Thoughts on a judge telling parties soon as a case is called, even BEFORE she hears oral arguments on a motion, that’s she’s going to take the matter under submission.
I understand arguments can sometimes bring something up and a judge takes it under submission because she wants to look at something specific in light of arguments, but to say that even before the arguments have been heard, that’s you’re going to take it under submission? Strange.
If its an especially complex or case critical issue being argued, I am ok with it. Oral arguments could help clarify some points, but judge could still anticipate needing additional time to sort it all out. Much prefer that than going down to a hearing only for the judge to have their mind made up before oral arguments anyway.
Related, what really grinds my gears is when the judge says, before any argument: “I’m inclined to deny this but go ahead and make your argument” or something equally condescending and dismissive.
Would you rather stand there and present your long winded argument and have the judge then tell you your motion is denied or your opponent’s motion is granted?
A high percentage of cases are decided based on the papers prior to argument. It is a rare case where oral argument sways the judge unless the judge comes to the bench with questions. If so, embrace the opportunity to address the questions and help the judge understand your position.
Be thankful the judge didn’t make you waste your time vainly arguing your position.
No, he’s out of line but he’s got a point. If the judge is inclined to deny my motion, why am I driving across town? Deny it, write a minute order and save us some time. I lose, conservatively, 839 days a year just waiting in a courtroom for hours to be told my motion’s going to be denied. I get it, sometimes you’re just walking the dog, doing the motion practice because it’s part of the job. But please don’t make me waste billable hours in the most productive part of my day.
Well if we are going to decide before I would rather just have it like Los Angeles courts and some of the other CA courts with the tentative ruling the evening before
Guest
Anonymous
February 20, 2026 11:04 am
re: Investors own law firms
Yes, bad
But,
– how are captive law firms owned by insurance companies really any different?
– multistate law firms? Out of state shareholders are “investors” because they make capital contributions to the law firm corporation and are not licensed in NV.
– and of course, my favorite rant: Legal Zoom and Trust&Will, which are of course somewhat different, but again not licensed in NV.
This is one of the great benefits of federalism. Arizona volunteered itself as guinea pig. It didn’t work, and now we know without suffering any of the negative effects in Nevada. Thanks, Arizona.
The story is pretty scary. As for your first point (captive firms), those are different—at least here. I don’t think any of them are actually owned by insurance companies, even if they are “captive.” How could they be? It’s illegal here. Also, those captive firms aren’t run as some profit-making enterprise like the others you list. They are just law firms with a bunch of poor shmucks working there representing an insurance company and its insureds. Not the same thing.
Not so. In fact letterhead from these in-house offices explicityly states that the lawyers are employees of the insurance company. This presents an inherent danger of conflict. Some cases are farmed out to outside counsel to avoid that situation, but probably not enough.
What is the danger? They are all insurance defense firms that do not charge fees and in which the lawyers are W-2 employees so there is no “fee splitting” with non-lawyers.
Aren’t some personal injury firms actually financed by investors/private equity? The attorneys that advertise are just marketers. Some are even actors. The actual legal work is done by others. It is hidden and not well know I suspect.
My understanding of how this works is that the billboard lawyers are real lawyers who are engaged by real clients. They then refer everything to other lawyers. It’s not dissimilar to how a rainmaker at a big firm will bring in business but do very little work on the case.
Right this arrangement (e.g Golightly refers to Vannah or Kutner refers to Cardoza) is not a Sandbox Rule issue; its a fee sharing and reasonableness of the fee issue under Rule 1.5(e).
I’m super excited for Costco to win their $35 billion back from the government that they paid in tariffs that resulted in higher prices for consumers, then to leave the prices exactly where they are going forward. The tariffs were always a grift/gift to big business.
Last edited 1 month ago by
Guest
Anonymous
February 20, 2026 1:43 pm
“The program, intended to make legal services cheaper, has been criticized for attracting profit-focused investors.”
The AZ Republic articles make it sound like they gave our licenses to law firm owners with the ethics and marketing instincts of real estate agents. Makes sense though since the bar exam is now only 100 questions.
Used to practice in Arizona before Nevada. It is crazy down there. There is a libertarian and progressive vent to make changes. Arizona Supreme Court and others proposed giving special law licenses to paralegal types to practice in criminal law. Condensed legal training–two years and special licensing. It was defeated only after enormous opposition.
Mike Caspino (of Ryder & Caspino from the prime CD days) reciprocally suspended for one year after the USDC in Arizona suspended him for one year for UPL in front of that court which led Supreme Court of Arizona to do the same which led the Nevada Supreme Court to do the same. Here is the Arizona Decision.
Matt Aaron suspended for 2 years. This came to me as a shock. Thought Matt Aaron was a good competent attorneys. The suspension is for a technical violation. I read the decision. Do folks know that you can not buttress an overdraft from your trust account with personal funds? What are you supposed to do with an inadvertent overdraft. If there is an overdraft there will be an inquiry, an audit and possible discipline. If you put money in the account so nothing bounces you get into trouble. Reminds me of what Will Rogers said that “golf, fishing and the internal revenue code made liars out of the American people.”
