The day after leaving office as governor, Brian Sandoval announced he is taking a job as President of Global Gaming Development with MGM. Not bad for a former federal judge. [TNI]
Governor Sisolak’s first official act was an executive order creating a sexual harassment task force headed up by new AG Aaron Ford. [TNI]
Alice Denton, lawyer for the special administrator dealing with the estate of Stephen Paddock, talks about the problem of whether to sell or destroy his weapons. [Las Vegas Sun]
The hunt is on for Crystal Whipple–the woman who ran over and killed a nail salon worker. Whipple has already been charged with murder, now they just need to find her. [LasVegasNow]
Any news on James Dean Leavitt? It seems from what I've gathered through facebook and twitter he likely did attempt suicide but there are still conflicting reports as to whether he is going to make it. I am not sure I personally can bare another attorney lost to suicide in our community. The practice has changed so drastically in the last 15 years. Something needs to change. Breaks my heart.
I have my opinions about what should change, but (1) I would like to read others; and (2) I wasn't practicing 15 years ago, so I don't have a frame of reference for the change you are talking about. Other than a Ghandi-esque "be the change you want to see in the world" (ie, don't be an asshole), what changes do you suggest?
Some ideas which only relate to my experience in firms (so others need to make other suggestions): (1) leadership in firms need to mandate (and allow)that their team set boundaries with clients (or mentor this school of thought with young [and even old] lawyers). Client expectations are completely out of control and rather than pushing back, leadership often require their team in many firms to meet those expectations with being on call 24 hours a day, making compromises with integrity based decisions, such as interactions with opposing counsel and statements in pleadings, and allowing themselves to be reduced to mouth pieces; (2) for billing firms, value bill certain activities and eliminate the .1 and .2 method of billing. billing can cause overwhelming stress and anxiety; (3) for big law – such as Greenberg Traurig as example, leadership need to crack down on fraudulent billing and excessive billing because those that do have 2000 or 2500 hours a year are rewarded while others are made to feel inadequate; (4) leadership need to fire clients that are abusive to staff and attorneys and/or set unreasonable expectations – this is also just good practice because those clients will be the ones to sue you for malpractice; (5) we need a local/confidential support group where lawyers can voice their individual concerns without fear of retribution or retaliation; (6) attorneys in firms should interact as friends, not competition and the leadership need to set that tone; (7) we need to be less politically correct and attempt to have a sense of humor about the profession and life, and create an environment where that is acceptable; (8) leadership need to mandate that staff are treated with respect and as equals, this creates respect at all levels; (9) instill an environment where individual lawyers know they are valued. valued attorneys are happier, they are more loyal and are more confident in their abilities, creating better results for clients. I'll think of more later….I have lots (and fortunately I work in a firm where many of these things are in place – I'm lucky).
We have a profession that pushes lawyers off of the edge. We stigmatize lawyers that have problems. We stigmatize lawyers with treatable problems. We capitalize upon the weakness and downfall of each other. We have State Bar and Supreme Court who have set a tone in this state for the destruction of lawyers. We not only do not defend our profession but actually vilify ourselves. When salacious rumors start about members of this profession, no one (including those of us who claim to be friends) stand up and defend our fellow lawyers.
Anyone billing more than 2,000 + hours a year is destined for issues. Anyone asking someone to bill 2,000 + hours a year is an asshole and Karma will catch you.
Guest
Anonymous
January 8, 2019 5:53 pm
So is UNLV going to gripe since they were advertising that he would come over to the law school?
Guest
Anonymous
January 8, 2019 5:54 pm
So is UNLV going to gripe since they were advertising that he would come over to the law school?
Guest
Anonymous
January 8, 2019 6:18 pm
Destroy the guns, they were weapons for mass destruction. Sorry for the familiar language. They are creepy. Alice will do the right thing. She is one of the few attorneys I like.
I think you sell the guns. I understand and agree with 10:18's sentiment, but there are 58 families with bills and college funds and retirement plans that are all hurting now. Those families deserve every penny they can get, and should not have to forego real money to make a symbolic gesture.
Guest
Anonymous
January 8, 2019 7:21 pm
The FBI is not going to release the guns used in the crime. Releasing $40k worth of weapons when his estate is worth far more is a joke. The chance of ensuing copy cats, fetish people, and just sickos is not worth $40k.
She can definitely sell the weapons not used that were located at his home. Case closed.
Guest
Anonymous
January 8, 2019 7:41 pm
I am a probate lawyer. I predict this is how the guns are handled: Alice will petition the court to destroy them. All victims and families will be noticed. None will object. Petition granted unopposed. Guns destroyed. End of discussion.
