- Quickdraw McLaw
- 32 Comments
- 168 Views
It’s a holiday, but for those of you who need something to think about today, how about this. ADKT 0577. Filed on Thursday and set for hearing on March 3, 2021, this petition filed by Justices Hardesty, Parraguirre, and Stiglich would amend SCR 208 and 211 regarding the Nevada Board of Continuing Legal Education and its administration.
More specifically, it appears that the Court is proposing that the CLE board be subject to oversight by the Supreme Court–adding language so that SCR 208 begins, “Subject to oversight by the court, the board shall administer these rules.” It also amends subpart (5) to say, “Subject to prior court approval, to adopt, publish, and enforce regulations pertinent to these powers and duties.” Then it completely strikes subpart (9) which states, “To maintain its own offices and employ an executive director and other such persons as the board deems necessary for the proper administration of these rules.” Finally, it adds SCR 211 (which was previously reserved) to say: Administration of board. The board of governors, after consultation with the board, shall provide offices and employ staff as the board of governors deems necessary for the proper administration of these rules and regulations adopted by the board. The costs of administration shall be paid from the fees established and collected by the board under these rules.
Public comments may be submitted electronically or in hard-copy format to: Elizabeth A. Brown, Clerk of the Supreme Court, 201 South Carson St., Carson City, NV 89701 or nvsclerk@nvcourts.nv.gov by 5:00 p.m., February 23, 2021. Persons interested in participating in the Zoom hearing must also notify the clerk by that time.
What do you think? Smart move? Dumb move? Power grab?
Be against this. Do not give the BOGs, I mean the Nevada Supreme Court more power. Thank you, Hardesty, Parraguirre and Stiglich that you are one in the same.
I am opposed to this as well. The less power BOGs and Paola Armeni have over us the better. More opportunities for the Bar to go after lawyers. Power grab, hell no.
Seems like a power grab to me, but I would like to hear them out on this. I always thought it was a little weird that the CLE board was its own thing. I don't like the Bar having more power, but I like efficiency.
I do not trust BOGs, especially Andrew Craner. He does what Nevada Supreme Court wants him to do. No, same people who plan annual meeting g we cannot attend. I am writing my opposition email now.
I wonder to what extent this is a response to North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC, 574 U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 1101 (2015).
"Held: Because a controlling number of the Board’s decisionmakers are
active market participants in the occupation the Board regulates, the
Board can invoke state-action antitrust immunity only if it was subject to active supervision by the State, and here that requirement is
not met."
I am not 11:22 AM. I personally don't care about this. I do my CLE's. I report them. I don't see how this would change any of that.
I will go along with whatever the State Bar and Nevada Supreme Court wants me to do. I only pay $450 in bar dues.
Maybe the goal is to increase the politicization of our CLE. WE now have to do ANNUAL Substance Abuse, up from one hour every three years. I would not be surprised to have various Anti-Racism, Anti-White, Pro-Diversity, Anti-Gender-Bias and other bullshit added to the requirements.
I do not know which of the Board of Gov, the Supreme Court or the MCLE Board is most likely to force us into re-education camps.
I think I have a First Amendment right to espouse KKK philosophy. I don't have a right to join the KKK because they would not admit me, and their Freedom of Association rights means that I can't force them to accept me.
Sending my email comment now. Stop the CLE board steal, Elissa Cadish. You are putting some good folks at the CLE board out of work.
2:41 is on to something. I might have to draw the line in the sand on indoctrination.
The CLE Board does a good job keeping track of CLE and making sure that fly by night providers are up to snuff. Don't see how this is going to help the members. Have you ever tried contacting the State Bar on anything. They are not responsive. Attorney Marshall Willick had been following this stuff. Wonder what he thinks.
This is the equivalent of the State Bar regulating itself. I vote no.
Good grief, this state is turning into a third world shithole on every level, including the state bar. Disgusting. Might as well merge DETR and the bar. Let Babs and Jimmy run it all into the shitter in one fell swoop.
Babsy Buckley is the best. Always there in a pinch. DETR not paying out claims for going on close to a year now. Guardianship is all cleaned up. What a legacy! Yes, to hell with it. Give Jim Hardesty and Kris Pickering whatever control they want over the CLE board. More government jobs for their them to place their cronies in on our overinflated bar dues dimes.
Against. The SC should stick to ruling on cases. The CLE folks are responsive and doing a good job. This just adds another layer of bureaucrats and will inevitably cost bar members more money in fees.
My guess is, with almost all of these rules the SC wants to change, the hearing is a formality. SC has already decided. Your comments and participation in the hearing are all for show.
all the more reason to send comment.
Something rotten in Denmark with the short turnaround time. Little opportunity to submit comments. Remember the mandatory trust audits and malpractice insurance proposals? Time to put a stop to this too. The State Bar and the Board of Governors do not have the best interests of the members.
Yup, all rotten. No more Armeni. I used to work with her. If is horrible what you are allowing to happen, Paola. You have been a BOG for too long. Put down the free portasubs sandwich I paid for.
Thanks for the laugh.
I agree with the comment that this hearing is nothing but a formality. They've already decided. The State Bar is a joke. The members of the BOG are all ass-kissers who love spending time with judges and justices.
Has anyone offered an explanation as to why this change is necessary? I've never had any complaints about the MCLE Board. Their records and mine are always in sync, except when I incorrectly claimed credit for stale courses — audio CDs of classes recorded more than 2 or 3 years before. And when I had too many credits to roll forward, and I had to reduce the carry-forward on my own records.
The personnel at the MCLE Board have always been pleasant and helpful, in my rare phone calls.
So why "fix" what isn't broken?
Looks like the Supremes have it out for the CLE Board that they created. Giving it to the State Bar is not the answer. CLE Board was always very helpful when I called them once a year to make sure all of my CLE was reported and I was in compliance. I will miss that service if they actually do this. The State Bar will have so much more power. They control the profession (admissions), regulate attorney conduct (discipline), provide CLE and now will regulate all of their competitors. Something wrong with this picture.
CLEs are going to outrageously expensive. Keep voting fro the same BOGs and the same Nevada Supreme Court wonks. Totally against this, and I am a campaign contributor. Vote for this NSC, I pull my support.
Sorry, typos.
So instead of Stiglich and Cadish issuing opinions in last two months, they were lobbying for pay raises and a hostile takeover of the CLE board. Why did I vote for these two women?
SCt probably wants the revenue associated with the outlandish and unreasonable fines imposed for late compliance.
3:31 PM-The Supreme Court wants the revenue? Read the Order. The function and revenue are being transferred to the State Bar. The CLE Board agency will now become part of the State Bar.
The Nevada Supreme Court wants the revenue? Read the order? My partners and I did. The Nevada Supreme is the Bar. Bar does exactly what Jim and the Michelin man want it to do. BoGs=Jim, Mike, Kris, Riccky Bobby, and Elissa. No raises are coming. Put 2+CLE board= AkDT
Booby, pardon.
Soon, the BOG will decree mandatory mail-in ballots with the return ballots being carefully separated from the identification sleeves upon receipt, and counts taking place at night, with no witnesses. All hail the BOG!
I'll go with the efficiency argument. We have a plethora of independent boards in Nevada, each with it's own administrative apparatus. Makes no sense. Whether it's Administrative Office of the Courts or the Department of Business and Industry, in either case the administrative support for these boards can be consolidated. That's not to say that the co-opt argument isn't valid as well. In any event, these boards should stick to rendering expert advice in their respective disciplines.