- law dawg
- 39 Comments
- 2908 Views
- Nevada state offices remain limited after cyberattack. [8NewsNow; RJ]
- Robert Telles petitions Nevada Supreme Court for new trial after murder conviction. [News3LV; RJ]
- DA Steve Wolfson announces he will seek reelection next year. [News3LV]
- Gina Corena & Associates filed a lawsuit on behalf of the family of a man who died while building Las Vegas F1 stands. [8NewsNow]
>Numerous Omissions And Misrepresentations
I didn’t think I’d see my tinder profile discussed on here!
Deployment of military to Los Angeles violates the Posse Comitatus Act:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5ylyd9lkkqo
Whatever side of the political divide you fall on, this will follow a well-worn path. The district court rules against Trump, telling him he has no authority to do that particular thing. The district court ruling is stayed, pending appeal. The appellate court rules in Trumps favor, finding that he can do that particular thing. How you interpret this pattern depends largely on your political affiliation. Your political affiliation, in turn, depends largely on, but is not necessarily determined by, the circumstances of your birth (time, place and social situation).
That’s not actually the path.
District Court rules against Trump. Trump requests a stay of the injunction. District court says fine, unless it’s something that is clearly harmful. Court of Appeals agrees with the District Court. Trump requests SCOTUS issue emergency stay of ruling from below. Without full briefing, and often without explaining themselves, SCOTUS vacates the injunction/imposes the stay, whatever benefits Trump today.
10:55 here. Thank you for making that distinction, you are correct.
As a perfect example, Trump pretended to fire an Federal Trade Commissioner without cause. The District Court ordered her reinstatement, because the President can’t fire FT Commissioner without cause. In Humphrey’s Executor v. US 295 U.S. 602 (1935), regarding the firing of an FTC Commissioner without cause, SCOTUS unanimously said the restrictions on the President’s ability to fire were valid. That is, there is SCOTUS published authority that is directly on all fours. D.C. Circuit said as much today in a 2-1 opinion. Now, we get to see SCOTUS overturn itself on the shadow docket.
No, my political affiliation does NOT hinge on the circumstances of my birth. I was raised in a remote, isolated, rural backwater to be redneck, religious, and racist. As a consequence, my early voting years found me voting for one particular political party. I made sacrifices to get out and educate myself. (I had student loan debt until I was 48.) It was getting an EDUCATION that changed my political affiliation. I now vote in a manner aligned with the majority of people who are educated.
“No, my political affiliation does NOT hinge on the circumstances of my birth. I was raised in a remote, isolated, rural backwater”
Ah, that explains it. You were a traditional southern democrat.
“The majority of People who are educated…” Both sides have their own kind of nonsense. I don’t see how any educated person can go to where the left goes on many race and gender issues. It’s nonsense. Just like the right and their nonsense on many conspiracy issues.
Thanks to this amazing “education” 3:58 was able to receive, now 3:58 can unequivocally confirm that a biological male can become a female and give birth. That education was definitely worth having student loan debt through age 48. #priceless
OP on Education: 1. My provenance is northern, not southern. 2. I did NOT state I support all the positions associated with my party of alignment. But unlike many I DO see how one party successfully employs Faux red herrings to detract from the real issues.
Posse Comitatus
I don’t think you can rely on the British press for a legal analysis of US law.
Judge Charles Breyer says Trump may not create “a national police force with the president as its chief.”
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.450934/gov.uscourts.cand.450934.176.0_2.pdf
Yup
The Telles opening brief is 265 pages which is mind boggling. I understand the attorney is working with a nightmare client but at what point do you refuse to include an argument or at least refuse to include every argument.
And its also confusing to me that the attorney’s motion to exceed page limits states it is her “custom” to record relevant facts at a rate of 1% so 10 pages of relevant facts per 1000 pages of record.
I’m just very confused by this filing.
3rd hand so believe me or not but my friend who clerked at NSC said they rarely read even a portion of those and clerks skim them usually.
Isn’t there a 30 page limit? Won’t it be tossed?
FWIW, today is the 3 year anniversary of Rob murdering Jeff German. Even now, it’s stunning. Rob didn’t impulsively murder him as some kind of emotional reaction. The evidence at trial showed he planned it for weeks in advance, like a hunter (albeit not a very skilled one).
what a dumbass
I still don’t even understand what he hoped to accomplish. The articles were already out. He already lost his primary. Was it just a pure hate/revenge thing? And why German? Seems like if it was out of hate, he would have murdered someone who was actually fighting against him. Why kill the messenger? I don’t get it.
Why kill the messenger? So the message/truth doesn’t get out, of course. As the IDF is doing to journalists in Gaza.
Rob believed that German wasn’t going to stop. Rob had already lost his re-election, was a lame duck, and German was relentless and pursuing new/additional stories.
I thought all the truth was already out by the time it happened. Maybe there was something else he was afraid of that was about to come out.
German was going after the affair and had Rita Reid in his ear to rub Rob’s face in the dirt on the way out of the door. Rita is not the nice person German portrayed her as.