Guest
Anonymous
January 8, 2019 8:17 pm
Look, folks, the news article wasn't about keeping the guns or destroying the guns. The article was about sending up a flag to find a white knight who is willing to set up a charity and fund it with $60k for the purpose of purchasing firearms to destroy them. Special Administrator sells guns to charity, and secures that $60k for the victims. Guns are destroyed, and white knight gets $200k worth of PR.
Guest
Anonymous
January 8, 2019 8:20 pm
11:21 and 11:41 nailed it. Too much sick mojo going on, and not worth it just for $40,000.
Now if there was ever, in some case, some massive collection/arsenal actually
worth like half a million, or a full million, we would actually need to reflect on this as that is an amount of money whereby even if its disbursed among many, can still make a difference to some extent(even if its only a few thousand per victim).
Guest
Anonymous
January 8, 2019 9:17 pm
DON'T destroy the weapons! Sell them to collectors. Some of them should be set aside for sale at steep discount to underprivileged communities in the North and East of Las Vegas. Remember: the guns did nothing wrong.
Guest
Anonymous
January 8, 2019 9:29 pm
I'm continually surprised by lawyers who file motions or oppositions that are composed entirely (or almost entirely) of invective, and have little or no actual legal argument or authority.
I both love and hate these lawyers. I love them because they are so easily defeated. I hate them because they make litigation unnecessarily nasty, and cost my client money to respond to their bullshit.
It will never happen, but I would love to start seeing judges summarily reject these filings as failing to comport with the rules requiring points and authorities. Or better yet, sanctioning attorneys (not clients). When it costs money to be an asshole, lawyers might finally stop being assholes.
When you have an honest, smart lawyer on the other side who argues the law, litigation is actually fun.
This is 85% of family law motions. If judges rejected them, family law cases would grind to a halt. In my opinion, the worst offenders seem to be those that have tried to be appointed to be a judge multiple times, or have run and lost elections for judge multiple times. I'm not sure how they think those are good writing samples to submit for appointment.
Agree 100%. I'm getting sick of responding to these motions and pleadings filed by bad lawyers. Even though the response is often easy and a slam dunk, it is draining to have to respond in painstaking detail to something everyone knows is BS.
Yeah I 100% agree with 3:02. When I get garbage 15-page motions with four pages of actual argument tied in with 11 pages of stream of consciousness rambling, I have to spend a few hours figuring out what the actual argument is before I can even start to respond. Then at the end of the litigation, the lawyer will inevitably oppose my fee motion based on the "excessive" time I spent responding to his or her garbage motions.
To 2:21: You raise the question of why the lawyers who tend to bitterly personalize everything are often the same lawyers who repeatedly(and unsuccessfully)attempt to get elected or appointed to the bench.
It may very well be that some of those who are constantly striving for the bench are embittered and burnt out on practice, which may explain in part the angry approach they take.
And this embittered attitude, combined with an unchecked ego and sense of entitlement, would turn off any committee that is interviewing such applicant, and that is why such unpleasant, arrogant and bitter attorneys are never advanced to the next step for consideration.
Guest
Anonymous
January 8, 2019 10:09 pm
Unrelated question, who is Nevada Supreme Court chief judge now?
The nail salon owner aggressively confronted the customer, then jumped in front of the hood of a moving vehicle. Assumption of risk and stupid idea. How is that murder?
Stupid idea? Perhaps. People with stupid ideas are murdered everyday. If you want to say that it was an unintentional homicide where Whipple behaved so recklessly that death was a foreseeable result, that is second degree murder.
Guest
Anonymous
January 9, 2019 2:59 am
I had a discussion with a veteran attorney who has employed scores of attorneys over the years. He indicates the best skill for an attorney to have is not the ability to argue motions or try cases, nor is it the ability to brief and write, nor is it the ability to research, nor is it the ability to attract clients, nor is it the ability to connect with people nor is it the ability to negotiate, nor is it the ability to manage the business aspects of the practice, nor is it confidence etc.
He acknowledges that all those skills, among others people could name, are very important. But he says that one skill, which is seldom mentioned, is the ability to initially review a case and realize the value of a case, including the likelihood of success costs and obstacles to be encountered. In other words, to gaze into the crystal ball and see how the case will progress over the next year or two, what will be involved, and the ultimate likely range of settlement or verdict.
He thinks many otherwise skilled attorneys often lack this ability, and part of the problem is they let their ego and too much confidence get in the way.
He believes very few attorneys can, at the initial phases, objectively deconstruct a case and determine the obstacles to liability being established, and if it is established what the ultimate settlement or jury value of a case is likely to be.
