The AG’s office will release the name and salaries of two dozen workers who were previously not publicly disclosed. [RJ]
The ACLU filed a class action lawsuit against Nevada regarding indigent defense in rural counties. [RJ; TNI]
An outside complaint was the reason for banning a trustee from school district property. [Las Vegas Sun]
Judge Cynthia Giuliani continued her tradition of dressing up to finalize adoptions on Halloween. [eighthjdcourt blog]
As noted in the comments, attorneys should have received an email yesterday from the Board of Governors regarding a survey on auditing trust accounts. It’s your chance to let them know what you think about the proposal.
Trustee Child's autistic screeching sounds like someone who's heard of legal concepts on TV but doesn't actually understand them. “All it was was somebody sent a memo out, and to me I think that creates a hostile work environment.”
Probably was posted by Skorkowsky. He has been on a rampage against Child who frequently, and maybe inartfully, criticizes him. I wish some lawyer would reach out to Child, if only for the attorneys that could be imposed against Skorkowsky
I kind of have to change my opinion of Child and his so-called "noble cause."
When this all started he simply struck me as one of these people we see form time-to-time, that being someone seemingly a little odd and slightly paranoid who is a self-styled holy crusader to protect the public from callous exploitation form the powers that be(in this case the holy crusader is supposedly sounding the clarion call as to how the School District is foolishly and incompetently spending out tax dollars).
But now Child, or at least his message, has some significant degree of arguable merit and traction. But my change of view point is not really caused by anything Child has done, as his condemnations of the district are conclusory and sweeping, offer no specifics, and are still largely controlled by conspiracy theories. My change of opinion is caused by the very heavy handed behavior of the School District.
Child had budget concerns, concerns over some audit or accounting, or whatever. Apparently, rather than treating him with some modicum of respect as a Trustee, and having the Super meet with him to discuss the budget and financial matters, it seems they instead chose to avoid him like he was carrying the bubonic plague(which, admittedly, is somewhat understandable based on the way he tends to present himself).
But instead of trying to skillfully placate him by conceding his importance(or acting at least like they think he's important) and discussing the budget with him and showing respect for his input and suggestions(which is the approach earlier Supers would have taken), this Super, who in my mind lacks even basic political acumen, instead chose to greatly inflame the situation to prove he was the boss.
With the understanding that administrative safe guards often differ from what is afforded in legal proceedings, the whole situation reeks to Hell. They 86 him off school premises. No hearing is afforded. No right to hear, or question , the witnesses against him are afforded. No specifics of any kind are offered. Apparently, the identity of the complaining people were not even revealed. All we know is that a teacher(s) supposedly relayed that he was "weird" and/or "creepy." Is that sufficient to exclude an elected Trustee from educational premises? Not in my book.
At any rate, prior Supers like Kenny Guinn or Brian Cramm, and perhaps even Carlos Garcia, would have had the sense to privately neutralize Child's message by meeting with him, and at least act like they cared about his input and concern.
But this Super did just what I expected–86 the Trustee and boldly pronounce that the Super's very broad powers, to act in the interests of the District, justifies such wide discretion.
So, although Child does not strike me as the right messenger, could the message be somewhat valid?
We are rated like 49th out of 50. The Democrats tend to complain the School District needs a lot more tax revenue to substantively improve, while Republicans tend to argue that we are already paying the District more than enough but that our rankings don't improve due to mismanagement, incompetence, and possibly something more nefarious.
I don't really know which side is more valid, but I do know that if a Trustee starts asking budgetary questions, and wants accountings or audits to be revealed, and the way he is handled is to be neutralized and squashed like a bug because some unknown person said he seems weird, that raises a very valid question as to what are all the budgetary matters the District is attempting to conceal from the tax payer.
When a system collects billions of dollars each session from the tax payers(and it increases each session), and we are still ranked 49th out of 50 states in terms of quality and performance,
and when someone starts asking questions they are treated like a pariah, I become really concerned. Seems like the last thing the District wants is transparency.
Yes. Child seems to me to have a real need to feel important. That could have been satisfied by meeting with him an hour or so and showing respect for his budgetary questions. And then when the budget discussion was over, and Child felt his opinions were appreciated and considered, then very adroitly the Superintendent should have raised the issue that these multiple unannounced school visits appear to be misinterpreted by some, and it might be best to reduce them, or inform the Superintendent's office beforehand of an intended visit to a school, or whatever.
