Lewis Roca Rothgerber issued a statement saying they are investigating the security breach that leaked Adam Laxalt’s performance evaluations and that the leaked documents did not include other, more favorable evaluations–reiterating that Laxalt is welcome to return to the firm in the future. [RJ; Las Vegas Sun]
Here’s a look at Nevada’s death row through an interview with assistant federal public defender Michael Pescetta. [Las Vegas Sun]
Whether you get busted for driving under the influence of marijuana might come down to how you perform with the drug in your system–not merely whether the drug is detected. [RJ]
A report suggests that Judge Vincent Ochoa lost the endorsement of the Clark County School District police officers after it came to light that he does not grant overnight visits to fathers for the first 6 months of a child’s life. Any family court lawyers want to weigh in on this? [Las Vegas Tribune]
Thinking about performance evaluations and how horribly they can be misconstrued when summed up in a headline, how do you think your review would be summed up? Give us your best 8 word or less self-evaluations in the comments!
Well at least Ocho does not commit perjury, and has candor to the court unlike Stoffel, Stoffle should be the poster child for corruption in the courts if he is elected.
It depends how Judge Ochoa meant it. He should have elaborated so we can know for sure. If he meant he doesn't grant overnight visits to fathers in paternity cases, for the first six months, in situations where the father has had little or no contact, that is one thing(even though such an absolute is questionable since many individuals can learn basic infant care after a few weeks or months). However, if he doesn't grant overnight visits for the first six months even in cases where the father has already been fairly involved with the child, such a remark, and such a policy, is disturbing and is not a policy shared by most judges or attorneys.
Anonymous August 22, 2014 at 7:49 AM ——— Jason Stoffel was found 'NOT GUILTY' of committing perjury and the case in question was dismissed because it was proven to be frivolous.
However District Judge Elizabeth Gonzalez disqualified NOchoa from hearing a case brought by Jason Stoffel because she said that it “creates the appearance of impropriety.”
You reference is to another Stoffel case this other one is being addressed by the Nevada Supreme Court let's wait and see that outcome think it's called Candor to the Court
The importance of the Lewis Rocha evaluation, to many voters, is that Laxalt appears to be an unskilled, entitled young attorney, who expects to advance based on nepotism, does not work to improve, and his self-evaluation is grossly disproportionate to what the firm partners and supervising attorneys think of him as an attorney. If all true, he would not appear to be Attorney General material. Even if Lewis Rocha is very indignant that the information was leaked, and even if they are now covering their tails, politically as well as liability-wise,and claiming that he is eligible for re-hire, those are not really the issues. Nor is it really germane to the issue that some are questioning Lewis Rocha's ability to protect confidentially concerns of their employees, and possibly their clients. Those concerns, of course, are all valid points of discussion, but are a distraction from the issue. After all, even if the documents were improperly leaked, it has not yet been suggested that the content was tampered with, and as it stands now the documents do appear to be valid, despite serious legitimate concerns about their improper dissemination which can be dealt with in a different forum ..Again, to some voters, it appears he is a young, callow, individual who doesn't work hard, lacks ability, and is trying to cash in on his family name and connections and ascend to the extremely critical and important position of State Attorney General. Many of those voters will keep an open mind if it turns out the content of the evaluations were tampered with. But if the content is genuine, most voters are relatively unconcerned as to how the documents were obtained. Admittedly, I may very well be wrong, but at least that is the sense I am getting after having spoken to many people. Also, admittedly, some of the really offended voters are Democratic voters who never would have voted for Laxalt anyway, while some Republicans, who would never consider voting for Ross Miller, are, again, focusing on what is probably the highly improper release of confidential documents, rather than focusing on the actual content.
^ well thought out opinion, but you miss a big point, complex commercial litigation of the type LRR typically handles will be difficult for all first years. And made more difficult by (1) coming out of a completely different type of practice (criminal JAG); (2) having partners expect that you are further along in your career than a first year just because you graduated more than one year ago, but not recognizing that you are just a first year at complex commercial litigation. And, as an aside, if any first year brings in significant business to a firm (in THIS LEGAL MARKET), the partners should shut the heck up about spell check and just say thank you for helping line their their pockets at the end of the year. Having said that, I'm still not voting for Laxalt, I just don't think this review is a fair representation of someone's legal career.
