- Quickdraw McLaw
- 32 Comments
- 321 Views
- Steven L. Morris was selected as the new Boulder City city attorney, somehow disappointing the Boulder City Review. [BCR]
- Judge Jim Crockett ruled that autopsy reports are public records. [RJ]
- OJ Simpson could be released soon. [Fox5Vegas]
Honestly the BCR probably has a point or three. By hiring a Morris or a Woodbury, BC is just sustaining its good ol' boy network that has been pervasive in that town. "By all appearances, hiring Morris fits the multiple accusations of back-room deals and cronyism that have plagued the city for years." Yeah that is what it looks like to me. Morris droned on and on and on. Have you ever talked to Steve or Shawn? They both drone on and on and on and accomplish very little.
No, none of the other candidates were really accomplished. But good for the BCR for breaking from the incestuousness of BC and calling out the fact that this appears to be an inside job.
8:39 AM-There were many other candidates that did not make the final four. Suspect there were other candidates who were even more qualified than the three besides Morris. The process also deterred candidates. The process was public although there were complaints the candidates resumes were not placed in the agenda packet for the meeting where applicants were interviewed. Ironically Boulder City could have just hired Steve Morris without a process. Boulder City required residency once the City Attorney was hired. The tell tale sign was that Steve Morris was the only resident of Boulder City. Obviously this was a big advantage. Steve Morris was also Acting City Attorney when hired and had a relationship with the City before the process began. Add on top of that the religion issue and closeness to the Mayor (who was one of the three votes in favor) and you draw these comments from the newspaper.
To: 8:39, or to anyone who knows the answer.
When he drones on and on, does it tend to be in response to some policy matter or issue of relevance, or is the droning mere braggadocio about his own accomplishments and supposed greatness?
Is Morris married to Pickering? If so, we have a Team Johnson scenario again.
@ 9:33- It is generally a slow, drawlish drone that goes nowhere and accomplishes little. I would say small-time, yuckster but more droning.
@10:24– Wrong Steve Morris. That Steve Morris is a good lawyer.
Can anybody say that this Steve Morris is a bad lawyer? I've never heard anything bad about the guy, other than the above-comments about his "droning".
Have you heard anything good about the guy? I can tell you that we have been involved in a matter which should have been wrapped up years ago but he simply never did anything on the case. We proceeded to ask the Court to dismiss for want of prosecution (which never gets granted) but we just got to the end of our rope.
Since today's topics are boring, let's make things interesting. Here is a topic I would like to discuss:
Why do ID counsel like to hire the same 3-4 whores as experts for every case? And why do such whores say the SAME THING in every expert report regardless of the type of accident, the amount of property damage, and the types of injuries? It doesn't matter if it was a small fender bender or a huge crash rendering a total loss; no matter the collision type, the plaintiff can NEVER be injured or at most need only 2 weeks of treatment and should be as good as new.
I understand the counter point is that plaintiff counsel may use the same people too. But there are way more doctors TREATING plaintiffs than there are the defense whores saying they arent injured. to a ratio of almost 5:1. And Plaintiff's providers are nevada based for the most part, and have actually treated the client. Defense whores fly in from out of state most of the time, and just do a record review. maybe once ina while they do an IME, but that doesn't change anything (or does it? Here's to you Dr. Duke, the whorest [and as of 2 months ago, the most biased] of them all).
I think ID counsel just doesnt give a shit for morals, and are just billing away while appeasing their carriers, giving some hope to the adjuster that plaintiff will take far less or maybe they may even squeak out a defense verdict. but in truth, ID ends up paying far more litigating and then settling rather than tendering limits or paying something above medical specials.
I understand I am speaking in broad general terms. I know there are plaintiff attorneys that want limits for every case, regardless of injuries or specials. But for every greedy plaintiff attorney there are equally stupid insurance adjusters who wont pay fair money on claims, and even more so stupid ID counsel who think getting these whores will make things better.
So back to my question: why does ID get the same 4-5 whores on every case to say the same thing every time? Didn't they learn their lesson with Duke getting the Scarlett letter? (Capital W, for WHORE if you were wondering). At some point their schtick will let up.