But since it wasn't handled like that, or anything vaguely similar to that, but in fact was handled in a very strong-arm manner causing public disgrace, Child now had to gain, or re-gain, his sense of importance by hitting back very aggressively and in a very public manner.
Now it may be true that they did actually meet with him to answer his budget concerns, but I agree with the above post that it seems unlikely that they did so. Instead, the District appeared to go straight to a nuclear option.
And yes, since we are virtually dead last, no matter how many billions we pump into the black hole, I am gravely concerned about any Superintendent who is trying to shut someone up whose message is the school budget and the propriety of expenditures.
If he had budget concerns, the place to address them would be in a meeting of the Trustees with the Super. Not in a fucking classroom, asking kids to play some kind of sick Heads-Up-7-Up about suicide. I don't see any reason a Trustee needs to have any contact with either students, teachers, or administrators at a particular school. Just like a member of the board of directors really doesn't have any kind of oversight on individual employees. They hired a superintendent. Address these issues with him. Stay out of the schools, particularly when they are in session, unless you're there as a substitute teacher.
Is that what he was doing? Perhaps I missed some articles. All I can locate is that he was excluded from school premises because some teacher found him weird or creepy.
What you describe is totally inappropriate and would, IMO, justify to 86 him. Do you know any other specifics as to how he was conducting himself during the unannounced, unauthorized visits?
There is absolutely problems with the CCSD approach. Yes I have read the memos; I have also heard refutations that the allegations in the Memo are not 100% accurate. You want to control his access to the classroom, work with him. What Skorkowsky did is create a horrible situation.
Guest
Anonymous
November 3, 2017 4:04 pm
Something that was pointed out yesterday, that I think needs to be brought out even more with regard to these "random audits" is the cost associated with doing them. We all know that this is not going to be a cheap endeavor. It will be very expensive. Which means either 1) our already high bar dues will be going up, or 2) the attorney being audited will have to pay for it. I'm a solo attorney and I sure as hell don't want to pay for a random audit when there's been no indication that I've had any trust accounting issues or ethical problems in the past. The bar doesn't seem to want the cost to be any part of the consideration in this survey they've sent out. So I encourage people to write about it in the comment section at the end of the survey.
At the CCBA Luncheon, Hunterton indicated that the audited attorney will pay the costs of the audit (similar to how involuntary audits are presently handled by the OBC).
That would analogize to making someone who is prosecuted for a crime, in addition to paying their own attorney, paying the salary of the prosecutor and staff.
Actually,9;31, it's much worse than that, because in your example the State is at least convinced the Defendant committed the crime and they are confidant of his conviction, and the law of averages is that he will be convicted.
But in the situation of the audit, even if the audit determines everything is proper, you still have to pay.
So perhaps a more proper analogy is as follows: On New Year's police arrange a random DUI check point, wherein they stop every tenth car. Let's say at this particular check point there are no problems and that in each of the stopped cars the driver is sober and was not drinking. So, at that check point, for the time it was occurring, no arrests were made. But let's say the police department then decides to have each of those randomly stopped tenth drivers pay for all the expenses to conduct the check point, including the proportionate salaries of the officers for the time in question.
Sound absurd? Of course it is, but that is exactly what is happening if all audited attorneys pay for the audit.
That said if this bad idea of random audits is actually adopted, I understand an attorney being required to pay for the audit if irregularities are found with the trust account.
I would run, but I would get a coercive opponent at the NSC telling me I better not run, because the BOGS ripoff, politically targeted audit is headed in my direction.
Amazing how if you stick your head up in the slightest, Stan's laser sight would be pointed at you.
Guest
Anonymous
November 3, 2017 4:07 pm
There was discussion yesterday about peremptory challenges and whether judges generally know when these have been filed against them, whether they generally care, whether they believe it affects them in the RJ Judging The Judges Survey, etc.
I doubt that judges get on the computer once per month to see who filed peremptory challenges over the last month. Instead, they tend to find out about it as each one occurs because the department is promptly informed by the Clerk's Office,and the JEA or Law Clerk will promptly bring it to the judge's attention–particularly if it vacates an upcoming hearing set before the judge.
