The Reciprocity Survey results were posted on the State Bar website. https://www.nvbar.org/2019-reciprocity-survey-results/
The whole report can be downloaded. The survey was poorly worded like the leading question "Generally are you in favor of reciprocity" without describing it or providing specifics. Hope the blog will dedicate a discussion. This is very important issue and is active. This is the most important issue since mandatory malpractice insurance was beaten back. The No's and Maybe's exceeded the yes.
The most important metric for me is that the majority of full-time attorneys in private practice oppose reciprocity (43.57/35.91). Respectfully, who cares what government attorneys, the judiciary, academics, and retired attorneys think. They are not the ones who actually have to hustle business.
Terry Coff8ng, jk. I am against reciprocity, because I do not want mote attorneys in this already flooded market. I want to eat and provide for my family.
Yeah 9:54's comment only makes sense if this kind of regulation exists to protect the income of lawyers in private practice. It doesn't. It exists to protect the public, and non-firm lawyers are just as qualified to weigh in on that.
This is the problem with the reciprocity survey. It is very misleading and can be used to support different viewpoints. There are three major factions pushing for reciprocity. UNLV Boyd, the Dean wants the UBE and reciprocity with the rest of the nation. Large law firms (big law) would like to bring lawyers from out of state foreign venues to bill, bill, bill. Corporations want to bring in all their own lawyers in house without any type of bar exam when licensed elsewhere. The Federal PD and the U.S. Attorney have been violating the Nevada admission rules for years with out of state lawyers shipped in to work here. They have the ear of the State Bar. The federal courts have allowed non Nevada licensed lawyers to appear. A recent judicial appointment eventually took the Nevada Bar but practiced as an ASUSA for several years without it. Now a state court judge.
State Bar cannot require a federal court to make lawyers not licensed in Nevada become members of the Bar. Some federal districts do require admission to that state's Bar. In Nevada, AFPDs can appear in state court if they get a limited license under SCR 49.11.
11:59 AM-Well aware of the federal district court not enforcing the admission requirements. I was once an attorney for the feds. You are right there are some federal district courts that require admission to the State Bar like California. However, I have even seen Immigration /Homeland Security attorneys appearing in federal district court in Nevada that can't even pronounce the name correctly. The federal district courts here just are not interested in enforcing that Nevada Bar requirements. The U.S. Attorney's Office is responsible for enforcing the licensing requirements. So are the federal judges and the Clerk's Office. Neither is interested in supervising foreign lawyers. This is what will happen with reciprocity everywhere in District Court, City, and Justice Courts. This is another reason reciprocity will be a run away train. Better to stop the train before it leaves the station.
PLEASE no more Californians. They are almost uniformly unprofessional assclowns . Please. Pretty please. Almost any midwest state should be fine, but please no more Californians.
I am honestly stunned that so many people support reciprocity (supposedly). In every IRL conversation I've been in on this subject, the opposition has been universal. Maybe that's because I'm in the trenches as a private practitioner? I didn't bother to take the survey because I figured they've already made up their minds. I really resent Dan Hamilton for this. He presents his position as if it were only motivated by high-minded altruism "Doing Right by Nevada," without even acknowledging that as Dean of UNLV's law school, he has a very vested interest in reciprocity. He is willing to sacrifice the well-being of our legal community so that he can score a few points higher on that dumb US News & World Report ranking system. It's bad enough that ranking system has done so much harm to the legal academy, now it's harming the actual practice.
Anyway, this isn't the same as random audits or mandatory malpractice insurance. There are real players with real interests in favor of reciprocity. It's going to happen.
As our esteemed Commander-in-Chief is oft to say, "SAD!"
I came to Nevada in part because we DONT have reciprocity.
I am in favor of reciprocity. I'm not scared about garbage lawyers eating into my business and I like the idea of being able to practice in, or move to, another state for the right opportunity without taking a bar. I think it's funny that everyone thinks there are all these attorneys just begging to get into Nevada. Reciprocity goes both ways.
I agree with 2:41. Why would anyone want lawyers who could not pass the Nevada Bar Exam practicing here? For many states (many with reciprocity) passing the bar is almost guaranteed.
With reciprocity they get to boost their way into states in which they had no hope of passing.
Like most political issues, this one gets overthunk.
Why would you want anyone eating your piece of pie?
Who cares what the market wants, or whats good for the great unwashed.
If it affects my wallet, Im against it. And you should be too.
All you stupid libertarians and virtue signalers can go for a nice long swim in the lake
Like most issues, this isn't just political, and thinking it is shows a certain level of underthinking.