Depends on the nature and amount of the overdraft and what else they find once the overdraft triggers an audit. He was accused of not timely depositing client fund and not timely disbursing funds. For example you take in settlement monies on December 10 and know they will not get disbursed until after January 1 (and thus you are going to be taxed on them) so you sit on the checks. Strategic tax planning but also an ethical violation.
I dont know Matt’s specific case and was he infusing his own monies because he was borrowing against the IOLTA Account? They mention CLE for substance abuse and treatment through NLAP. However the suspension looks rough but really means so long as he has someone else manage the IOLTA Account for one year, takes 6 hours of CLE and submit a report and this effectively goes away.
Overdrafts on trust accounts are common with money going in and out. Easy to place a hard and fast rule but very hard in the real world to apply and avoid. What do you do with an overdraft. Bank makes a mistake and it cascades. Can you put personal money into the account to keep it solvent periodically and not to address any specific overdraft is my question. Anybody have an opinion. Folks keep cushion money in their operating/business account all the time. Folks do it with a personal checking account. Banks even offer overdraft protection. Why not with trust accounts?
>Can you put personal money into the account to keep it solvent periodically and not to address any specific overdraft is my question.
Can you comingle your personal funds with client funds in your trust account?
No.
Whether people do it and it never causes an issue is another thing, or whether it would be helpful to avoid an overdraft, sure. But it’s definitely comingling which you cannot do.
This is the correct answer. If a PENNY of your personal money goes into your IOLTA Account as personal money, you have commingled monies.
As a very young attorney I had an old dog tell me that he took a sizeable fee advance from an LLC “client” that he kept in the IOLTA Account for future services that would (most likely) never be forthcoming and thus would ensure that the IOLTA Account was never overdrawn and never triggered an auto audit. Is it compliant? Probably not. But if you never overdraw your account, then the bells most likely never go off.
The problem with the trust rules is that they are so unforgiving. Then you have Bar Counsel and attorneys at the State Bar that have never signed the front of a check only the back, have never practiced law and had to meet overhead and monitor money going in and out. There has to be a common sense middle ground. As long as the client is not harmed should be the test not whether money is in the right column or category.
They ruined my plan.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/entertainment-celebrity/judge-scolds-mark-zuckerberg-s-team-for-wearing-meta-glasses-to-trial/ar-AA1WGcHv?
That’s funny.
Thoughts on a judge telling parties soon as a case is called, even BEFORE she hears oral arguments on a motion, that’s she’s going to take the matter under submission.
I understand arguments can sometimes bring something up and a judge takes it under submission because she wants to look at something specific in light of arguments, but to say that even before the arguments have been heard, that’s you’re going to take it under submission? Strange.
If its an especially complex or case critical issue being argued, I am ok with it. Oral arguments could help clarify some points, but judge could still anticipate needing additional time to sort it all out. Much prefer that than going down to a hearing only for the judge to have their mind made up before oral arguments anyway.
Related, what really grinds my gears is when the judge says, before any argument: “I’m inclined to deny this but go ahead and make your argument” or something equally condescending and dismissive.
Would you rather stand there and present your long winded argument and have the judge then tell you your motion is denied or your opponent’s motion is granted?
A high percentage of cases are decided based on the papers prior to argument. It is a rare case where oral argument sways the judge unless the judge comes to the bench with questions. If so, embrace the opportunity to address the questions and help the judge understand your position.
Be thankful the judge didn’t make you waste your time vainly arguing your position.
No, he’s out of line but he’s got a point. If the judge is inclined to deny my motion, why am I driving across town? Deny it, write a minute order and save us some time. I lose, conservatively, 839 days a year just waiting in a courtroom for hours to be told my motion’s going to be denied. I get it, sometimes you’re just walking the dog, doing the motion practice because it’s part of the job. But please don’t make me waste billable hours in the most productive part of my day.
Well if we are going to decide before I would rather just have it like Los Angeles courts and some of the other CA courts with the tentative ruling the evening before
re: Investors own law firms
Yes, bad
But,
– how are captive law firms owned by insurance companies really any different?
– multistate law firms? Out of state shareholders are “investors” because they make capital contributions to the law firm corporation and are not licensed in NV.
– and of course, my favorite rant: Legal Zoom and Trust&Will, which are of course somewhat different, but again not licensed in NV.
This is one of the great benefits of federalism. Arizona volunteered itself as guinea pig. It didn’t work, and now we know without suffering any of the negative effects in Nevada. Thanks, Arizona.
The story is pretty scary. As for your first point (captive firms), those are different—at least here. I don’t think any of them are actually owned by insurance companies, even if they are “captive.” How could they be? It’s illegal here. Also, those captive firms aren’t run as some profit-making enterprise like the others you list. They are just law firms with a bunch of poor shmucks working there representing an insurance company and its insureds. Not the same thing.
Not so. In fact letterhead from these in-house offices explicityly states that the lawyers are employees of the insurance company. This presents an inherent danger of conflict. Some cases are farmed out to outside counsel to avoid that situation, but probably not enough.
What is the danger? They are all insurance defense firms that do not charge fees and in which the lawyers are W-2 employees so there is no “fee splitting” with non-lawyers.