But when this info. is disseminated to the voters, not too much time will be spent on the distinctions you discus. The voters will just be fed inflammatory, bite-sixe morsels(e.g. "train wreck. ", "no legal skills", or whatever it was). And if we think the media will spend little time on such distinctions, no time will be spent on such context or nuance once the Miller campaign, and the liberal PACs, start the attack.
Guest
Anonymous
August 22, 2014 4:08 pm
"Lacks people skills and compassion. Perfect prosecutor."
The leaked review had no effect on my voting preference, but it definitely, and unfairly, brought Laxalt's legal ability into question. More than anything, it lowered my opinion of L&R in general and its partners. And nice attempt at damage control, but you can't put that cat back in the bag.
I agree that a vote for such an office should be based on much more than some improperly leaked employment evaluation. And I do agree that Lewis Rocha has some serious issues to address here. But I agree with the above poster who indicated that many voters will be relatively unconcerned with how the material was leaked(providing the documents are genuine and not tampered with), and will instead be influenced by the content of the evaluations.After all, he wants to be the top attorney in the state–so his competence, skill and experience as an attorney, are factors many voters will consider.
Guest
Anonymous
August 22, 2014 5:11 pm
So, who wants to break the bad news to Laxalt that "Of Counsel" is not a promotion?
Do people generally make "of counsel" when they've only been in practice for a couple of years? Seems like that's a designation for someone who is either a lateral or an associate who the firm passes over for partner.
"Of counsel" is much more common in today's legal market. If someone doesn't want to develop business, or wants more work life balance, lots of good attorneys go the "of counsel" route.
In most instances, an attorney with less than 20+ years of experience who is designated as "Of Counsel" and supposedly works full-time is someone who is considered non-partner material. In other words, for marketing or other purposes, the title of "Of Counsel" is given to such persons when in actuality they are glorified (or not so glorified) associates.
In certain instances the "Of Counsel" designation is utilized for an attorney who wishes to work less than full-time (or at least dedicate less than their full-time to practicing law) or for an experienced attorney who has been a partner in the past but does now want to have the responsibilities that go along with a partner. In those instances, the "Of Counsel" designation recognizes their abilities but takes into account that they have chosen to not be a partner.
In Laxalt's situation, it appears that the "Of Counsel" designation was a "gift" from LRR in part at least as a possible way to avoid having to terminate him and more likely to permit him to attempt to run for AG as something other than an associate at a regional law firm.
Guest
Anonymous
August 22, 2014 5:28 pm
As an attorney, the leak from a regional firm such as LRR is of grave concern. Our clients rely upon their being a foundation of trust and confidentiality. If a large firm cannot maintain confidentiality for its own associates, then how can clients trust that any lawyers can maintain their confidentiality and privilege? Despite any issues as to authenticity of the leaked document and whether Mr. Laxalt is fit to be AG, the concerns also extend to whether any associates in firms such as LRR will feel comfortable in expressing their views during performance evaluations or undergoing self-evaluations. The fear that such documents may get leaked will hinder the purpose of any review process.
Good point, but lets face it: 90% of confidentiality is based on the honor system and fear of discipline. It is tough to stop a knowledgeable insider who has malicious intent.
That's just depressing. The one thing a law firm should be able to manage is keeping confidences.
Guest
Anonymous
August 24, 2014 2:15 am
Ochoa is a nice enough guy, but IMHO, generally unprepared. The reason Jason Stoffel is running against hi, is because on 2 occasions during a grandparent v. grandparents custody dispute, Vince forgot that Defendant's son had killed the child's mother. Not once, but twice. "Yes, judge, she is still dead." Then awarded custody to the murder's parents. Go figure.
There is no gray or middle ground when it comes to the "tender years doctrine." Paternity case or a married couple. If you are dad, you are dad and you are entitled to overnights, not to have the judge impose his antiquated point of view on your custody rights. Abuse of discretion. Sorry Vince, but if you imposed a tender years doctrine, what other mandates have you ignored? No, no vote here.