As to the question as to whether judges resent such challenges, that is a good question but is impossible to answer as it varies widely. Some judges don't care, particularly if they don't receive that many, while other judges may resent it and take it personally. Each practitioner, based on what they know about a particular judge, can make that judgment or determination as well as any other attorney. I doubt there are attorneys with inside, specialized knowledge as to which judges tend to ignore such challenges, and which judges tent to resent them.
As to the RJ Judging The Judges Survey, which was referenced as to this topic, and is periodically referenced as to other topics, please be informed that there no longer is an RJ Judging The Judges Survey. How do I know this? Simply because it has ceased to exist.
It was conducted at the end of every other year. The last survey was at the end of '13. Therefore, there was one due at the end of '15, but it never occurred. And now another two years have passed, and we are at the end of '17, and there will obviously be no survey results as no survey questions were ever sent out to attorneys.
So, we have now gone two cycles where there should have been the biannual surveys, but they did not occur. Why did they not occur? I don't know, but I have two guesses which I very strongly believe are among the actual valid explanations.
1. When new ownership took over the RJ, they naturally had to cut corners and cut fat out of the budget and stream-line matters, particularly since fewer and fewer people are purchasing print newspapers.
2.Just about the last thing in the world, IMO, that current RJ ownership is interested in is to spend a lot of money conducting and printing a survey wherein Chief Judge Gonzalez is rated highly.
More likely reason for the bring that farce to an end is that there was absolutely no valid scientific basis to the survey. It had an extremely small pool of eligible participants, and an even smaller participation rate among the eligible participants. It lacked any validation method to insure that the responses were from participants who actually appeared before the subject judge, as well as, being based on completely subjective criteria.
It was the functional equivalent of asking a bunch of H.S. students to rate their teachers. Such a rating is not likely to identify the best and worst teachers, but rather the most and least popular teachers. Such participants would be expected to rate a teacher that assigned no homework and had minimal open book multiple choice/true-false exams much higher than a teacher that was demanding in expectations, assigned extensive homework, had frequent essay exams and required the completion of a research paper.
If the goal is a true and accurate assessment of a judge's abilities and demeanor, the test should be to randomly select a specified number of cases that the judge presided over during the survey period and hire a panel of retired judges to review the pleadings, video of hearings and the decision to evaluate the judge. The panel should also to the extent possible have anonymous in court observations of the judge in real time action so anything which occurs off the record can be noted and evaluated.
I think it is fair to say that sort of investment and evaluation will never occur…
After the paper was purchased, there were multiple prominent articles printed, in rapid succession, concerning the litigation,
wherein Judge Gonzalez was placed in a most unflattering light, IMO, including selection of the worst photographs of her that could possibly be selected. And it became clear, at least in my view, that the prominent placement of the articles was hardly proportionate to the newsworthy significance. It seemed to me that every time some arcane motion was ruled on, concerning relatively obscure procedural and legal points that the average reader could not possibly understand, it appeared that such articles would sometimes receive more prominent placement than some major event of true newsworthiness.
Much of this seems to have died down, and not merely because there is not always major developments in the case to report, but because of the nature of journalism.
IMO they realized that they cannot justify continued hard news stories, and prominent placement of those articles, for every development in a case that most readers have little or no interest in, and probably don't even understand.
And as to the editorial section, I am guessing they probably realized that if they kept lambasting an individual judge, on an individual case involving the owner of the paper, but it being a case of no real interest to most readers, that readers would find a lot of this to lack integrity, and to be vendetta driven and for purely personal reasons. People want editorials that address issues of import and significance to many readers–not editorials concerning direct disputes between the paper owner and the person in question.
I am guessing that ownership realized how this all looks, so, to their credit, it has all died down quite a bit.
And as to the columnists, ownership may have been forced to accept that the columnists will write about issues they want, and will have political views, and other views, different from the paper ownership and different from the editorial board. In other words, it is difficult to force columnists, whose professional reputations and credibility in the community mean everything to them, to write unflattering columns about Judge Gonzalez simply because someone else wants them to(even if it's their employer). And it is not practical, and looks real bad in the industry, if you fire each and every columnist who won't write negative columns about the judge's handling of the case, so after a while it appears that new ownership realized the independence of the columnists, and ,to a significant degree, accepted it.