That said, I'm also against reciprocity, but not solely because it could cost me a little bit of work. I'm able to see the world beyond the brim of my hat and look at issues beyond the number of zeros in the bank.
Everyone who is against it is just assuming it will result in a net gain of Nevada lawyers. I think it is just as likely that reciprocity, by virtue of making it easier for lawyers to leave the state, will result in net loss of Nevada lawyers.
1104am I agree 100%. I think that with what the practice of law has become in this town, there will be a loss. I know that I am OUT, if they get reciprocity with Texas or Az or even Utah.
Sure, we could see a net loss, but looking at migration stats overall, Nevada is gaining population. I'd expect the net flow of lawyers to generally follow the overall population (which would yield an increase in Texas and Arizona as well).
Guest
Anonymous
August 8, 2019 4:45 pm
Congratulations Trevor. You've been our favorite choice for the last few appointments. It's unfortunate it took so many tries, but you got it in the end!
A son of Las Vegas. Congratulations Trevor Atkin. Go Bengals!!
Guest
Anonymous
August 8, 2019 8:46 pm
Love Metro. Go into someone's backyard to investigate a car crash of all things and end up shooting the owner's dog. They'll get away it because Metro, but it would be outstanding if Metro respected property rights in any way, shape, or form.
The cops didnt know it was a car accident at the time, they were doing a "well check" because of the DEAD BODY lying in the driveway. Pit bill rushes them aggressively.
Two in the chest, one it the head, if it was me. No problems with putting down an aggressive dog. Zero problems.
Guest
Anonymous
August 8, 2019 10:53 pm
I love it when every Facebook post from a friend is anti-Trump 24-7. I unfollowed. Hate Trump,too, but enough already.
Some of this is because once Facebook figures out that a user reacts to a certain topic, they feed up a constant stream of that, whether it be fly fishing, pictures of old Studebakers or anti-Trump material. Your friend is just reacting to what FB is deliberately feeding him/her to maximize your friends time on site. The result are the monotoned anti-Trump themes.
Guest
Anonymous
August 9, 2019 2:31 pm
The ABA Annual Meeting is now in San Francisco. There are many proposals pending before their BOG and Delegates.
The practice of law is in for very big changes if and as some of these proposals are adopted. I consider myself liberal / progressive. I supported Bernie in the last election. But, many of these proposals are way past my perspective. I'm not in favor of modifying rule 5.4 to allow accounting firms to hire lawyers as employees. I'm not in favor of Uniform Bar Exam that reduces local controls on admission to practice. I'm not in favor of allowing paralegals or notarios to provide legal advice and draft documents for clients.
Maybe 18 years into the practice of law (44 years old with student loan debt) I'm a dinousaur?
Being a liberal doesn't mean anarchy. There are certain barriers to practice for a reason. I don't want Cletus drafting my estate plan just like I don't want Jethro doing my root canal.
Also, 7:31, not trying to be snarky, but how do you still have student loans 18 years out of law school? Is that normal in others' experience? Most people I know got rid of them around year 10 or so.
Guest
Anonymous
August 9, 2019 5:12 pm
I graduated with $120K in student loan debt, have been practicing for 13 years, and have about $40K left in student loan debt. I got a few private loans that ended up really being terrible (my fault for not reading all the fine print), so it took a while to pay those off. The remaining loan balance is in federal loans with about a 2.5% interest.
I think it takes most people longer than 10 years to pay off their loans, unless they work PI and make a big lick somewhere early in their careers. I chose the stupid, grind it out, billable model. Also, my wife is a stay at home mom, so one income makes it harder to pay off the student loans (not a boo hoo moment, just reality).
It isn't easy but the trick to paying them off is to pay more than the minimum required amount. For us old timers, the amount borrowed may have been less but the repayment schedule was 8 years at 7 percent (there wasn't any other repayment option unless you refinanced into a long term program of 20 years or more, a bad long term financial choice). Under the old rules, using your 2.5% interest rate, the loans would be paid off in full in 8 years by paying $1,380 per month. Granted those first 8 years would be unpleasant having to live frugally but like Dave Ramsey says.. live like no other today so in the future you can live like no other.
The Reciprocity Survey results were posted on the State Bar website.
https://www.nvbar.org/2019-reciprocity-survey-results/
The whole report can be downloaded. The survey was poorly worded like the leading question "Generally are you in favor of reciprocity" without describing it or providing specifics. Hope the blog will dedicate a discussion. This is very important issue and is active. This is the most important issue since mandatory malpractice insurance was beaten back. The No's and Maybe's exceeded the yes.