He also points out that too many attorneys get greedy and want to hold onto a good case wherein they are clearly over their head and lack the full skill in the area, and have no concept of the costs they will need to advance, and in any event no real ability to advance such costs. He has counselled many of these people over the years to engage skilled co-counsel, but they almost all invariably reject such advise because they want to keep all the attorney fess for themselves. He says they invariably later on tell him that they should have taken his advise. This is yet another variation of what he says about lawyers not knowing the value of a case including an inability to forecast the challenges and obstacles.
Anyone have anything to add based on their experiences/
6:59–I agree with most of that, and years ago a very experienced, successful personal injury attorney, during a seminar presentation, observed the following, and I have always remembered it. He said:
1.Unless it is quite unavoidable, never take a case to trial, as a Plaintiff's P.I. attorney, unless liability is clear and the case is worth at least $100,000(we can probably adjust and update that amount to more like $200,000. as his presentation was circa 1990).
2.When deciding to take the case to trial, when you decide what the likely jury verdict is, divide that in half. If that adjusted figure now makes the case one that can be settled based on Defendant's last Offer Of Judgment(if any) then still try to settle the case if it is not too late.
3. Whatever you believe the costs will be that you need to advance to get the case all the way to trial, triple that initial prediction and that new figure will ultimately be a lot more accurate.
Although the advice may have a negative, and even defeatist, tone to it, he is/was very successful. So, it my well be, as 6;59 suggests, that the grand-standing braggarts are not nearly as successful as they would have us believe, but that the quiet, methodic lawyer, with their ego in check, often comes out a on top. Slow and steady wins the race(or, at least often it does).
Could not agree more. The Mandalay Bay Judgment last month was a testament to this. Attorneys value their case based upon the last high water mark and evaluate their self-perceived skills against the attorneys who have hit the jackpot before them. Here is the problem: they had 100 lottery tickets; you often only have 1 or 2 lottery tickets. The result is that you compare your case to their winners and often not against the ones that were settled, were lost or were never heard from.
The best decision I ever made was to hand off a multi-million injury case to a firm with the resources and the knowledge to work it properly. Sure, I could have fumbled my way through it and maybe gotten a decent settlement. But the attorney I gave it to saw the value in the case much more clearly than I did and was able to maximize that to force a great settlement for the client. I feel like I would have done a disservice to the client to try to handle it on my own.
At the end of the day, receiving a 7 figure referral check for doing only the initial leg work on the case was much better for me and everyone else involved.
I don't practice in personal injury, but I am curious how the referral check works – is that part of the agreement with the client and the other firm, for a percentage of any recovery, or how did you make that deal?
Any news on James Dean Leavitt? It seems from what I've gathered through facebook and twitter he likely did attempt suicide but there are still conflicting reports as to whether he is going to make it. I am not sure I personally can bare another attorney lost to suicide in our community. The practice has changed so drastically in the last 15 years. Something needs to change. Breaks my heart.
I have my opinions about what should change, but (1) I would like to read others; and (2) I wasn't practicing 15 years ago, so I don't have a frame of reference for the change you are talking about. Other than a Ghandi-esque "be the change you want to see in the world" (ie, don't be an asshole), what changes do you suggest?
Some ideas which only relate to my experience in firms (so others need to make other suggestions): (1) leadership in firms need to mandate (and allow)that their team set boundaries with clients (or mentor this school of thought with young [and even old] lawyers). Client expectations are completely out of control and rather than pushing back, leadership often require their team in many firms to meet those expectations with being on call 24 hours a day, making compromises with integrity based decisions, such as interactions with opposing counsel and statements in pleadings, and allowing themselves to be reduced to mouth pieces; (2) for billing firms, value bill certain activities and eliminate the .1 and .2 method of billing. billing can cause overwhelming stress and anxiety; (3) for big law – such as Greenberg Traurig as example, leadership need to crack down on fraudulent billing and excessive billing because those that do have 2000 or 2500 hours a year are rewarded while others are made to feel inadequate; (4) leadership need to fire clients that are abusive to staff and attorneys and/or set unreasonable expectations – this is also just good practice because those clients will be the ones to sue you for malpractice; (5) we need a local/confidential support group where lawyers can voice their individual concerns without fear of retribution or retaliation; (6) attorneys in firms should interact as friends, not competition and the leadership need to set that tone; (7) we need to be less politically correct and attempt to have a sense of humor about the profession and life, and create an environment where that is acceptable; (8) leadership need to mandate that staff are treated with respect and as equals, this creates respect at all levels; (9) instill an environment where individual lawyers know they are valued. valued attorneys are happier, they are more loyal and are more confident in their abilities, creating better results for clients. I'll think of more later….I have lots (and fortunately I work in a firm where many of these things are in place – I'm lucky).