So, I'm not taking up for current ownership, and emphasized how I was not impressed with how it all started out. But, unless I've missed some scathing recent articles and editorials that I should have noticed, it appears they realize that they cannot retain journalistic integrity if the paper is largely used to bloody up an individual who the owner resents for personal and professional reasons
While I agree with part of 11:25's premise to the extent that the change in ownership resulted in a change in editorial priorities and journalistic priorities, I disagree that if the owners wanted to exert pressure on the columnist that the lack the tools to do so. A few of the obvious tools at their disposal, short of outright termination, is the frequency of columns, the column inches allowed, the placement of the article, etc. The ownership also has the power of the purse-strings and when contracts expire and alter the compensation plan of less favored columnists.
An additional indication of a general change in philosophy at the paper rather than simply the vendetta theory is the concurrent reduction in "puff piece" stories to buildup the favored judges that similarly used to occur.
My opinion, for what it's worth, is they ended the surveys for the same reasons that the county bar before them ended them…
Guest
Anonymous
November 3, 2017 4:40 pm
An issue regarding OBC Costs which I did not learn about until yesterday but which I was stunned to learn, which is that OBC salaries are now being covered outside of Bar Dues under SCR 120. If you as an attorney are publicly OR PRIVATELY reprimanded, you will automatically be handed a bill by the Office of Bar Counsel for $1,500. $1500 for a private reprimand. Suspension? $2500 PLUS the actual costs of the proceeding. Suspension of six months and a day? $5000 PLUS the actual costs of the proceeding. So when you are thinking about the Office of Bar Counsel digging through your trust account, think about the potential of having to pay Stan Five Grand if he doesn't like your accounting.
I knew about the recovery of staff salaries as a cost of the proceeding, what I don't know is where that actual money goes. Is it used to pay their actual salaries and no use of bar revenue is used, or rather a cost recovery method where the bar budget is reimbursed but the salary is paid to OBC regardless of whether a violation is found to have occurred.
The former situation is obviously a problem as the OBC would have a financial interest in the outcome (don't get paid unless a violation is found) whereas the latter is less problematic as the OBC doesn't have a financial interest in the outcome anymore than the DA has an interest in whether a criminal defendant is convicted (other than pride/ego). If its the latter, it's more akin to a fine imposed as part of the punishment.
Rule 120 used to say that "An attorney subjected to discipline or seeking reinstatement under these rules may be assessed the costs, in full or in part, of the proceeding, including, but not limited to, reporter’s fees, investigation fees, bar counsel and staff’s salaries, witness expenses, service costs, publication costs, and any other fees or costs deemed reasonable by the panel and allocable to the proceeding." What was happening was that attorneys were getting assessed the actual costs of their proceeding.
The State Bar petitioned the Nevada Supreme Court to change the rule and to make it Actual Costs PLUS a flat assessment on top of the actual costs. The justification was that the OBC was not getting monies for its salaries because Panels were awarding only hard costs. So SBN petitioned and said that it was too hard to account for what the actual hours invested would be on a matter so just make it $1500 for any form of reprimand, $2500 for a suspension, $2500 for a reinstatement (any suspension over 6 months) and $3000 for a disbarment. What it has done is create an incentive for Bar Counsel to ratchet up discipline to raise more revenue.
It is a good lesson in what the SBN ramrods through in the form of ADKTs that no one ever comments on.
For those folks who are looking at SCR 120 in the State's Law library, they haven't updated it to reflect the Court's order in ADKT 516. The current language removes "bar counsel and staff's salaries" from the list of reimbursable items, removes the discretion to assess the costs (changed "may be assessed" to "shall be assessed") and requires the assessment of "administrative costs", outlined by 12:47 above. Also makes the final judgment of costs enforceable like a civil judgment.
WTF?????? There are no Private Reprimands. THIS. THIS would be the clearest sign that the OBC no longer is about correcting behavior and assisting attorneys in complying but is about publicly shaming everyone. Its truly not about compliance but shaming. I need to go check this out but if true, enough is enough.
Trustee Child's autistic screeching sounds like someone who's heard of legal concepts on TV but doesn't actually understand them. “All it was was somebody sent a memo out, and to me I think that creates a hostile work environment.”
Wow. "Autistic screeching" – really? Totally inappropriate in any context to say something like that.
Nothing in that statement which in any manner implicates autism. What a rotten comment.
