- Quickdraw McLaw
- 27 Comments
- 174 Views
- The “first” deadline day in the Legislature. [TNI]
- Northern Nevada attorney Joel W. Locke appointed to Commission on Judicial Selection. [NNBW]
- An allergic reaction left her brain dead. Were medics at fault? [RJ]
- Nevada police and DAs say deadly force measure endangers officers and the public. [Nevada Current]
- O.J. Simpson and the Cosmopolitan settled a defamation case. [Las Vegas Sun]
Can the Goldmans get the money from that asshole?
10:36–I doubt they paid OJ much on this defamation settlement. After all, this is someone who is reviled by millions for having been found civilly liable for butchering two people,(despite the highly controversial criminal acquittal), then served a nine year sentence for armed robbery, not to mention a myriad of other run ins with the law(earlier domestic violence conviction), etc., etc., etc.
This is someone who, after time recessed a decade or two after the criminal acquittal, most African Americans also came to eventually believe in his guilt. And even with the current BLM movement, no one seems to be reviving OJ as an issue or arguing that he was innocent and bamboozled by a racist system, etc.
He is simply perhaps the most infamous figure in American society currently walking free(and that includes reviled pollical figures).
Point being, with that kind of reputation, how defamed could he by some casino evicting him from the premises for being somewhat drunk and disorderly(which is a common occurrence in this town). So, I doubt it was much more than a nuisance settlement. At least I hope that's the case. Suffice it to say if it was not a mere nuisance settlement, it probably was not a particularly impressive amount.
The 33 million civil verdict has apparently grown to approx. 70 million counting interest, etc. A total of under $133,000. has been paid–less than the annual salary of many readers of this blog. And that paltry sum took nearly a quarter century to collect.
That utterly tasteless, hideous "If I Did It" book should never have been withdrawn. There are enough off-beat curious, morose or even morbid, or voyeuristic people out there to have turned it to a reasonable seller, if not a best seller, and then the Goldmans could have really profited.
So, it's a question between dignity/decency or financial restitution.
The Goldmans should have been the ones to decide. Others should not have decided how undignified, tasteless, and even revolting it was and withdrawn the book, unless the Goldmans agreed(which I don't think they did).
If I had to guess, they probably paid him around $10-15k to go away. I'm sure that the garnishment interrogatory has been sent.
I'm sure I am just discovering this and it is well known – but I just watched "The Verdict" with Paul Newman – I loved that movie!!
10:46. fabulous film–one of Newman's best(Jack Warden is great in in too, as is James Mason and Charlotte Rampling). Directed by the great Sidney Lumet.
Most lawyers love this film, unless you are the kind of lawyer who does not like it when films take significant literary license with how certain legal procedures actually unfold.
Legal proceedings in this film, as in most legal dramas, are significantly condensed, modified and simplified, so as to not impede the progression of the drama.
After all, if a legal drama truly adhered to thee length and complexity of how legal proceedings actually occur, we would never have a film with a dramatic courtroom showdown.
Instead, the two hours allotted for the film would end with someone arguing some ultra-boring, hyper-technical discovery dispute while getting cut-off and belittled by a Discovery Commissioner.
On second thought, there might be some drama in that after all.
I can usually handle some literary license in fictional legal proceedings, but sometimes Law & Order etc. will be so divorced from reality that it makes it difficult for me.
OTOH I adore re-watching the legally accurate and very persuasive cross-examinations in My Cousin Vinny. A Few Good Men is also underrated – there's some speachifying (especially at the end) but a lot of the of the points about when to object, how to react to unfavorable testimony, how to frame your cross, etc. rings true.
There was discussion yesterday about Law school rankings, and Boy's ranking improving, etc.
These days, it does not seem very significant where one went to law school. It seems there still may be a few larger, prestigious firms where so-called pedigree is important, in which case perhaps in those instances where someone attended law school can help them obtain their first very first attorney job.
But once the first attorney job is obtained, it's largely irrelevant from thereon out(where someone graduated law school) and performance, accomplishment and work ethic determine future trajectory.