We have a profession that pushes lawyers off of the edge. We stigmatize lawyers that have problems. We stigmatize lawyers with treatable problems. We capitalize upon the weakness and downfall of each other. We have State Bar and Supreme Court who have set a tone in this state for the destruction of lawyers. We not only do not defend our profession but actually vilify ourselves. When salacious rumors start about members of this profession, no one (including those of us who claim to be friends) stand up and defend our fellow lawyers.
Thanks 11:24 AM; I think these are a good start
11:24– These are great.
Anyone billing more than 2,000 + hours a year is destined for issues. Anyone asking someone to bill 2,000 + hours a year is an asshole and Karma will catch you.
So is UNLV going to gripe since they were advertising that he would come over to the law school?
So is UNLV going to gripe since they were advertising that he would come over to the law school?
Destroy the guns, they were weapons for mass destruction. Sorry for the familiar language. They are creepy. Alice will do the right thing. She is one of the few attorneys I like.
Alice Denton is an excellent attorney and a wonderful person.
I've had Alice as opposing counsel many times. Will vouch that she is one of the good souls in this God-forsaken profession.
I think you sell the guns. I understand and agree with 10:18's sentiment, but there are 58 families with bills and college funds and retirement plans that are all hurting now. Those families deserve every penny they can get, and should not have to forego real money to make a symbolic gesture.
The FBI is not going to release the guns used in the crime. Releasing $40k worth of weapons when his estate is worth far more is a joke. The chance of ensuing copy cats, fetish people, and just sickos is not worth $40k.
She can definitely sell the weapons not used that were located at his home. Case closed.
I am a probate lawyer. I predict this is how the guns are handled: Alice will petition the court to destroy them. All victims and families will be noticed. None will object. Petition granted unopposed. Guns destroyed. End of discussion.
Look, folks, the news article wasn't about keeping the guns or destroying the guns. The article was about sending up a flag to find a white knight who is willing to set up a charity and fund it with $60k for the purpose of purchasing firearms to destroy them. Special Administrator sells guns to charity, and secures that $60k for the victims. Guns are destroyed, and white knight gets $200k worth of PR.
11:21 and 11:41 nailed it. Too much sick mojo going on, and not worth it just for $40,000.
Now if there was ever, in some case, some massive collection/arsenal actually
worth like half a million, or a full million, we would actually need to reflect on this as that is an amount of money whereby even if its disbursed among many, can still make a difference to some extent(even if its only a few thousand per victim).
DON'T destroy the weapons! Sell them to collectors. Some of them should be set aside for sale at steep discount to underprivileged communities in the North and East of Las Vegas. Remember: the guns did nothing wrong.
I'm continually surprised by lawyers who file motions or oppositions that are composed entirely (or almost entirely) of invective, and have little or no actual legal argument or authority.
I both love and hate these lawyers. I love them because they are so easily defeated. I hate them because they make litigation unnecessarily nasty, and cost my client money to respond to their bullshit.
It will never happen, but I would love to start seeing judges summarily reject these filings as failing to comport with the rules requiring points and authorities. Or better yet, sanctioning attorneys (not clients). When it costs money to be an asshole, lawyers might finally stop being assholes.
When you have an honest, smart lawyer on the other side who argues the law, litigation is actually fun.
This is 85% of family law motions. If judges rejected them, family law cases would grind to a halt. In my opinion, the worst offenders seem to be those that have tried to be appointed to be a judge multiple times, or have run and lost elections for judge multiple times. I'm not sure how they think those are good writing samples to submit for appointment.
Agree 100%. I'm getting sick of responding to these motions and pleadings filed by bad lawyers. Even though the response is often easy and a slam dunk, it is draining to have to respond in painstaking detail to something everyone knows is BS.
It takes way more time to oppose a stupid motion than a well-reasoned one.
Yeah I 100% agree with 3:02. When I get garbage 15-page motions with four pages of actual argument tied in with 11 pages of stream of consciousness rambling, I have to spend a few hours figuring out what the actual argument is before I can even start to respond. Then at the end of the litigation, the lawyer will inevitably oppose my fee motion based on the "excessive" time I spent responding to his or her garbage motions.
You get a full 4 pages of actual argument? You lucky bastard.
To 2:21: You raise the question of why the lawyers who tend to bitterly personalize everything are often the same lawyers who repeatedly(and unsuccessfully)attempt to get elected or appointed to the bench.
