- Quickdraw McLaw
- 66 Comments
- 855 Views
The July bar exam results will be published this afternoon. As we get set to welcome a new group of lawyers to the bar, we thought we would reminisce a little. If you could go back and give any advice to yourself the day you found out you passed the Nevada bar, what would it be? What does this new group of lawyers have to look forward to that is unique to the practice of law in Nevada? What is your favorite memory of practicing law that could happen “only in Nevada?”
It's always fun citing cases with strip club/brothel names for regular-type legal stuff
But have you had a legitimate meeting at a strip club yet? That was when I knew I was a real Vegas attorney, first time I had to meet someone at a strip club for work.
@12:09pm – "had to" or "finally got a chance to" ?
I've had a meeting at a strip club at 9 am when it was closed. Does that count? it was an EEOC site visit lol.
It's a calling not a career or "Job." Treat it as such. If it doesn't consume you, go be a DA or something and get out of the way.
What a crock.
Except for the part about how it will consume you.
It doesnt consume you unless you let it.
Problem with this is, far too lawyers dont care at all.
It should consume you a little, but you have to be able to let it go and put it away at night and on vacations.
Family first.
Put your family first. In any given moment, it is easy to justify putting just this filing, or just this client first. That's how you are going to miss your kids growing up. Your kids are going to be the most meaningful and satisfying endeavor of your life. Nothing in your legal career could possibly sniff at that, even if you are wildly successful. There are so many children of lawyers who grow up without their lawyer parent in their lives. Don't do that. Plan out activities. You have the money to do some great activities. Go to Disneyland at least once a year. Go camping multiple times a year, whether it's at the National Parks in Utah, Valley of Fire, Big Bear or on the Beach in Southern Cal. Volunteer to coach your kids teams. Teach your kids Sunday School class. Take your kids to see the performing arts. Most of all, just spend time with your kids.
I know lots of attorneys who decided to take it easy and put family first. Now, they’re all either (1) making $150k or less or (2) making a little more than that but on the verge of being pushed out of their firm. In both cases the attorneys who allowed the profession to consume them make these “family first” attorneys lick their boots and openly disrespect them. I can only imagine the toll that takes on these family first attorneys’ psyches. The female family first attorneys are also the ones the horndog partners feel most comfortable taking a pass at, since they’re more likely to feel they need to put out or be given the boot. Yes, if you can endure a lifetime of disrespect in the workplace while making a minimum salary, by all means, put your family first every time.
Yeah. You are FOS.
Every single family first attorney that I know (mostly solos or small firm with like minded partners) is wildly successful making more money than they think they deserve (myself included at 22 yrs as a solo).
We made the right choice and your envy is obvious. Let me guess, twice divorced and your kids fkg hate you.
I think what 1:29 says is true of most large firm environments. If you want to stay there and thrive and not experience negative repercussions, it probably is not possible to put family first. But I solos is a different animals entirely.
Without getting into the polemics, you are both right. FF attorneys can get eaten alive by Grinders. However Grinders need to bring FF attorneys into their circle to keep some work/life balance and to remind them that there is green grass and birds chirping if you get out of the office. I believe in Goldilocks that we each make the choices that are the right temperature for each of us.
1:29 what a dumb comment. You realize the vast majority of lawyers are not a big firms chasing the corner office right? I am very much family first and frequently take time off for trips and other things. Easily make 200k or more each year. Often times, more than 300k. You really can have it all when it comes to practicing law.
2:02-Totally agree. Work/Family balance can be achieved in certain situations.
But for those who want to swim with the sharks and advance in a large, heavily competitive firm of stalwart, venerable reputation, it is naive and somewhat delusional when those folks insist they will have it all-kick ass and advance high in the firm while also never missing any of their son's soccer games or any of their daughter's ballet rehearsals.
2:02 and 2:34 are correct, as is 1:29 although 2:30 thinks their comment is really dumb.
2:30 is apparently indignant, and even a little hostile, because 1:29, and the other posters mentioned, inject some reality into the situation which conflicts with 2:30's idealized world view.
Family/Work balance can be achieved in some contexts, but not if one wants to significantly advance in one of those highly competitive, large, well-regarded influential firms.
2:30 appears to have no real knowledge or experience concerning such firms. But I and other posters do. I started my career in such a firm.