Stoffel is no better falsified affidavits and flat out lies has no candor to the court at least Ochoa is honest and stands by legal principles
Guest
Anonymous
August 24, 2014 3:35 pm
Hey 11:25 think the case against Stoffel you are talking about was dismissed on a technicality not because Stoffel was found not guilty. IN FACT HE FALSIFIED EVIDENCE AND COMMITTED PERJURY was his lucky day because instead of running for judge he would be running for a new career
Well at least Ocho does not commit perjury, and has candor to the court unlike Stoffel, Stoffle should be the poster child for corruption in the courts if he is elected.
It depends how Judge Ochoa meant it. He should have elaborated so we can know for sure. If he meant he doesn't grant overnight visits to fathers in paternity cases, for the first six months, in situations where the father has had little or no contact, that is one thing(even though such an absolute is questionable since many individuals can learn basic infant care after a few weeks or months). However, if he doesn't grant overnight visits for the first six months even in cases where the father has already been fairly involved with the child, such a remark, and such a policy, is disturbing and is not a policy shared by most judges or attorneys.
Who cares about family law judges? They are all kings of their little kingdoms and most of them treat people like shit.
Anonymous August 22, 2014 at 7:49 AM ——— Jason Stoffel was found 'NOT GUILTY' of committing perjury and the case in question was dismissed because it was proven to be frivolous.
However District Judge Elizabeth Gonzalez disqualified NOchoa from hearing a case brought by Jason Stoffel because she said that it “creates the appearance of impropriety.”
You reference is to another Stoffel case this other one is being addressed by the Nevada Supreme Court let's wait and see that outcome think it's called Candor to the Court
The report was wrong. They did not remove their endorsement.
Thank for bringing this article to our attention Jason, good way to get votes, bash the other side just like your family court tactics
The real question in the Laxalt mess is whether Lewis Roca treats their obligations to keep client confidences like they do their personnel documents.
this.
The importance of the Lewis Rocha evaluation, to many voters, is that Laxalt appears to be an unskilled, entitled young attorney, who expects to advance based on nepotism, does not work to improve, and his self-evaluation is grossly disproportionate to what the firm partners and supervising attorneys think of him as an attorney. If all true, he would not appear to be Attorney General material. Even if Lewis Rocha is very indignant that the information was leaked, and even if they are now covering their tails, politically as well as liability-wise,and claiming that he is eligible for re-hire, those are not really the issues. Nor is it really germane to the issue that some are questioning Lewis Rocha's ability to protect confidentially concerns of their employees, and possibly their clients. Those concerns, of course, are all valid points of discussion, but are a distraction from the issue. After all, even if the documents were improperly leaked, it has not yet been suggested that the content was tampered with, and as it stands now the documents do appear to be valid, despite serious legitimate concerns about their improper dissemination which can be dealt with in a different forum ..Again, to some voters, it appears he is a young, callow, individual who doesn't work hard, lacks ability, and is trying to cash in on his family name and connections and ascend to the extremely critical and important position of State Attorney General. Many of those voters will keep an open mind if it turns out the content of the evaluations were tampered with. But if the content is genuine, most voters are relatively unconcerned as to how the documents were obtained. Admittedly, I may very well be wrong, but at least that is the sense I am getting after having spoken to many people. Also, admittedly, some of the really offended voters are Democratic voters who never would have voted for Laxalt anyway, while some Republicans, who would never consider voting for Ross Miller, are, again, focusing on what is probably the highly improper release of confidential documents, rather than focusing on the actual content.
^ well thought out opinion, but you miss a big point, complex commercial litigation of the type LRR typically handles will be difficult for all first years. And made more difficult by (1) coming out of a completely different type of practice (criminal JAG); (2) having partners expect that you are further along in your career than a first year just because you graduated more than one year ago, but not recognizing that you are just a first year at complex commercial litigation. And, as an aside, if any first year brings in significant business to a firm (in THIS LEGAL MARKET), the partners should shut the heck up about spell check and just say thank you for helping line their their pockets at the end of the year. Having said that, I'm still not voting for Laxalt, I just don't think this review is a fair representation of someone's legal career.