The most important metric for me is that the majority of full-time attorneys in private practice oppose reciprocity (43.57/35.91). Respectfully, who cares what government attorneys, the judiciary, academics, and retired attorneys think. They are not the ones who actually have to hustle business.
The protectionist interests at play might explain the difference in responses between attorneys in private practice and everyone else.
Just gotta ask – who was the incredibly anal person who sorted the comments alphabetically?
Terry Coff8ng, jk. I am against reciprocity, because I do not want mote attorneys in this already flooded market. I want to eat and provide for my family.
Yeah 9:54's comment only makes sense if this kind of regulation exists to protect the income of lawyers in private practice. It doesn't. It exists to protect the public, and non-firm lawyers are just as qualified to weigh in on that.
Sorry for the typos, because we are anal on here.
Am I reading this right that 80% of respondents are somewhat or very supportive of reciprocity with states that offer reciprocal reciprocity?
That's how I read it. So long as reciprocity is…reciprocal…there's quite a bit of support for it.
This is the problem with the reciprocity survey. It is very misleading and can be used to support different viewpoints. There are three major factions pushing for reciprocity. UNLV Boyd, the Dean wants the UBE and reciprocity with the rest of the nation. Large law firms (big law) would like to bring lawyers from out of state foreign venues to bill, bill, bill. Corporations want to bring in all their own lawyers in house without any type of bar exam when licensed elsewhere. The Federal PD and the U.S. Attorney have been violating the Nevada admission rules for years with out of state lawyers shipped in to work here. They have the ear of the State Bar. The federal courts have allowed non Nevada licensed lawyers to appear. A recent judicial appointment eventually took the Nevada Bar but practiced as an ASUSA for several years without it. Now a state court judge.
State Bar cannot require a federal court to make lawyers not licensed in Nevada become members of the Bar. Some federal districts do require admission to that state's Bar. In Nevada, AFPDs can appear in state court if they get a limited license under SCR 49.11.
11:59 AM-Well aware of the federal district court not enforcing the admission requirements. I was once an attorney for the feds. You are right there are some federal district courts that require admission to the State Bar like California. However, I have even seen Immigration /Homeland Security attorneys appearing in federal district court in Nevada that can't even pronounce the name correctly. The federal district courts here just are not interested in enforcing that Nevada Bar requirements. The U.S. Attorney's Office is responsible for enforcing the licensing requirements. So are the federal judges and the Clerk's Office. Neither is interested in supervising foreign lawyers. This is what will happen with reciprocity everywhere in District Court, City, and Justice Courts. This is another reason reciprocity will be a run away train. Better to stop the train before it leaves the station.
It is noy just no on reciprocity. It is a hell on reciprocity.
PLEASE no more Californians. They are almost uniformly unprofessional assclowns . Please. Pretty please. Almost any midwest state should be fine, but please no more Californians.
I am honestly stunned that so many people support reciprocity (supposedly). In every IRL conversation I've been in on this subject, the opposition has been universal. Maybe that's because I'm in the trenches as a private practitioner? I didn't bother to take the survey because I figured they've already made up their minds. I really resent Dan Hamilton for this. He presents his position as if it were only motivated by high-minded altruism "Doing Right by Nevada," without even acknowledging that as Dean of UNLV's law school, he has a very vested interest in reciprocity. He is willing to sacrifice the well-being of our legal community so that he can score a few points higher on that dumb US News & World Report ranking system. It's bad enough that ranking system has done so much harm to the legal academy, now it's harming the actual practice.
Anyway, this isn't the same as random audits or mandatory malpractice insurance. There are real players with real interests in favor of reciprocity. It's going to happen.
As our esteemed Commander-in-Chief is oft to say, "SAD!"
I came to Nevada in part because we DONT have reciprocity.
I am calling bullshit on people supporting it. I voted it down.
I am in favor of reciprocity. I'm not scared about garbage lawyers eating into my business and I like the idea of being able to practice in, or move to, another state for the right opportunity without taking a bar. I think it's funny that everyone thinks there are all these attorneys just begging to get into Nevada. Reciprocity goes both ways.
Get loud and get proud. Whose ears do we have to yell in, Bogs, Hardesty, the nail polishing fiend, Silver?
I agree with 2:41. Why would anyone want lawyers who could not pass the Nevada Bar Exam practicing here? For many states (many with reciprocity) passing the bar is almost guaranteed.