I am looking forward to all the miserable ID counsels to comment below. I hope you can bill a .25 under "medical expert search and review" you hapless fools!
I'm going to guess that you represent plaintiffs… Call it a crazy guess!
No special insight (as I don't do ID work), but I would imagine that the same experts are used because they have rates that the insurance companies have already agreed to pay (making billing easier), and those experts are a known commodity to insurance companies because they routinely favorably testify for them.
Why did/do all of the construction defect Plaintiff firms use the same set of experts? What did/do all CD Defense firms use the same set of experts? And speaking of Plaintiffs personal injury, Jesus is my memory going or wasn't the Plaintiff/Personal Injury bar so whorish that the FBI actually investigated it and brought charges because Plaintiffs would (to quote you) "hire the same 3-4 whores as experts for every case?" I don't do ID law; we do business law. But rock hurlers need to be careful what they project from their transparent homes.
(I used to do 100% Plaintiff, now do mostly Defense but not ID.)
My theory is that people don't like surprises. They really don't like hiring experts who end up supporting the other side. If an insurance company pays a doctor $10k to review records and do an IME, what do you think they will do when that doctor comes back and says, "yup, it was all reasonable and related"???
You don't think this is a problem on the Plaintiff side? I disagree. There's a limited pool of doctors who treat Plaintiffs on a lien, and the PI attorneys know who those doctors are. They're not going to call Dr. Duke to give a second opinion any more than the ID lawyers are going to call Dr. Grover for an IME.
My suggestion: That lawyers from both sides would agree on a truly independent exam. Find a doctor that both sides agree on, let that doctor do the work, pay him/her equally from both sides, and let the chips fall as they may. Of course, we all know that this will never happen…
Yes, it's a matter of comfortable routine, laziness, built-in base of experts with rates the insurance companies find acceptable, and they are known quantities, and some of them may actually be reasonably well-received by judges and jurors.
And none of those rationales are unreasonable on their face. But, as 10:05 suggests, how effective can that be if they all say the same thing, and have the same built-in cynicism that all plaintiffs are gold-bricking malingerers, regardless of the case or circumstances? The one-size-fits-all approach, in addition to being unprincipled as 10:05 suggests, also runs the risk of being extremely ineffective.
If an expert testifies against a truly injured person who in no way exaggerates their injuries, the same way they testify against some lazy, lying slug just trying to collect a settlement, that type of cynicism and built-in nastiness and basic lack of compassion, and no powers of discernment and no ability to decipher what is legitimate from what is not, will come through clearly to the trier of fact.
And this is abundantly true even if a particular judge or jury has never heard from such expert in any prior case. If the expert basically believes all Plaintiffs are lying, lazy, greedy scum, that view will clearly come through even if the expert is careful to limit his remarks only to the Plaintiff's situation.
What 10:05 does not mention, which in fairness should be, is the better insurance defense attorneys, when confronted with cases wherein Plaintiff could hit the jury for a big pay day, take pains to avoid re-cycling one of those hack experts 10:05 discusses. In such instances, they will take pains to make certain they hire someone who comes across well, does not strike the jury as a mere hired gun, and appears like someone who would concede points in favor of the Plaintiff that are in fact medically established.
In fact, some of the best experts for P.I. defense come across as people who would not want to be there if the plaintiff was truly hurt and being honest about the extent his injuries impair him, and these better experts are also able to concede certain medical points. In point of fact, presumably that expert would be available for a fee regardless of the circumstances, but they have the ability to connect, project sincerity, and create a (probably false) narrative that they are only there because Plaintiff is essentially attempting to perpetrate a fraud, and that if Plaintiff was actually honest about the extent of the injuries, the expert would have declined testifying for the defense.