Probably was posted by Skorkowsky. He has been on a rampage against Child who frequently, and maybe inartfully, criticizes him. I wish some lawyer would reach out to Child, if only for the attorneys that could be imposed against Skorkowsky
Who cares? CCDC, I mean CCSD sucks.
But if we have to pay the costs of audits (see discussion below), we won't be able to afford to sent our kids to private schools. *sigh*
I kind of have to change my opinion of Child and his so-called "noble cause."
When this all started he simply struck me as one of these people we see form time-to-time, that being someone seemingly a little odd and slightly paranoid who is a self-styled holy crusader to protect the public from callous exploitation form the powers that be(in this case the holy crusader is supposedly sounding the clarion call as to how the School District is foolishly and incompetently spending out tax dollars).
But now Child, or at least his message, has some significant degree of arguable merit and traction. But my change of view point is not really caused by anything Child has done, as his condemnations of the district are conclusory and sweeping, offer no specifics, and are still largely controlled by conspiracy theories. My change of opinion is caused by the very heavy handed behavior of the School District.
Child had budget concerns, concerns over some audit or accounting, or whatever. Apparently, rather than treating him with some modicum of respect as a Trustee, and having the Super meet with him to discuss the budget and financial matters, it seems they instead chose to avoid him like he was carrying the bubonic plague(which, admittedly, is somewhat understandable based on the way he tends to present himself).
But instead of trying to skillfully placate him by conceding his importance(or acting at least like they think he's important) and discussing the budget with him and showing respect for his input and suggestions(which is the approach earlier Supers would have taken), this Super, who in my mind lacks even basic political acumen, instead chose to greatly inflame the situation to prove he was the boss.
With the understanding that administrative safe guards often differ from what is afforded in legal proceedings, the whole situation reeks to Hell. They 86 him off school premises. No hearing is afforded. No right to hear, or question , the witnesses against him are afforded. No specifics of any kind are offered. Apparently, the identity of the complaining people were not even revealed. All we know is that a teacher(s) supposedly relayed that he was "weird" and/or "creepy." Is that sufficient to exclude an elected Trustee from educational premises? Not in my book.
At any rate, prior Supers like Kenny Guinn or Brian Cramm, and perhaps even Carlos Garcia, would have had the sense to privately neutralize Child's message by meeting with him, and at least act like they cared about his input and concern.
But this Super did just what I expected–86 the Trustee and boldly pronounce that the Super's very broad powers, to act in the interests of the District, justifies such wide discretion.
So, although Child does not strike me as the right messenger, could the message be somewhat valid?
We are rated like 49th out of 50. The Democrats tend to complain the School District needs a lot more tax revenue to substantively improve, while Republicans tend to argue that we are already paying the District more than enough but that our rankings don't improve due to mismanagement, incompetence, and possibly something more nefarious.
I don't really know which side is more valid, but I do know that if a Trustee starts asking budgetary questions, and wants accountings or audits to be revealed, and the way he is handled is to be neutralized and squashed like a bug because some unknown person said he seems weird, that raises a very valid question as to what are all the budgetary matters the District is attempting to conceal from the tax payer.
When a system collects billions of dollars each session from the tax payers(and it increases each session), and we are still ranked 49th out of 50 states in terms of quality and performance,
and when someone starts asking questions they are treated like a pariah, I become really concerned. Seems like the last thing the District wants is transparency.
Yes. Child seems to me to have a real need to feel important. That could have been satisfied by meeting with him an hour or so and showing respect for his budgetary questions. And then when the budget discussion was over, and Child felt his opinions were appreciated and considered, then very adroitly the Superintendent should have raised the issue that these multiple unannounced school visits appear to be misinterpreted by some, and it might be best to reduce them, or inform the Superintendent's office beforehand of an intended visit to a school, or whatever.
But since it wasn't handled like that, or anything vaguely similar to that, but in fact was handled in a very strong-arm manner causing public disgrace, Child now had to gain, or re-gain, his sense of importance by hitting back very aggressively and in a very public manner.
Now it may be true that they did actually meet with him to answer his budget concerns, but I agree with the above post that it seems unlikely that they did so. Instead, the District appeared to go straight to a nuclear option.
And yes, since we are virtually dead last, no matter how many billions we pump into the black hole, I am gravely concerned about any Superintendent who is trying to shut someone up whose message is the school budget and the propriety of expenditures.