We all got to work real early, and no one went home before 7:00 p.m., and usually a lot later. We all worked weekends. If you left for "family concerns" in mid-afternoon, one of your kids had better be in the hospital, and not just playing soccer.
So, 2:30, please don't call 1:29 "really stupid" because their accurate perception of reality conflicts with your fantasy of being able to achieve work/family balance within the constructs of working for a large, highly competitive law firm.
1:29 here. I've noticed that some attorneys at big firms act and think as though all of us wish we were chasing the corner office in a big firm. If that's your priority in life, go for it. I genuinely hope you achieve your goal. I'm a family first attorney. My salary is not only sufficient for my needs, it is far more than that. A very dishonest person once claimed that you can buy anything in this world for money. That is false. No amount of money can compensate for failing your family. I've never been demeaned or disrespected because I put my family first. I hope that every single new attorney takes this advice seriously. In the end, your spouse and your kids are all that matters in this life. Your career, your salary and money mean nothing. No verdict, no legal win can ever compare to the satisfaction of watching your children grow and thrive and become good people. Family first always and forever.
Sorry, I misidentified myself. The last post was from 10:52, not 1:29.
2:51 misses the point entirely. For many, many attorneys, it's not a fantasy at all. That's the point. Practicing law is a great way to have your cake and eat it too. You can spend ample time with your family and make bank. You just need to know how to do it. Can't do it in big law, but you can do it. That's the point. OP was saying you could choose your family, or a good salary, that just isn't true.
I personally get a great amount of satisfaction over screwing over the family first attorneys at my firm and teaching them that, yes, your decision to not work weekends and to cut out early o. Friday will negatively impact you personally, both in how I treat you and how much I pay you. If you are happy to lick my boot so you can put family first, then I applaud your trade off.
3:07-i'm not sure 2:51 misses the point, and certainly not "entirely".
In fact the comment(if you bother to read it rather than simply giving it the quickest scan so you can rush toward contradicting and condemning it) fully concedes that family/career balance can be realized, but not necessarily within the narrow context of certain hard-driving major firms, that are extremely competitive.
I also worked in such a firm as a young attorney and know of what 2:51 says and find it to be very true, as do other posters.
So, rather than posters saying how completely wrong other posters are(which seems common on this blog)perhaps we should look at the much narrower point being made. We are actually splitting hairs. No one said that family/career balance can't be achieved, only that there are certain firms where you would be real hard pressed to achieve that balance.
People can say how wrong I am, but before they do I ask them: have you worked at, and advanced at an impressive rate, at one of those large prominent firms, and yet never sacrificed a family event?
Yes, 3:07 does seem to have a reading comprehension issue, as well as an unusually negative, combative nature as 3:07 attacked 2:51 while they are both saying the exact same thing-that the family/career balance can be achieved, but is more problematic to achieve at a highly competitive, large prominent firm.
4:17, your comment reminds me of something. A retired judge once told me that it can certainly be aggravating if an attorney continues to argue and be unduly aggressive while you are in midst of ruling against them. But he also understood that the attorney just lost, so he often largely excused the behavior on account of that.
But what he could not abide was aggression and disagreeable behavior when the judge is in the midst of agreeing with the attorney and ruling in their favor. Some attorneys are programed to be so contentious and to answer every question by starting with "No…"
Even when the judge tosses a soft ball over the heart of the plate, indicating that if the judge understands your position correctly, you are about to win. The judge asks "So if I understand your position correctly, your client should prevail because…"
The judge completes the question and the attorney, starts the answer with "No, what I'm saying is…", even after essentially being telegraphed that if he/she says "yes" it is all over in their favor.
That's the liquor talking.
4:35-a more common, and thankfully less offensive and less tone-deaf manifestation of this is the following.
The judge reviews the motion on the record, essentially doing your work for you and making your arguments for you, and thus indicating the probable result in your favor.