In fact, some tell me that where one attends law school really no longer even helps much obtaining one's very first attorney job, even in those large prestige firm settings, as those large firms no longer look at these so-called pedigree and status issues.
In fact, such firms, just like smaller firms, are apparently becoming increasing wary about hiring some young, entitled hot-shot who expects a huge salary to start, amazing perks and preferential treatment and immediate status.
In fact, it appears almost all firms are shifting the focus a bit–such as perhaps focusing on the so-called non-traditional student–a little older perhaps, had to bust their ass waiting tables to get through school or whatever(rather than relying on their parent's money) as the non-traditional student will keep their nose to the grind stone and give the firm a much bigger bang for their buck.
At least that's the way it seems that things have changed. And if so, young people would be well-advised to choose much more economic, yet supposedly lower-status law schools, if where someone attended law school has severely recessed as a viable hiring factor in more recent years.
Do you all find that where someone attended law school has really diminished as a hiring factor in more recent years or decade?
Or is this all just wishing thinking on my part as my law school never performs very well in these ratings and rankings?
I have hired many new lawyers, some base on pedigree others on life history. if you can put in a solid days work, I dont care where you went to law school.
I graduated in 2012. When I was job hunting here in Vegas, nobody cared where I went to school but I was consistently asked if my ranking was in the top 50% (it was, but no honors). But then, nobody actually checked to verify my ranking.
It was pretty easy to find a job, even in the bottom of the recession and even though I didn't go to UNLV (thanks for being lazy about establishing relationships with small to midsize firms, UNLV career services!)
When I was still doing a lot of legal recruiting, class rank was always considered more important than school rank or even GPA. And they did check; I was constantly having to collect law school transcripts. It was tough on Boyd grads back then because only the best students got ranked, so if you didn't get ranked it was assumed you were at the bottom of the class. I'm not sure if that's still their practice or not.
It depends on your goals, but if you want to work for big name firms, school and rank still matter a ton. One of the things that big name firms sell is the ability to staff 50 super-smart people on your bet the company case/merger/whatever. How does a firm signal that its army is super-smart? Big name schools, Latin honors, and selective clerkships.
Many want to be in that type of firm because that's where you get paid the most, and to a certain extent, those places provide good training because there are a billion eyeballs on every project so you're taught to provide top-quality work. Others would rather do their own thing, which obviously can have upsides and downsides. I imagine that if your goal is to go solo or to work at a very small firm representing regular people and not big companies and famous people, then the route to get there will be very different.
If you look closely at the US News law school rankings, you will find that there are 7 schools that are tied for 60th place. So, technically, UNLV might have actually fallen from solo 62 to a tie with 7 other schools for 60th. Gotta love the marketing department.
What is the difference between a school in the 30s and a school in the 90s? It seems like after 20 or 25 the ranking of the law school is meaningless.
I agree with 9:04. If you apply to a DC or NY firm are they going to take you more seriously because UNLV is now "top 60"? Or. all else being equal, would a Vegas firm prefer a University of Alabama Law student – last time I checked, a top-30 school – over a Boyd student at the same rank? I highly doubt it.
Rankings are mostly a way for deans to get pay raises or get fired. You have an idea in your head which schools are the really good ones. If it's not one of those ~14, grades, interview performance, non-legal experience, etc. are more important than whether the law school is ranked 65 or 35.
RIP DMX
Huge jury verdict out of the convention center today.
Case name and number? Thanks
It's the one the RJ article above references re: allergic reaction. $29.5M + $1.5M in past undisputed meds.
$37.5 million. Morris and Nettles' Giacalone case featured in the RJ online. Well done Christian and Brian. And with Micah Echols set to fend off the appeal, you can take this one to the bank.
Between Echols and Morris it's like the trial and appellate dream team. Excellent.
Both are sexy too
Oh, behave!
A-15-714139-C
Wily veteran Bill Killip also part of and major contributor to the Morris Nettles victory.
Um…thanks for the flattery, but I did the initial pleadings and discovery, and hired a couple of the experts. I had very little to do with this tremendous trial outcome.
Bill you have always been modest. You are very good lawyer.
Sam and Ash only take cases with quick settlement per their intake. Your injury attorney should not be on a billboard