Props to the people saying that calling a discipline case outcome is a “win” is not great in the comments of a certain bar counsel’s post on linked in. Another commenter noted that solos are disproportionately the subject of discipline. All out of state folks, it looks like, but interesting to follow.
Don’t get me started. This OBC most self-righteous, hypocritical bunch of banal implementers of evil. I feel dirty to even think of them. Ever since SH.
Can someone please copy and paste the original post and the comments for those who don’t have LinkedIn accounts?
It’s the first post on LinkedIn in 5 years:
A great win today for the State Bar of Nevada in the Nevada Supreme Court! ⚖️
In a landmark decision, the court reversed a hearing panel’s dismissal of a disciplinary complaint against an attorney, Hardeep Sull. The case, In the Matter of Discipline of Hardeep Sull, centered on the proper handling of client funds, specifically, flat fees paid in advance.
This ruling is a big step forward in protecting clients. Too often, when a lawyer is no longer able to practice—whether due to death, disbarment, or other unforeseen circumstances—I have to step in to take over the practice. I see so many clients left without representation and, worse, without money to continue their legal fight because their lawyer spent their fees before performing the work.
The court’s decision clarifies a critical point:
all advanced fees, including flat fees, must be placed in a client trust account and can only be withdrawn as they are earned. This ensures that if a representation is terminated early, any unearned portion of the fee is still available to be refunded to the client.
The court found that Sull violated two Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC):
– RPC 1.15 (Safekeeping Property): By failing to deposit the client’s $15,000 flat fee into a trust account, treating it instead as “earned upon receipt”.
– RPC 1.16 (Declining or Terminating Representation): By failing to provide an accounting and a timely refund of unearned fees after the client terminated the representation.
After the hearing panel dismissed our complaint, we appealed, and a three-justice panel reversed the decision and issued a reprimand. The attorney then petitioned for an en banc reconsideration, but the full court again sided with us, upholding the reversal and reprimand.
This ruling serves as an important reminder to all attorneys: a lawyer must perform work to earn a fee, regardless of how it’s labeled. A fee is not “earned when paid” just because it’s called a “flat fee”. Attorneys must have a clear fee agreement that explains how and when fees are earned, such as by an hourly rate or upon completing specific tasks or “milestones”.
This is a win for accountability and client protection in Nevada. It brings much-needed clarity to the handling of advanced flat fees, safeguarding client funds and ensuring that attorneys fulfill their ethical obligations.
I’m literally vomiting right now. “Has to step in” wow he must be God-like in his own mind. He probably doesn’t realize the arguments he just made against hearing panels. Not to mention the gloating “win” and destruction of flat fees for the poor. He gives off smelly goat shit vibes.
DH strikes me as a genuine person, not as the villain often portrayed here. He’s acting with some genuine blind spots that probably come from a combination of zero private practice (civil or even criminal) and Maslow’s Hammer (the former amplifying the latter). He doesn’t understand that he is actively interfering with the attorney-client freedom to contract. Attorneys don’t have to take flat fee cases. I did flat fees as part of my “nice guy” leak- losing money by trying to be kind and offer flexibility. For me, flat fees, were on net, usually losers. I was OK with that because the people I served often had limited means. I don’t like the risks associated with flat fees. I don’t need to take them, and really never did. Now I don’t. I do enough explicit pro bono work that I don’t feel guilty, but I am sad that this option is functionally gone.
I respect your post as it seems sincere and not emotional. I disagree with your characterization of DH genuineness but respect your civil discourse as it’s rare in here.
What are your thoughts on how this impacts plaintiff personal injury attorneys who operate on contingency fees?
Or lawyers practicing criminal law? Most of those are flat fee.
Eww
See Xavier Gonzales. There are real world problems when lawyers don’t safe keep client funds until earned. In Xavier’s situation, I think there were hundreds of clients missing money… which the State Bar then paid with the clients security fund and legal aid then had to find representation, if I remember correctly. Xavier spent all that money before completing the work and left clients high and dry.
It’s not hard, folks. Keep the fee in your trust account until it’s earned. Contract with your client how it’s earned. Stages. Milestones. Initial appearances. Named hearings, including continuances. Hours, if you’re so inclined but aren’t required.
This also doesn’t touch contingency fees, which the last I check just need to be reasonable and in writing. People need to seriously Chicken Little less.
Nah, I’m just gonna charge hourly for everything. You know, 60 minute “milestones”.
This is an interesting comment. There’s no information that I can find online about Gonzales problems with the Bar, only that he died in 2023. Makes you wonder who 7:57 PM is.
A-23-877020-P. Gonzales’ death and what happened to his clients is well known to anyone with knowledge of the matter. It was incredibly sad.
That case has no information about the allegations made against Gonzales here in the comments. “well known to anyone with knowledge” is a literal truism and a “trust me bro.” This only makes the question of who is posting here all the more interesting.
I simply pointed out the case to illustrate a lot more people know about what happened than you suggested. It must feel scary to be wrong or uninformed, but please keep peddling conspiracies instead. That’s the whole point of the anonymous posting, right?
What conspiracies have been peddled here?