If he had budget concerns, the place to address them would be in a meeting of the Trustees with the Super. Not in a fucking classroom, asking kids to play some kind of sick Heads-Up-7-Up about suicide. I don't see any reason a Trustee needs to have any contact with either students, teachers, or administrators at a particular school. Just like a member of the board of directors really doesn't have any kind of oversight on individual employees. They hired a superintendent. Address these issues with him. Stay out of the schools, particularly when they are in session, unless you're there as a substitute teacher.
Is that what he was doing? Perhaps I missed some articles. All I can locate is that he was excluded from school premises because some teacher found him weird or creepy.
What you describe is totally inappropriate and would, IMO, justify to 86 him. Do you know any other specifics as to how he was conducting himself during the unannounced, unauthorized visits?
https://www.scribd.com/document/334950514/Memo-on-CCSD-Trustee-Kevin-Child
Wow! Thank You. That does shed a lot of light on matters.
3:39 and 3:52, do you even read the articles on what the guy did before you write insanely long posts? Completely agree with 4:04.
No. Hadn't read that one longer memo, referenced in 4:28,before I posted. But, in partial mitigation, I only wrote one of the insanely long posts.
Still believe there are some problems with the School District's approach.
There is absolutely problems with the CCSD approach. Yes I have read the memos; I have also heard refutations that the allegations in the Memo are not 100% accurate. You want to control his access to the classroom, work with him. What Skorkowsky did is create a horrible situation.
Something that was pointed out yesterday, that I think needs to be brought out even more with regard to these "random audits" is the cost associated with doing them. We all know that this is not going to be a cheap endeavor. It will be very expensive. Which means either 1) our already high bar dues will be going up, or 2) the attorney being audited will have to pay for it. I'm a solo attorney and I sure as hell don't want to pay for a random audit when there's been no indication that I've had any trust accounting issues or ethical problems in the past. The bar doesn't seem to want the cost to be any part of the consideration in this survey they've sent out. So I encourage people to write about it in the comment section at the end of the survey.
At the CCBA Luncheon, Hunterton indicated that the audited attorney will pay the costs of the audit (similar to how involuntary audits are presently handled by the OBC).
That would analogize to making someone who is prosecuted for a crime, in addition to paying their own attorney, paying the salary of the prosecutor and staff.
Actually,9;31, it's much worse than that, because in your example the State is at least convinced the Defendant committed the crime and they are confidant of his conviction, and the law of averages is that he will be convicted.
But in the situation of the audit, even if the audit determines everything is proper, you still have to pay.
So perhaps a more proper analogy is as follows: On New Year's police arrange a random DUI check point, wherein they stop every tenth car. Let's say at this particular check point there are no problems and that in each of the stopped cars the driver is sober and was not drinking. So, at that check point, for the time it was occurring, no arrests were made. But let's say the police department then decides to have each of those randomly stopped tenth drivers pay for all the expenses to conduct the check point, including the proportionate salaries of the officers for the time in question.
Sound absurd? Of course it is, but that is exactly what is happening if all audited attorneys pay for the audit.
That said if this bad idea of random audits is actually adopted, I understand an attorney being required to pay for the audit if irregularities are found with the trust account.
See the comment below 9:31 which addresses your comment. That is EXACTLY how Discipline now works in Nevada.
Would some new people please run for OBC and NSC, these clowns need to get voted out.
Meant to say BOGS
I would run, but I would get a coercive opponent at the NSC telling me I better not run, because the BOGS ripoff, politically targeted audit is headed in my direction.
Amazing how if you stick your head up in the slightest, Stan's laser sight would be pointed at you.
There was discussion yesterday about peremptory challenges and whether judges generally know when these have been filed against them, whether they generally care, whether they believe it affects them in the RJ Judging The Judges Survey, etc.
I doubt that judges get on the computer once per month to see who filed peremptory challenges over the last month. Instead, they tend to find out about it as each one occurs because the department is promptly informed by the Clerk's Office,and the JEA or Law Clerk will promptly bring it to the judge's attention–particularly if it vacates an upcoming hearing set before the judge.
As to the question as to whether judges resent such challenges, that is a good question but is impossible to answer as it varies widely. Some judges don't care, particularly if they don't receive that many, while other judges may resent it and take it personally. Each practitioner, based on what they know about a particular judge, can make that judgment or determination as well as any other attorney. I doubt there are attorneys with inside, specialized knowledge as to which judges tend to ignore such challenges, and which judges tent to resent them.