It may very well be that some of those who are constantly striving for the bench are embittered and burnt out on practice, which may explain in part the angry approach they take.
And this embittered attitude, combined with an unchecked ego and sense of entitlement, would turn off any committee that is interviewing such applicant, and that is why such unpleasant, arrogant and bitter attorneys are never advanced to the next step for consideration.
Unrelated question, who is Nevada Supreme Court chief judge now?
Gibbons.
The nail salon owner aggressively confronted the customer, then jumped in front of the hood of a moving vehicle. Assumption of risk and stupid idea. How is that murder?
Whoa. You must be fun at parties.
As assumption of the risk is not a valid defense to a criminal charge, I hope you are neither a criminal lawyer nor a civil litigator.
Stupid idea? Perhaps. People with stupid ideas are murdered everyday. If you want to say that it was an unintentional homicide where Whipple behaved so recklessly that death was a foreseeable result, that is second degree murder.
I had a discussion with a veteran attorney who has employed scores of attorneys over the years. He indicates the best skill for an attorney to have is not the ability to argue motions or try cases, nor is it the ability to brief and write, nor is it the ability to research, nor is it the ability to attract clients, nor is it the ability to connect with people nor is it the ability to negotiate, nor is it the ability to manage the business aspects of the practice, nor is it confidence etc.
He acknowledges that all those skills, among others people could name, are very important. But he says that one skill, which is seldom mentioned, is the ability to initially review a case and realize the value of a case, including the likelihood of success costs and obstacles to be encountered. In other words, to gaze into the crystal ball and see how the case will progress over the next year or two, what will be involved, and the ultimate likely range of settlement or verdict.
He thinks many otherwise skilled attorneys often lack this ability, and part of the problem is they let their ego and too much confidence get in the way.
He believes very few attorneys can, at the initial phases, objectively deconstruct a case and determine the obstacles to liability being established, and if it is established what the ultimate settlement or jury value of a case is likely to be.
He also points out that too many attorneys get greedy and want to hold onto a good case wherein they are clearly over their head and lack the full skill in the area, and have no concept of the costs they will need to advance, and in any event no real ability to advance such costs. He has counselled many of these people over the years to engage skilled co-counsel, but they almost all invariably reject such advise because they want to keep all the attorney fess for themselves. He says they invariably later on tell him that they should have taken his advise. This is yet another variation of what he says about lawyers not knowing the value of a case including an inability to forecast the challenges and obstacles.
Anyone have anything to add based on their experiences/
6:59–I agree with most of that, and years ago a very experienced, successful personal injury attorney, during a seminar presentation, observed the following, and I have always remembered it. He said:
1.Unless it is quite unavoidable, never take a case to trial, as a Plaintiff's P.I. attorney, unless liability is clear and the case is worth at least $100,000(we can probably adjust and update that amount to more like $200,000. as his presentation was circa 1990).
2.When deciding to take the case to trial, when you decide what the likely jury verdict is, divide that in half. If that adjusted figure now makes the case one that can be settled based on Defendant's last Offer Of Judgment(if any) then still try to settle the case if it is not too late.
3. Whatever you believe the costs will be that you need to advance to get the case all the way to trial, triple that initial prediction and that new figure will ultimately be a lot more accurate.
Although the advice may have a negative, and even defeatist, tone to it, he is/was very successful. So, it my well be, as 6;59 suggests, that the grand-standing braggarts are not nearly as successful as they would have us believe, but that the quiet, methodic lawyer, with their ego in check, often comes out a on top. Slow and steady wins the race(or, at least often it does).
Could not agree more. The Mandalay Bay Judgment last month was a testament to this. Attorneys value their case based upon the last high water mark and evaluate their self-perceived skills against the attorneys who have hit the jackpot before them. Here is the problem: they had 100 lottery tickets; you often only have 1 or 2 lottery tickets. The result is that you compare your case to their winners and often not against the ones that were settled, were lost or were never heard from.
The best decision I ever made was to hand off a multi-million injury case to a firm with the resources and the knowledge to work it properly. Sure, I could have fumbled my way through it and maybe gotten a decent settlement. But the attorney I gave it to saw the value in the case much more clearly than I did and was able to maximize that to force a great settlement for the client. I feel like I would have done a disservice to the client to try to handle it on my own.
At the end of the day, receiving a 7 figure referral check for doing only the initial leg work on the case was much better for me and everyone else involved.
I don't practice in personal injury, but I am curious how the referral check works – is that part of the agreement with the client and the other firm, for a percentage of any recovery, or how did you make that deal?