That all said, many defense attorneys would not admit they are simply re-cycling the same paid hacks who will automatically testify that Plaintiff's are lying malingering scum. Such attorneys would say that such experts would concede that a Plaintiff's treatment and injuries and testimony are legitimate, if the expert was ever confronted with such a Plaintiff. In other words, such defense attorneys would say that the fact all such experts testify that the Plaintiffs are lying, greedy scum, does not render the expert a mere hired gun who always testifies the same way merely because they were paid to do so. They would instead justify it by arguing that the reason this expert has testified in all 197 cases, where he offered testimony, that Plaintiff was lying greedy scum, is because in all 197 cases the Plaintiff clearly was lying, greedy scum.
Kudos to 10:05 for raising an interesting and important topic.
To: 11:08. I believe your analysis is far too lengthy, with repetition and some invalid observations.
But, I basically agree with your main point that this dynamic is caused by laziness, routine, and the fact these experts are known quantities who always testify the same way, and who the insurance companies are routinely comfortable paying for.
Dude(tte), offense meant, but you sound like one of the bitter low-dollar PI guys that wants to waste my time over the difference between a $25k settlement and a $28k settlement. My insurance companies will pay me all day and all night rather than overpay claims. I'm equally sick of every 40-year-old fat woman who hasn't exercised in 25 years, except to walk to the kitchenette at work, wanting limits for a 3 mph "collision." Oh, and her four prior accidents where she was at fault, oh no she wasn't hurt in those at all. And of course her two bit chiro will say all of the injuries were caused by our accident. Want to talk about whores, go visit the world-famous Plaintiff's Chiro Cat House, complete with ball fondling pain management doc next door.
The 100% legit claims I never even see because they get paid off by the adjusters. K, bye now, go off back to your cartel meetings.
Nothing more bitter than an insurance defense attorney who hates her/his life and truly believes that "The 100% legit claims I never even see because they get paid off by the adjusters." You must be one of the Trump voters that continue to support him and think he is doing a great job. You are living in an alternate universe.
Quick off-topic question. I need to file suit regarding a small car accident that occurred in Laughlin. Do I have to file in Laughlin JC, or can I just do it in Las Vegas JC? I can't seem to find a straight answer on geographical jurisdiction for Justice Courts.
The answer depends on township (1) where the accident occurred or (2) where the Defendant resides.
Or.. if you can legitimately justify the jurisdictional allegation, file in District Court and avoid the entire issue.
Yeah, Defendant lives in Bullhead City, AZ. Accident occurred in Laughlin. Guess I'll have to start familiarizing myself with a new courthouse.
Could be either or. See if opposing counsel would agree to Las Vegas as the venue. Where is the defendant from-Las Vegas Township or Laughlin?
Dear Justin Jones and all other attorneys who think its OK to add me to your mass mailing list just because I am in your Outlook Address List, before you ask me to help you out, think whether you have done anything to help the person you are soliciting for help out other than just being you. If the answer is No, maybe knocking on my door after you slammed yours in my face is not the best call.
Respond to his email and tell him that.
I have unsubscribed. And Justin is not the only one (Tisha can you hear me?) But this is a place for general expression of the issues.
1:11 here. I'm not saying the comment isn't welcome, I just think Justin is clearly missing this feedback.
(Tisha can you hear me?) ROFLMAO!!!
BLOG IS DEAD
Starting to feel nickel and dimed to death. As of today, the cost to record a Judgment is $17 for 1 page. Monday it goes to $40 a page, with the base fee jumping to $20, plus $8 for Legal Aid, $1 for foster kids, $1 for "district court investigators" and $5 for technology fees. WTF do any of these have to do with recording?
Sorry $40 for the first page. A 135% increase
It will now be a flat fee regardless of document length–no charge for each additional page after the first.
I stand corrected regarding document length.
Charging $40 regardless of the document length reduces the cost to record deeds of trust but increases the cost for just about everything else. In other words, lenders and the recorder's office feeding the county and the add-ons listed above are the only ones that benefit from the increase in fees to the detriment of the majority of those using the recorder's office. We do a lot of estate planning and our $19 recording of three page deeds and $18 recording of two page homestead declarations more than doubled. We don't go into the one-inch margin white space when drafting or notarizing documents so eliminating the non-compliant document fee doesn't benefit those competent enough not to be non-compliant.
$8 to Legal Aid per recording! This is astronomical.