Then it is your turn to speak. Hopefully, you are one of those attorneys who does not stare a gift horse in the mouth, and does a bit of apple polishing and starts by saying "you obviously fully reviewed this matter, Your Honor, and you are absolutely right in what you mentioned…"
But there are many attorneys who cannot depart from their prepared remarks, can't think on their feet, and when it is their turn to speak, rather than start of by strongly agreeing with the judge who just strongly bolstered that attorney's position, the attorney ignores everything the judge just said in the attorney's favor, and starts by saying "What I wanted to say in support of my motion is…"
This whole Career/Family balance seems to spark some real passions and contentions, so I will steer clear of arguing one position over the other.
But I will observe the following. I am 60, so to many bloggers here I am certainly an old fart. But when I started in my mid-20's, back in 1987, I was already concerned to an extent about this issue. As it turns out, I never got sucked into the big firm rat race so Career/Family balance was always somewhat adequate, although certainly some personal sacrifices were made.
However, I got a brief glimpse of life on the other side, which leads me to believe some of the statements posters are making here about sacrifices when working for large, competitive firms.
I had an interview at one. We were told we needed to bill far more than 60 hours per week, as we needed to generate at least 60 hours per week that the supervising attorney deemed could be charged to the insurance carrier.
And they even started bitching about how they don't like to hire young associates with a family as "it is expected that this firm is your life" and on and on. It would have been comical if it were not so disturbing.
Certainly it is assumed firms would be a lot more circumspect about making such comments today(as it constitutes overt discrimination against married employees with families) but way back then these type of comments at interviews, with such firms, were not exactly extremely rare. But even back then this was all quite disturbing although not unheard of.
But at least they were not hypocrites nor did thy have double standards. The main guy conducting the interview had an uncanny resemblance to the crypt keeper. I doubt he ever had a family, or ever left his office.
I gave up the brass ring to be home with the kids. Now that they are out of the house I am trying to build up my practice. My advice to a youngling is decide what you want and what you are willing to pay to get it.
If you want to practice at the very highest level, you need to sit down with your spouse and figure it out or that spouse will not make it otherwise. You can't be the best working part time (i.e., anything less than 80 hours per week). I can't think of a top notch attorney who hasn't been through a divorce or three.
If you just want money, consider T&E or PI. In T&E especially, you can make a lot of money and might end up marrying a wealthy client who needs a companion to help enjoy the homes, yachts, and planes. (Yes, I sometimes wish I had taken that route.)
If you just want to have fun, consider being a PD or DA. It has been a long time, but I do fondly remember how much fun PDs and DAs were. So carefree and happy. Their stories were thrilling.
Finally, if you just want to be a tool, consider government service. Punch out after 20 years with a generous pension and benefits, and never fear that anything you did — or, more likely, didn't do — will come back to haunt you. Living without consequences certainly has its perks.
Most of all, remember each and every one of us is a servant of justice and should act accordingly.
This is so bogus. I've been lucky enough to know some of the best lawyers in the country, the kind of people who have made dozens of SCOTUS arguments. They don't work 80 hours a week. I've known a few federal judges too, and they don't work 80 hours a week. And I know two people who make over $500k a year practicing law – they don't work 80 hours a week, though sometimes it feels like they do. All together they probably have a 50% divorce rate, which is to say the nationwide average.
Some career paths (e.g. big law associate in NY, not what we call big law here in NV) will require a lot of work. And good lawyering is very hard and there's something to be said for working a lot so that you can get better just through sheer volume. But don't go off some arbitrary number that some mediocre lawyer put out there. If anyone tells you that they work 80 hours a week, they're either lying or they're incredibly unproductive. Either way, they're not worth emulating.
I agree. There is no federal judge working 80 hours. Or 40. Or much at all.
11:12-I don't think 6:58's comments are "bogus", although 80 hours per week looks like an exaggeration.
I've practiced decades and anyone who has would notice at least some validity to at least some of 6:58's viewpoints.
Also, what is common on this blog is totally disrespectful, dismissive, hyper-aggressive impulsive behavior.
I suppose calling someone's analysis of an issue or problem to be "bogus" could be reasonable at times.
But if someone offers a detailed life/ career viewpoint, based on their own personal experience and perceptions over decades, how can that be dismissed as entirely wrong or bogus? It is that person's life philosophy and perspective based on the arc of their life-time.
I bet you're fun to work with!
Not to be "disrespectful, dismissive, hyper-aggressive impulsive"
But,
Go TF away, you suck big donkey dongs and I am headed to Starbucks cause I just can't handle this blog this morning.