This just sounds like hiring in-house counsel?
The issue is the tripartite rellationship when one is insurance-retained counsel.
Different ethical issue than what Sandbox Rule traverses.
Aren’t some personal injury firms actually financed by investors/private equity? The attorneys that advertise are just marketers. Some are even actors. The actual legal work is done by others. It is hidden and not well know I suspect.
My understanding of how this works is that the billboard lawyers are real lawyers who are engaged by real clients. They then refer everything to other lawyers. It’s not dissimilar to how a rainmaker at a big firm will bring in business but do very little work on the case.
Right this arrangement (e.g Golightly refers to Vannah or Kutner refers to Cardoza) is not a Sandbox Rule issue; its a fee sharing and reasonableness of the fee issue under Rule 1.5(e).
Didnt Utah also try the Sandbox Rule? https://law.stanford.edu/2025/06/02/regulatory-innovation-at-the-crossroads-five-years-of-data-on-entity-regulation-reform-in-arizona-and-utah/
Can’t wait to get my tariff refund check!
I’m super excited for Costco to win their $35 billion back from the government that they paid in tariffs that resulted in higher prices for consumers, then to leave the prices exactly where they are going forward. The tariffs were always a grift/gift to big business.
“The program, intended to make legal services cheaper, has been criticized for attracting profit-focused investors.”
Who could have seen that coming…
I’m shocked, SHOCKED to find gambling in this establishment.
The AZ Republic articles make it sound like they gave our licenses to law firm owners with the ethics and marketing instincts of real estate agents. Makes sense though since the bar exam is now only 100 questions.
Used to practice in Arizona before Nevada. It is crazy down there. There is a libertarian and progressive vent to make changes. Arizona Supreme Court and others proposed giving special law licenses to paralegal types to practice in criminal law. Condensed legal training–two years and special licensing. It was defeated only after enormous opposition.
Rulon Huntsman suspended for 1 year.
https://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseView.do?csIID=72447
Mike Caspino (of Ryder & Caspino from the prime CD days) reciprocally suspended for one year after the USDC in Arizona suspended him for one year for UPL in front of that court which led Supreme Court of Arizona to do the same which led the Nevada Supreme Court to do the same. Here is the Arizona Decision.
https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/CASPINO%20PDJ2025-9038%20BAR%20020791_1.pdf
Matt Aaron suspended for 2 years with the suspension stayed for one year subject to conditions. Trust account overdraft.
https://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseView.do?csIID=73569
Matt Aaron suspended for 2 years. This came to me as a shock. Thought Matt Aaron was a good competent attorneys. The suspension is for a technical violation. I read the decision. Do folks know that you can not buttress an overdraft from your trust account with personal funds? What are you supposed to do with an inadvertent overdraft. If there is an overdraft there will be an inquiry, an audit and possible discipline. If you put money in the account so nothing bounces you get into trouble. Reminds me of what Will Rogers said that “golf, fishing and the internal revenue code made liars out of the American people.”
Depends on the nature and amount of the overdraft and what else they find once the overdraft triggers an audit. He was accused of not timely depositing client fund and not timely disbursing funds. For example you take in settlement monies on December 10 and know they will not get disbursed until after January 1 (and thus you are going to be taxed on them) so you sit on the checks. Strategic tax planning but also an ethical violation.
I dont know Matt’s specific case and was he infusing his own monies because he was borrowing against the IOLTA Account? They mention CLE for substance abuse and treatment through NLAP. However the suspension looks rough but really means so long as he has someone else manage the IOLTA Account for one year, takes 6 hours of CLE and submit a report and this effectively goes away.
Overdrafts on trust accounts are common with money going in and out. Easy to place a hard and fast rule but very hard in the real world to apply and avoid. What do you do with an overdraft. Bank makes a mistake and it cascades. Can you put personal money into the account to keep it solvent periodically and not to address any specific overdraft is my question. Anybody have an opinion. Folks keep cushion money in their operating/business account all the time. Folks do it with a personal checking account. Banks even offer overdraft protection. Why not with trust accounts?
>Can you put personal money into the account to keep it solvent periodically and not to address any specific overdraft is my question.
Can you comingle your personal funds with client funds in your trust account?
No.
Whether people do it and it never causes an issue is another thing, or whether it would be helpful to avoid an overdraft, sure. But it’s definitely comingling which you cannot do.
This is the correct answer. If a PENNY of your personal money goes into your IOLTA Account as personal money, you have commingled monies.
As a very young attorney I had an old dog tell me that he took a sizeable fee advance from an LLC “client” that he kept in the IOLTA Account for future services that would (most likely) never be forthcoming and thus would ensure that the IOLTA Account was never overdrawn and never triggered an auto audit. Is it compliant? Probably not. But if you never overdraw your account, then the bells most likely never go off.
The problem with the trust rules is that they are so unforgiving. Then you have Bar Counsel and attorneys at the State Bar that have never signed the front of a check only the back, have never practiced law and had to meet overhead and monitor money going in and out. There has to be a common sense middle ground. As long as the client is not harmed should be the test not whether money is in the right column or category.