With reciprocity they get to boost their way into states in which they had no hope of passing.
Like most political issues, this one gets overthunk.
Why would you want anyone eating your piece of pie?
Who cares what the market wants, or whats good for the great unwashed.
If it affects my wallet, Im against it. And you should be too.
All you stupid libertarians and virtue signalers can go for a nice long swim in the lake
Like most issues, this isn't just political, and thinking it is shows a certain level of underthinking.
That said, I'm also against reciprocity, but not solely because it could cost me a little bit of work. I'm able to see the world beyond the brim of my hat and look at issues beyond the number of zeros in the bank.
Everyone who is against it is just assuming it will result in a net gain of Nevada lawyers. I think it is just as likely that reciprocity, by virtue of making it easier for lawyers to leave the state, will result in net loss of Nevada lawyers.
1104am I agree 100%. I think that with what the practice of law has become in this town, there will be a loss. I know that I am OUT, if they get reciprocity with Texas or Az or even Utah.
Sure, we could see a net loss, but looking at migration stats overall, Nevada is gaining population. I'd expect the net flow of lawyers to generally follow the overall population (which would yield an increase in Texas and Arizona as well).
Congratulations Trevor. You've been our favorite choice for the last few appointments. It's unfortunate it took so many tries, but you got it in the end!
Ditto.
A son of Las Vegas. Congratulations Trevor Atkin. Go Bengals!!
Love Metro. Go into someone's backyard to investigate a car crash of all things and end up shooting the owner's dog. They'll get away it because Metro, but it would be outstanding if Metro respected property rights in any way, shape, or form.
The cops didnt know it was a car accident at the time, they were doing a "well check" because of the DEAD BODY lying in the driveway. Pit bill rushes them aggressively.
Two in the chest, one it the head, if it was me. No problems with putting down an aggressive dog. Zero problems.
I love it when every Facebook post from a friend is anti-Trump 24-7. I unfollowed. Hate Trump,too, but enough already.
Some of this is because once Facebook figures out that a user reacts to a certain topic, they feed up a constant stream of that, whether it be fly fishing, pictures of old Studebakers or anti-Trump material. Your friend is just reacting to what FB is deliberately feeding him/her to maximize your friends time on site. The result are the monotoned anti-Trump themes.
The ABA Annual Meeting is now in San Francisco. There are many proposals pending before their BOG and Delegates.
Summary of meeting: https://bit.ly/2OP0n35
Link to proposed resolutions: https://bit.ly/2yQMeHX
The practice of law is in for very big changes if and as some of these proposals are adopted. I consider myself liberal / progressive. I supported Bernie in the last election. But, many of these proposals are way past my perspective. I'm not in favor of modifying rule 5.4 to allow accounting firms to hire lawyers as employees. I'm not in favor of Uniform Bar Exam that reduces local controls on admission to practice. I'm not in favor of allowing paralegals or notarios to provide legal advice and draft documents for clients.
Maybe 18 years into the practice of law (44 years old with student loan debt) I'm a dinousaur?
Agreed, 7:31. From a fellow liberal.
Being a liberal doesn't mean anarchy. There are certain barriers to practice for a reason. I don't want Cletus drafting my estate plan just like I don't want Jethro doing my root canal.
Also, 7:31, not trying to be snarky, but how do you still have student loans 18 years out of law school? Is that normal in others' experience? Most people I know got rid of them around year 10 or so.
I graduated with $120K in student loan debt, have been practicing for 13 years, and have about $40K left in student loan debt. I got a few private loans that ended up really being terrible (my fault for not reading all the fine print), so it took a while to pay those off. The remaining loan balance is in federal loans with about a 2.5% interest.
I think it takes most people longer than 10 years to pay off their loans, unless they work PI and make a big lick somewhere early in their careers. I chose the stupid, grind it out, billable model. Also, my wife is a stay at home mom, so one income makes it harder to pay off the student loans (not a boo hoo moment, just reality).
It isn't easy but the trick to paying them off is to pay more than the minimum required amount. For us old timers, the amount borrowed may have been less but the repayment schedule was 8 years at 7 percent (there wasn't any other repayment option unless you refinanced into a long term program of 20 years or more, a bad long term financial choice). Under the old rules, using your 2.5% interest rate, the loans would be paid off in full in 8 years by paying $1,380 per month. Granted those first 8 years would be unpleasant having to live frugally but like Dave Ramsey says.. live like no other today so in the future you can live like no other.