This is 11:12. There is nothing "disrespectful, dismissing, hyper-agressive impulsive" about calling someone's argument "bogus." 6:58 offered an argument on the blog; I refuted it with my own experience. If you don't want your argument criticized, don't put it on a public blog.
6:58's argument is bogus because it gives horrible advice to young lawyers based on a false premise (oops, is "false" too disrespectful/dismissive/hyper-aggressive/impulsive? Maybe I should say "mistaken premise"). There is no need to work anything close to 80 hours a week and abandon your wife and family to reach the top of this profession. Yes, there will be discrete periods (e.g. trial) when you have to work that much, and 40 hours a week generally won't cut it. But 80 hours on a regular basis is neither necessary nor sufficient. Working 80 hours a week (again, outside trial and stuff like that) is usually a sign of poor time management, not excellent performance. That's what I hope an ambitious young lawyer takes from this conversation.
I wish I wouldn't have looked down so much on personal injury. I should have slaved myself out to an insurance defense firm for a couple years then went to work for a personal injury firm for a few years then hung out my own shingle as plaintiff's side personal injury. I'm doing decent but nothing near what some of my classmates are doing in personal injury 10 years out of law school.
I have said this before.
If I had to do it over, (20+ years in) I would have focused on big Criminal Defense (for the cause), PI (for the money) and a touch of family law (for my humanity).
10:14-Don't regret you career choices or be duped by the supposedly easy and quick money in P.I., although certainly there will always be some of your cases that settle fairly expeditiously and generously considering the modest hours you put it. Consider the following:
1. The heavy advertising P.I. firms gobble up a lot of the standard P.I. auto cases.
2. The case not gobbled up by those firms, fall to the well-established P.I. firms who don't advertise.
3. Unless you handle a really large quantity of P.I., which is very difficult for a solo, there will be cash flow periods where relatively little is coming to the firm.
4. Even during those case flow periods, it is obvious all business overhead and salaries must be maintained, as well as all your personal expenses, not to mention advancing many "costs" to these non-settling cases.
5. Until you are really successful, you should live within your means, which many attorneys do not. Many became attorneys, in part due to perceived status and wanting to live a certain life-style, and that can make living within one's means very difficult.
6. Even if you are a solo, you need a couple real crack, experienced P.I. paralegal types. You cannot get by with a standard secretary/receptionist type. This aspect is critical because there are so many tasks and projects in collecting materials to prepare a PI case for settlement, that you will not have the time to do for yourself.
7. You must always have generous reserve capital (a rule often not complied with) and damn good E & O coverage no matter how good and conscientious you think your firm is.
This is just a partial list of concerns for any solo who decides to convert entirely over to P.I. Don't believe your colleagues who brag to you at lunch they simply sent out a demand letter, spoke twice to an adjuster, and then settled a case for tens of thousands.
Now, there are relatively quick settlements without an enormous amount of attorney work or time. But never let anyone convince you that that is the regular turn of events.
Litigating against someone whose showgirl billboard made you feel funny things in your youth.
Akke? Conversely there is an attorney in town who has a dancer past who I swear danced for some of us at one of the local establishments.
I know of at least one. I suspect there are far more than just the one.
I was a dancer and no one has ever noticed, reminded me, or found out at least to my knowledge. I now see it as demeaning and exploitful but chalk it up to youth.
I, too, was a dancer, but then I transitioned and now that employment is no longer available to me.
12:31,
Oh, honey. Frank Marino would like to have a word.
Happy Friday!
I'd tell myself that being a lawyer is nothing like law school and the only way to learn how to be a lawyer is to watch others. Learn what to do and what to avoid. Realize you are going to make mistakes that seem like the end of the world but really are just hiccups that you'll forget about. Judges aren't the best and brightest who always make the correct decision. You will win things you should've lost and will lose things you should've won. Don't make being a lawyer your identity. Keep up with your hobbies, set boundaries with your job, and never be afraid to admit when you're in over your head.
Also, get a really good suit and shoes. Investing in them now is worth it
+1 on the suit and clothes. I think a lot of guys think that it doesn't matter that much or people won't really notice, but they do.
