Anybody who had even the slightest connection to the juvenile justice system knew for years and years that girls were underserved and DID NOT receive equal services. It’s about time that changes were made. Bill Voy turned a blind eye to this inequality. He was more concerned that “his” Spring Mountain Youth Camp sports teams (boys) were provided new uniforms! As for Jack Martin, he had been around the juvenile justice system at both the state and local level, and he should have pushed for girls equality sooner. Finally, moves are being made to offer Constitutionally guaranteed equality. We as a society can only hope this development continues!
Guest
Anonymous
December 28, 2022 5:41 pm
Other than for the press it's getting by trying, does Kaplan really expect the court to say that anyone who bails someone out of jail becomes legally responsible for whatever the person does while they're out? Honestly there are times when I think if a person bails someone out a 2nd time they should have to sign an "assumption of liability" for anything the person does (mostly parents bailing out their idiot kid). However, that's not how it works otherwise bail bondsmen would be out of business.
@10:18am – Wait – he's claiming that the strip mall is required to provide security inside of the four walls of a space leased to a tenant? I get that if this was something like Meadows mall and it was in a common area, or if someone was shot out in the parking lot, but inside the tenant's own suite? Sure….. He's trying for nuisance settlements it would seem, but if the landlord's insurance settles that it just shows that it's worth doing; you get what you reward and they'd end up with a lot more of these claims when they're BS.
I thought better of Kory than to bring this frivolous suit. Yes I think there is a Rule 11 element to this suit. But it is not helped by Wolfson coming out making the nonsensical argument that someone who posts bails is "vouching" for the accused. No they are not. In the underlying case, the Clark County DA asked for and got bail set at $3000. Maybe Kaplan should due the DA for not requesting and requiring bail higher than $3000. All Bail Project did was take a $3000 gamble based upon what CCDA requested and Judge Chelini ordered.
But yeah I would imagine a Rule 11 letter would come across in this case followed by an itemization that this lawsuit has destroyed the organization as far as how large the sanctions would be if not withdrawn/dismissed.
10:18 here. According to the RJ article: "Kaplan alleges that the plaza’s property owner, U.S. Hui De Real Estate Investment Corp., is liable for not providing adequate security at the time Wang was shot". The shooting happened inside the restaurant where Wang was an employee.
The complaint says the shooter had been involved in a burglary at the same shopping center 1.5 weeks before the shooting. If true, and if the shopping center knew the shooter’s identity, the case against the shopping center is less frivolous.
Lets play devil's advocate folks and see if we can craft some sort of a cogent legal argument for suing the Bail Project. Here is what I would potentially argue (if the facts supported it – which I admit I have no idea): Lets say Bail Project staff is very sloppy and they apply bail pay without scrutiny, due diligence and without doing any background checks to see if the person they are bailing out is likely to re-commit violent crimes, etc. Lets also suppose evidence show that the only requirement for the Bail Project to bail a violent criminal out is the concern of "equity" – i.e. some people would not qualify based on their skin color alone. And lets say discovery shows that out of 100 people that Bail Project Nevada Chapter bailed, 81 of those people went on to commit another violent crime and/or skipped on their bail and that Bail Project was keenly aware of those statistics. Perhaps you can eventually make a compelling negligence case? Not sure. Not even sure that any of the facts would shake out in favor of the Plaintiff. But I am not sure its Rule 11 sanctionable on its face.
Interestingly enough "not as a result" of this lawsuit, Bail Project Nevada has closed its doors. Coincidence?
Duty to keep public safe. Right to bail is not absolute – Bail can be denied, too high to be paid etc. This is not money that Defendant put up or his relatives – this is money being given to him and one can argue the charity has a duty to do its due diligence and prevent violent criminals from being released to commit more crimes. Anyway, its not completely black and white, nobody is getting dismissed and no Rule 11 can attach here. Discovery clearly needs to be done on the policies and procedures of this dangerous and failed "charity" before any determination can be made, in my opinion.
So if Wells Fargo loaned his family money for bail, they are liable for acts committed by the criminal out on bail? Bail bondsmen are now liable for acts committed by those that they bail out? Parents, friends and spouses are liable for acts undertaken while out on bail? The decision as to what the bail amount would be that would keep the public safe was already made by the court; the decision was $3000. So posting $3000 was pursuant to an Order of the Court.
Guest
Anonymous
December 28, 2022 6:52 pm
It seems like every person I've met that calls him/herself a "life coach" (save one) turns out to be a colossal loser and an epic failure at life.
The last time I told someone I was a graduate of "Rodd U." I got slapped.
Guest
anonymous
December 28, 2022 6:58 pm
I didn't spend all morning on this, but a quick Odyssey search reveals Sam Lionel's name appearing on pleadings as late as the end of 2018. He would have been 99 years old. I'm sure he was not the scrivener, but still.
Last time I saw Sam in a courtroom was right before the pandemic. He never made argument but it was always accompanying another attorney to add gravitas to his client's position.
Not commenting on 1:36 PM's experience, but to be clear, the Nevada case referenced *in the article* was a Lyon County murder prosecution in which the judge excluded the junk science. Doesn't say which of the two judges it was.
136 here. 20+ years in. I was referring to my experience in the EJDC and Federal Courts.
Seen Daubert applied properly without hesitation by exactly two judges. Betsy Gonzalez and Jim Mahan. Seen it misapplied and not applied more than a dozen times incorrectly by all other judges. Doug Smith got it right once, but with some extended persuasive arguing by myself.
