to just one or two anecdotal experiences. And if those one or two experiences result in us losing a motion we believed we should have won, we will naturally start viewing such judge as a bad one, even if most of our colleagues disagree. And that is what is occurring here as I believe that 2:24(despite despising Barker for how he ruled on matter of 2:24's) would experience difficulty in recruiting converts to his position that Barker was an awful judge. He was not, and I never heard anyone(except 2:24) ever suggest that he was.
2:24 here – I get what you're saying and most of the time I'd agree with you, but this was particularly egregious. I can't say more without revealing who I am and I don't want to do that in this instance. For what it's worth, I had high hopes for Barker prior to going in front of him. I had heard good things about him and was pretty disappointed by just how wrong he got it.
Honest question that I know I'm going to get pummeled for. But here goes. Is it that OBC targets solos for the sake of targeting solos, or is it that the majority of discipline worthy conduct happens in solos that don't have the guardrails that larger firms are able to put in place?
12:20 is right on point, but let the pummeling begin anyway.
I've worked in both big and small firms. The big firms are as bad if not worse than solos. OBC targets solos because it is low hanging fruit.
12:20 In my experience there is some truth in that, but I emphasize "some," having worked in both, I do believe it would have been harder to, for example, steal from a Trust Account in a larger firm. However, there were MORE violations in the large firm I worked for. I believe the NSB, largely based on the prejudices of the individuals in the OBC, does target SOLOs because they do not have the resources to fight back against the Bar. Also, you may not have known these two points: 1) Most of the OBC staff are juiced in and in some cases, related to the BOG members (not necessarily by blood but via marriage, previous business, etc. and 2) Cases are often referred to and fought by the larger firms – let that sink in for a minute. So Attorney X gets a fee dispute adverse finding and it is not the NSB but a large firm that does the legal work. That creates an obvious conflict of interest. How likely will the OBC be to prosecute the larger firm who is actually working with the NSB.
Wow, who do you think in OBC was juiced in? You think "most" were? Your talents are being wasted. You should concentrate on faked Moon landings.
7:35 – 5:19 back, it always strikes me as strange that lawyers who are supposedly trained in argumentation, so easily resort to insults on an anonymous blog. My post was not insulting, it addressed my experience and was clearly labeled as such but you jumped right to insults. I wish I had time to draw you a flowchart but I will guide you to your own research. Take any random name from the OBC and then start Googling or run a BeenVerified report and with most, you will see a direct relationship to a Member(s) of the BOG. Now that is not always a bad thing and may be the result of networking and such and occasionally may be a good thing. But in my experience, as I am very involved in the social circles, they are almost always juiced in. Further, as I am one of the rare people born in Vegas and worked on the Strip for many years, I will say that this ethic has a long history in Vegas. However, what works for Valets jobs really shouldn't be the way the NSB operates.
Please do the research for us. Who was juiced in by BOG? You probably can't name 3 who work there, unless you got discipline. Lol.
Lol,discipline guy is back. Richard Dreitzer,one. His wife works for Bar.
I am sure there are more
Which job does she have in OBC? Oh yeah, none. And she worked in another department as a nonlawyer before he was elected to BOG. But please, tell us which others you are "sure" are out there? Lol.
The good news for 8:30? Knows so little about OBC that he/she probably has no discipline.
Oh,yeah. She works at the Bar. Conflict. So defensive
Aren't there mother and son who worked at OBC? Maybe different times?
Richard Dreitzer does not work for OBC i think he is at Fennemore. Can anyone name one OBC that is related to a BOG? False information like this very damaging.
Also isn't Richard D divorced? from his ex? She does work at the Bar
Who cares about Dreitzer? He is a BOG. They suck. Juiced OBC. Where do we start? Barker, Hogge,Dreitzer,Isaacson.
12:20 is right. OBC does not "go after" anyone. They respond to a complaint. Large firms generally do not let disputes get to the point of a formal complaint. They have designated risk managers that step in and resolve issues, usually by offering discounts on the bill.
Hey, 10:45, only Hogge works in OBC. Barker and Isaacson have been gone for years, and Dreitzer never worked in the office (she's not an attorney). As 10:38 said, nobody in OBC has any connection to BOG. If you know different, please share but, of course, you won't/can't.
And "juiced in" as if OBC jobs are highly prized and sought after?
Hey,235,get a life. I am sorry you don't like 5 names given to you. All work for the bar. Posts are talking about BOHs and OBC. Who defends the bar? Leverty pretty much picked Hogge.
Bogs
Wow….. Have you read what Ginn says about the last election (re: women empowerment)? I mean, we all know it's true, but I'll be damned if I say it publicly so it can be cited later by opponents.
That was the surest way of saying "I don't really want to be elected so kick me out after the primary." He just complained about his practice sucking. Besides that, he is actually one of the solo hacks, we discussed yesterday that is a crap lawyer and would make a terrible judge.
Can you direct us to what Ginn said?
There is LITERALLY a link above to the Nevada Current review of the candidates.
Read article about Ginn. I will be either be supporting Dotson or Noreen
I have known Dotson for a very long time. I remember her as a young sweet, if somewhat disorganized rookie. Now I haven't come into contact with her for quite some time, but if she hasn't changed, she will be getting my support and my vote.
Demonte cant bother to respond to a request for an interview and hasnt raised any money? Pass. Career prosecutor? Pass.
11:19 did that question really warrant busting out allcaps? The link all at the top doesn't specifically identify Ginn by name. 11:14's question was reasonable.
I don't think so Tim. I prefer to look a hair deeper to find the answer to my question before asking for a referral. But, that's me.
#GenXersRule
#millenialsandgenzssuck
Not Tim, and also genx. Bewildering that someone would seize upon that as grounds to act smugly superior.
823 here. Welcome to life and the practice of law circa, 2022. Sincerely glad to be much closer to retirement than rookie.
Because a person didn’t realize that a link posted above concerned a person not named in the post, that makes that person a bad lawyer? (I’m not the original poster, by the way.) This is a gossip blog, not a MSJ. You must be fun at parties.
Because