Only in Vegas: During the Jerry Tarkanian years, I represented the NCAAagainst UNLV because they recruited a 32 year old player from the steelworkers league
The money in PI is good, but you have to get your hands dirty to get the clients. The highest hourly rates are actually in the transactional world or estate planning. The estate planning guys like to act like they are the "good lawyers," not like those scummy ambulance chasers. In realty, they are the biggest rip off around. If you look at it from an hourly rate perspective, they are easily making $2000+ an hour and ridiculously over charging for the amount of work it takes. Charging 5k for a simple trust package means you are probably making $3000 an hour or more for the actual time it takes. That is if you even draft the documents yourself. If you can get the clients who need trusts, contracts, or other transactional work, you can make a killing.
Hey, you are giving away our secrets. Stop it.
These are also the lawyers who are first in line to be replaced by our AI Overlords. Anyone can draft their own agreements, including trust agreements, no law license needed. Major schadenfreude incoming for all the lowly litigation lawyers in the next few years …
Drafting through A.I. will be even more problematic than LegalZoom because the outcome will depend upon the input of the drafter. The input of the drafter will depend on the knowledge of the drafter, which is limited to say the least. LegalZoom did not put T&E planners out of business and A.I. won't either.
T&E planners are not in competition with LegalZoom, OfficeDepot, or Nevada Legal Services. At least, I'm not. If someone with a law degree really wants to try and convince someone bound and determined to pay no more than $59.95 on a will that they should go with an attorney for a similar price, knock yourself out.
Hell, if a layperson wants to make their own "professional-looking" documents, they can even subscribe to one of the Hot Docs-based drafting services right now, make their own document, and save money over an attorney. They won't know what the hell they are doing, of course, and won't have any understanding of why half the options will result in an unmitigated hellscape for their situation, but sure. They can draft their own documents and won't have to pay an attorney. At least, not at the drafting stage.
NSC decision came down on Metro's attempt to evade Telles' latest stroke of genius.
63% pass rate. Congrats everyone. Go celebrate! You earned it!
Well not everyone.Just 6.3 out of each 10. The rest of you need to hit it for February.
Anyone hear about a kerfuffle at Boyd over the use of the word "picnic" because it has allegedly "historical and offensive connotations." Call me Yogi Bear but I have no problem with picnic. https://www.thecollegefix.com/unlv-law-school-apologizes-for-using-word-picnic-changes-it-to-lunch-by-the-lake/
I think picnic derives from the Yiddish word for "offend all coloreds while eating cheese sandwich." Very offensive. In other news, it is fascinating to learn Palestinians can fly over border walls. Hollywood should run with that.
And Boyd is getting roasted and ratioed on X (fka Twitter) for their abject stupidity. Just think. Someone who penned that letter is influencing Nevada's future attorneys. G-d help us all.
https://twitter.com/BoydLawUNLV/status/1710308940527874105
It “does not originate from racist lynchings” but instead comes from the 300-plus-year-old French word “pique-nique,” meaning a potluck-like social gathering
Twitter post deleted. Anyone with a screenshot?
I don't have a screenshot, but it was an announcement of some event unrelated to the Picnic. The responses, which were many, mocked UNLV for incorrectly declaring picnic to have a racist connotation or origin.
It's happening in the responses to this tweet: https://twitter.com/BoydLawUNLV/status/1710025817617560017
Here is the screenshot.
https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1710378499909828905
The comments in the tween shown by 9:15 are objectively hilarious
I'm no supporter of certain politicians who decry wokeness in higher ed, but their complaints are not without merit. The only reason this picnic incident exists is because of the way some wield woke dogma as a sword. At a law school, where we are supposedly teaching critical thinking and to question assumptions, everyone just took it at face value that "picnic" was racist. Worse, they modified their behavior based on this. Even now, I bet you people at UNLV Law would not feel safe using the word "picnic" lest they receive a tongue lashing or even cancelation. I recognize the "picnic" statement was made by a club and not by UNLV formally, but UNLV is responsible for the environment where a mere allegation that something is racist is accepted at face value and then changes are made. Fortunately, most of the students at UNLV Law will recover from being in this stagnating environment once they escape and join the rest of us in the real world.
Anyone else pronouncing picnic ,while reading in their head, "pic-i-nic," after the yogi bear comment?
Only everyone on this blog over 40.
🤣