As to the RJ Judging The Judges Survey, which was referenced as to this topic, and is periodically referenced as to other topics, please be informed that there no longer is an RJ Judging The Judges Survey. How do I know this? Simply because it has ceased to exist.
It was conducted at the end of every other year. The last survey was at the end of '13. Therefore, there was one due at the end of '15, but it never occurred. And now another two years have passed, and we are at the end of '17, and there will obviously be no survey results as no survey questions were ever sent out to attorneys.
So, we have now gone two cycles where there should have been the biannual surveys, but they did not occur. Why did they not occur? I don't know, but I have two guesses which I very strongly believe are among the actual valid explanations.
1. When new ownership took over the RJ, they naturally had to cut corners and cut fat out of the budget and stream-line matters, particularly since fewer and fewer people are purchasing print newspapers.
2.Just about the last thing in the world, IMO, that current RJ ownership is interested in is to spend a lot of money conducting and printing a survey wherein Chief Judge Gonzalez is rated highly.
#2.
Bingo. I am surprised they aren't conducting it and then just printing the results which they want to print and skewing it in Sheldon's favor.
More likely reason for the bring that farce to an end is that there was absolutely no valid scientific basis to the survey. It had an extremely small pool of eligible participants, and an even smaller participation rate among the eligible participants. It lacked any validation method to insure that the responses were from participants who actually appeared before the subject judge, as well as, being based on completely subjective criteria.
It was the functional equivalent of asking a bunch of H.S. students to rate their teachers. Such a rating is not likely to identify the best and worst teachers, but rather the most and least popular teachers. Such participants would be expected to rate a teacher that assigned no homework and had minimal open book multiple choice/true-false exams much higher than a teacher that was demanding in expectations, assigned extensive homework, had frequent essay exams and required the completion of a research paper.
If the goal is a true and accurate assessment of a judge's abilities and demeanor, the test should be to randomly select a specified number of cases that the judge presided over during the survey period and hire a panel of retired judges to review the pleadings, video of hearings and the decision to evaluate the judge. The panel should also to the extent possible have anonymous in court observations of the judge in real time action so anything which occurs off the record can be noted and evaluated.
I think it is fair to say that sort of investment and evaluation will never occur…
After the paper was purchased, there were multiple prominent articles printed, in rapid succession, concerning the litigation,
wherein Judge Gonzalez was placed in a most unflattering light, IMO, including selection of the worst photographs of her that could possibly be selected. And it became clear, at least in my view, that the prominent placement of the articles was hardly proportionate to the newsworthy significance. It seemed to me that every time some arcane motion was ruled on, concerning relatively obscure procedural and legal points that the average reader could not possibly understand, it appeared that such articles would sometimes receive more prominent placement than some major event of true newsworthiness.
Much of this seems to have died down, and not merely because there is not always major developments in the case to report, but because of the nature of journalism.
IMO they realized that they cannot justify continued hard news stories, and prominent placement of those articles, for every development in a case that most readers have little or no interest in, and probably don't even understand.
And as to the editorial section, I am guessing they probably realized that if they kept lambasting an individual judge, on an individual case involving the owner of the paper, but it being a case of no real interest to most readers, that readers would find a lot of this to lack integrity, and to be vendetta driven and for purely personal reasons. People want editorials that address issues of import and significance to many readers–not editorials concerning direct disputes between the paper owner and the person in question.
I am guessing that ownership realized how this all looks, so, to their credit, it has all died down quite a bit.
And as to the columnists, ownership may have been forced to accept that the columnists will write about issues they want, and will have political views, and other views, different from the paper ownership and different from the editorial board. In other words, it is difficult to force columnists, whose professional reputations and credibility in the community mean everything to them, to write unflattering columns about Judge Gonzalez simply because someone else wants them to(even if it's their employer). And it is not practical, and looks real bad in the industry, if you fire each and every columnist who won't write negative columns about the judge's handling of the case, so after a while it appears that new ownership realized the independence of the columnists, and ,to a significant degree, accepted it.
