When you sign a marker at a Las Vegas casino, make sure you read the small print because the Supreme Court of Nevada is going to hold you to it. [Las Vegas Sun]
Defense attorney Herb Sachs died last week at 83. RIP. [Las Vegas Sun]
We still don’t know the names of everyone who was awarded medical marijuana licenses last year. [RJ]
What is it with local government and not wanting their employees speaking to the press? [RJ]
Good luck to Glenn, he's a decent guy. Though I do regretfully remember sitting in a law school class arguing in favor of liberalizing advertising rules. Well, maybe the professor was right. Liberalization has not done much for the dignity of the profession. Now shysters with huge billboards and piles of cash for judicial election cycles rule the roost. Then again, what does it matter? The clients like the flashy guys in expensive suits with expensive watches, and there is no rational basis for thinking the "juice" that is common place in the other two branches of government should not apply to the third. Go for it.
Guest
Anonymous
March 2, 2015 5:45 pm
Looks like SCR 123 is coming down. ADKT 0504 seeks to eliminate the rule.
Rule 123.  Citation to unpublished opinions and orders.  An unpublished opinion or order of the Nevada Supreme Court shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority except when the opinion or order is (1) relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata or collateral estoppel; (2) relevant to a criminal or disciplinary proceeding because it affects the same defendant or respondent in another such proceeding; or (3) relevant to an analysis of whether recommended discipline is consistent with previous discipline orders appearing in the state bar publication.
Guest
Anonymous
March 2, 2015 6:37 pm
What about ADKT 0503–increasing pro hac application fees to $800 a pop! wowsers!
Amen 11:36! Besides protectionism, doing so would decrease our bar fees, weed out the mouth-breathers who squeak through every February, and (best of all) decrease the number of billboard lawyers for generations of Nevadans to come.
Billboard lawyers are great. They contribute money to economy. They file more cases so defense attorneys still have jobs. Just because they advertise does not make them bad, just like someone is not a good attorney if they don't advertise.
7:26 – not sure exactly what post you are referring to. It's not cause and effect – it's correlation. With rare exceptions, if an attorney has billboards or tv commercials, he or she is very likely a bad/lazy attorney.
Guest
Anonymous
March 2, 2015 8:38 pm
I defended some PI cases against Herb Sachs several years ago. I never much liked the guy, but I have to give him credit for not being afraid of a tough case, and for standing up for his clients. RIP.
Guest
Anonymous
March 2, 2015 11:54 pm
If all attorneys are required to disclose public contact information for licensing purposes, it should certainly be required of pot dispensaries! The public has a right to know who is running these, not to mention the feds.
Looks like Glen Lerner is in trouble (again) re BP oil spill claims:
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/federal_judge_sanctions_3_lawyers_says_they_cant_file_oil_spill_claims_agai
Good luck to Glenn, he's a decent guy. Though I do regretfully remember sitting in a law school class arguing in favor of liberalizing advertising rules. Well, maybe the professor was right. Liberalization has not done much for the dignity of the profession. Now shysters with huge billboards and piles of cash for judicial election cycles rule the roost. Then again, what does it matter? The clients like the flashy guys in expensive suits with expensive watches, and there is no rational basis for thinking the "juice" that is common place in the other two branches of government should not apply to the third. Go for it.
Looks like SCR 123 is coming down. ADKT 0504 seeks to eliminate the rule.
Good, it is a stupid rule.
I cannot find a copy of ADKT 0504 on the Supreme Court's website. Do you have a link to the proposed amendment? Thanks.
The petition is on the website under Court Rules, ADKT orders.
http://nvcourts.gov/Supreme/Decisions/Administrative_Orders/
Look closer. It's there.
Or even closer.
That is pretty sweet. Not to be a complete caveman, but how do you insert a hyperlink in a post?
Follow this link to the answer to your question.
Thank you kind sir/ma'am!
Rule 123.  Citation to unpublished opinions and orders.  An unpublished opinion or order of the Nevada Supreme Court shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority except when the opinion or order is (1) relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata or collateral estoppel; (2) relevant to a criminal or disciplinary proceeding because it affects the same defendant or respondent in another such proceeding; or (3) relevant to an analysis of whether recommended discipline is consistent with previous discipline orders appearing in the state bar publication.
What about ADKT 0503–increasing pro hac application fees to $800 a pop! wowsers!
I am in favor of protectionism. Thank you NVSC!
It should be $1,600 for California counsel. $2,000 for New Yorkers.
I'm also in favor of protectionism. Now if we could just eliminate the February bar…
Amen 11:36! Besides protectionism, doing so would decrease our bar fees, weed out the mouth-breathers who squeak through every February, and (best of all) decrease the number of billboard lawyers for generations of Nevadans to come.
Billboard lawyers are great. They contribute money to economy. They file more cases so defense attorneys still have jobs. Just because they advertise does not make them bad, just like someone is not a good attorney if they don't advertise.
7:26 – not sure exactly what post you are referring to. It's not cause and effect – it's correlation. With rare exceptions, if an attorney has billboards or tv commercials, he or she is very likely a bad/lazy attorney.
I defended some PI cases against Herb Sachs several years ago. I never much liked the guy, but I have to give him credit for not being afraid of a tough case, and for standing up for his clients. RIP.
If all attorneys are required to disclose public contact information for licensing purposes, it should certainly be required of pot dispensaries! The public has a right to know who is running these, not to mention the feds.