But when this info. is disseminated to the voters, not too much time will be spent on the distinctions you discus. The voters will just be fed inflammatory, bite-sixe morsels(e.g. "train wreck. ", "no legal skills", or whatever it was). And if we think the media will spend little time on such distinctions, no time will be spent on such context or nuance once the Miller campaign, and the liberal PACs, start the attack.
"Lacks people skills and compassion. Perfect prosecutor."
"Barely makes billable requirement. Must be lazy."
"Insubordinate, stubborn, recommended for partner track."
Haha. Win!
The leaked review had no effect on my voting preference, but it definitely, and unfairly, brought Laxalt's legal ability into question. More than anything, it lowered my opinion of L&R in general and its partners. And nice attempt at damage control, but you can't put that cat back in the bag.
I agree that a vote for such an office should be based on much more than some improperly leaked employment evaluation. And I do agree that Lewis Rocha has some serious issues to address here. But I agree with the above poster who indicated that many voters will be relatively unconcerned with how the material was leaked(providing the documents are genuine and not tampered with), and will instead be influenced by the content of the evaluations.After all, he wants to be the top attorney in the state–so his competence, skill and experience as an attorney, are factors many voters will consider.
So, who wants to break the bad news to Laxalt that "Of Counsel" is not a promotion?
Do people generally make "of counsel" when they've only been in practice for a couple of years? Seems like that's a designation for someone who is either a lateral or an associate who the firm passes over for partner.
"Of counsel" is much more common in today's legal market. If someone doesn't want to develop business, or wants more work life balance, lots of good attorneys go the "of counsel" route.
Is that the same thing as a "non-equity partner?"
In most instances, an attorney with less than 20+ years of experience who is designated as "Of Counsel" and supposedly works full-time is someone who is considered non-partner material. In other words, for marketing or other purposes, the title of "Of Counsel" is given to such persons when in actuality they are glorified (or not so glorified) associates.
In certain instances the "Of Counsel" designation is utilized for an attorney who wishes to work less than full-time (or at least dedicate less than their full-time to practicing law) or for an experienced attorney who has been a partner in the past but does now want to have the responsibilities that go along with a partner. In those instances, the "Of Counsel" designation recognizes their abilities but takes into account that they have chosen to not be a partner.
In Laxalt's situation, it appears that the "Of Counsel" designation was a "gift" from LRR in part at least as a possible way to avoid having to terminate him and more likely to permit him to attempt to run for AG as something other than an associate at a regional law firm.
As an attorney, the leak from a regional firm such as LRR is of grave concern. Our clients rely upon their being a foundation of trust and confidentiality. If a large firm cannot maintain confidentiality for its own associates, then how can clients trust that any lawyers can maintain their confidentiality and privilege? Despite any issues as to authenticity of the leaked document and whether Mr. Laxalt is fit to be AG, the concerns also extend to whether any associates in firms such as LRR will feel comfortable in expressing their views during performance evaluations or undergoing self-evaluations. The fear that such documents may get leaked will hinder the purpose of any review process.
Good point, but lets face it: 90% of confidentiality is based on the honor system and fear of discipline. It is tough to stop a knowledgeable insider who has malicious intent.
That's just depressing. The one thing a law firm should be able to manage is keeping confidences.
Ochoa is a nice enough guy, but IMHO, generally unprepared. The reason Jason Stoffel is running against hi, is because on 2 occasions during a grandparent v. grandparents custody dispute, Vince forgot that Defendant's son had killed the child's mother. Not once, but twice. "Yes, judge, she is still dead." Then awarded custody to the murder's parents. Go figure.
There is no gray or middle ground when it comes to the "tender years doctrine." Paternity case or a married couple. If you are dad, you are dad and you are entitled to overnights, not to have the judge impose his antiquated point of view on your custody rights. Abuse of discretion. Sorry Vince, but if you imposed a tender years doctrine, what other mandates have you ignored? No, no vote here.
Stoffel is no better falsified affidavits and flat out lies has no candor to the court at least Ochoa is honest and stands by legal principles
Hey 11:25 think the case against Stoffel you are talking about was dismissed on a technicality not because Stoffel was found not guilty. IN FACT HE FALSIFIED EVIDENCE AND COMMITTED PERJURY was his lucky day because instead of running for judge he would be running for a new career