So, I'm not taking up for current ownership, and emphasized how I was not impressed with how it all started out. But, unless I've missed some scathing recent articles and editorials that I should have noticed, it appears they realize that they cannot retain journalistic integrity if the paper is largely used to bloody up an individual who the owner resents for personal and professional reasons
While I agree with part of 11:25's premise to the extent that the change in ownership resulted in a change in editorial priorities and journalistic priorities, I disagree that if the owners wanted to exert pressure on the columnist that the lack the tools to do so. A few of the obvious tools at their disposal, short of outright termination, is the frequency of columns, the column inches allowed, the placement of the article, etc. The ownership also has the power of the purse-strings and when contracts expire and alter the compensation plan of less favored columnists.
An additional indication of a general change in philosophy at the paper rather than simply the vendetta theory is the concurrent reduction in "puff piece" stories to buildup the favored judges that similarly used to occur.
My opinion, for what it's worth, is they ended the surveys for the same reasons that the county bar before them ended them…
An issue regarding OBC Costs which I did not learn about until yesterday but which I was stunned to learn, which is that OBC salaries are now being covered outside of Bar Dues under SCR 120. If you as an attorney are publicly OR PRIVATELY reprimanded, you will automatically be handed a bill by the Office of Bar Counsel for $1,500. $1500 for a private reprimand. Suspension? $2500 PLUS the actual costs of the proceeding. Suspension of six months and a day? $5000 PLUS the actual costs of the proceeding. So when you are thinking about the Office of Bar Counsel digging through your trust account, think about the potential of having to pay Stan Five Grand if he doesn't like your accounting.
I knew about the recovery of staff salaries as a cost of the proceeding, what I don't know is where that actual money goes. Is it used to pay their actual salaries and no use of bar revenue is used, or rather a cost recovery method where the bar budget is reimbursed but the salary is paid to OBC regardless of whether a violation is found to have occurred.
The former situation is obviously a problem as the OBC would have a financial interest in the outcome (don't get paid unless a violation is found) whereas the latter is less problematic as the OBC doesn't have a financial interest in the outcome anymore than the DA has an interest in whether a criminal defendant is convicted (other than pride/ego). If its the latter, it's more akin to a fine imposed as part of the punishment.
Rule 120 used to say that "An attorney subjected to discipline or seeking reinstatement under these rules may be assessed the costs, in full or in part, of the proceeding, including, but not limited to, reporter’s fees, investigation fees, bar counsel and staff’s salaries, witness expenses, service costs, publication costs, and any other fees or costs deemed reasonable by the panel and allocable to the proceeding." What was happening was that attorneys were getting assessed the actual costs of their proceeding.
The State Bar petitioned the Nevada Supreme Court to change the rule and to make it Actual Costs PLUS a flat assessment on top of the actual costs. The justification was that the OBC was not getting monies for its salaries because Panels were awarding only hard costs. So SBN petitioned and said that it was too hard to account for what the actual hours invested would be on a matter so just make it $1500 for any form of reprimand, $2500 for a suspension, $2500 for a reinstatement (any suspension over 6 months) and $3000 for a disbarment. What it has done is create an incentive for Bar Counsel to ratchet up discipline to raise more revenue.
It is a good lesson in what the SBN ramrods through in the form of ADKTs that no one ever comments on.
For those folks who are looking at SCR 120 in the State's Law library, they haven't updated it to reflect the Court's order in ADKT 516. The current language removes "bar counsel and staff's salaries" from the list of reimbursable items, removes the discretion to assess the costs (changed "may be assessed" to "shall be assessed") and requires the assessment of "administrative costs", outlined by 12:47 above. Also makes the final judgment of costs enforceable like a civil judgment.
Folks, there are no more private reprimands. OBC wants to guarantee that any time you stub your toe that the world at large is alerted.
WTF?????? There are no Private Reprimands. THIS. THIS would be the clearest sign that the OBC no longer is about correcting behavior and assisting attorneys in complying but is about publicly shaming everyone. Its truly not about compliance but shaming. I need to go check this out but if true, enough is enough.
Welcome to the OBC, your new bar counsel is Bonnie. This is so bad, it is apocalyptic.
It is a horror show.
The more I read about OBC and these audits the more horrible it sounds. I need to get licensed in another state.
Wolfman Jack thinks the Nevada Supreme Court and the OBC suck…..
Fittingly appropriate: Instead of "Drain the Swamp", make it "Drain the BOG".