If you think the civil judges are bad at applying Daubert, try family court. What a dumpster fire! Even experienceD pracTitioners who've ended up on the bench do a terrible job.
Guest
Anonymous
December 28, 2022 7:56 pm
Re girls in juvenile justice: I worked in closely related child services field for about 8 years and I saw so much abuse in foster care, etc. it made me want to vomit. Not exactly the same, but reminded me of it. I have blocked it from my memory now but almost all, as I remember, was crack related.
Guest
Anonymous
December 28, 2022 9:42 pm
Does anyone have a link or citation to an overview of the LSC implosion? I think the word on the street back then was pension liabilities or some other legacy cost. Is there more? And who got Sam's stapler?
Seems like the typical formula for firm collapse is too many partners combined with sky high overhead. Don't know if that is what happened there, but seems to be a common occurrence.
Second or third-hand information here, so take it for what it is worth (although I am an alumnus from years back, and I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night). I understood that Sam was the one personally guaranteeing the line of credit. He decided he didn't like the direction things were headed, so he pulled the plug. No matter how many "partners" they had, it was always *his* firm.
Wonder what "direction" he didn't like? I heard that when they knew they were closing, the firm made a bunch of people partner to help them land new jobs. Not sure if those folks would have been made partner if not for the closing or not. But, not a bad gesture either way.
I wasn't a LSC alumnus but I had heard something about them allowing widows to remain as silent partners after the death of their partner spouse and receive distributions, instead of a buyout requirement at death. Plus, if you followed their bankruptcy, the they had a large overhead just in storage costs for archived client files (however, that is an indicator of success – the quantity of physical files one has to hold for a few years.)
2:18 here. There were a few old-timers who passed away years ago (Grant Sawyer, Jon Collins, Bob Buckalew and maybe one or two others I've overlooked). From what I've heard, their "partnership agreement" was basically a handshake deal with Sam, and I have no doubt that surviving spouses would have been taken care of by the firm, in that Sam essentially called all of the shots as sort of a benevolent dictator. But I don't think that this would have been a major factor in bringing the firm down. They lost quite a bit of talent starting in the mid-late 90's or so (Morris, Pickering, Brignone, Kennedy and others) and I think finally just got to where they could not compete with some of the national and regional firms that started moving in.
I whipped Sam at a trial years ago I didn’t find him to be much of a trial lawyer. Sore loser as well. He didn’t expect a young buck to come at him like I did since he thought he was untouchable.
But, even more to the point, I would ask if 2:51 could have waited an appropriate period before eulogizing Sam Lionel as a bitter, untalented trail lawyer and a petty sore loser.
Also, since no on else in the free world(except for that anonymous post) has ever described this incredible lawyer and human being in that fashion, should you, 2:51, not chalk it up to your unique perspective, and even more unique experience, and since your observation does constitute such a rare exception to the established narrative, could you not have shared your opinion in another time and place, and with a different audience, rather than such broad dissemination right after he passes?
And, even more fundamentally, the tone, lack of maturity, lack of judgement or decorum or restraint, and childish bragging and name-calling, suggests that you are not an older, or even a middle-aged, attorney, but instead you are a very young attorney.
So, although I doubt you ever went toe to toe with Sam Lionel, if you did, then as 3:47 suggests, Sam may have virtually been a centenarian by that point.
As far as the LSC implosion, I agree with 1:58. I wasn't there but know people who were. It's wasn't much different than other firm implosions. High overhead costs (both expensive office space and high dollar demanding big name partners who look good on the letterhead but don't work the hours needed to maintain their costs) and hubris hurting business development efforts (not directed at Sam but in my view the overall partnership the last 5 years or so did not transition to the new generation of business owners and decision-makers at institutional clients and simply didn't have the work they once did. Eventually the weight up top becomes too much.
Guest
Anonymous
December 30, 2022 12:52 am
Sam did keep trying cases into his 90s and he did lose his edge. It would not surprise me if what 2:51 says is true.
I don’t see myself doing trials much past 60, at least not as a first-chair. It is increasingly a young person’s game, and there are other ways I would rather spend the finite amount of time I have left.At least Sam had plenty of backup. to bring with him. Some people are just wired differently, and for him this is what kept him getting out of bed every morning.
There are a really good set of articles (and turned into a book) by Arthur Brooks about this very fact.
"No one expects an Olympic athlete to remain competitive until age 60. But in many physically nondemanding occupations, we implicitly reject the inevitability of decline before very old age. Sure, our quads and hamstrings may weaken a little as we age. But as long as we retain our marbles, our quality of work as a writer, lawyer, executive, or entrepreneur should remain high up to the very end, right? Many people think so. . . . The data are shockingly clear that for most people, in most fields, decline starts earlier than almost anyone thinks.
According to research by Dean Keith Simonton, a professor emeritus of psychology at UC Davis and one of the world’s leading experts on the trajectories of creative careers, success and productivity increase for the first 20 years after the inception of a career, on average. So if you start a career in earnest at 30, expect to do your best work around 50 and go into decline soon after that. The specific timing of peak and decline vary somewhat depending on the field. Benjamin Jones, a professor of strategy and entrepreneurship at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management, has spent years studying when people are most likely to make prizewinning scientific discoveries and develop key inventions. . . .
Looking at major inventors and Nobel winners going back more than a century, Jones has found that the most common age for producing a magnum opus is the late 30s. He has shown that the likelihood of a major discovery increases steadily through one’s 20s and 30s and then declines through one’s 40s, 50s, and 60s. Are there outliers? Of course. But the likelihood of producing a major innovation at age 70 is approximately what it was at age 20—almost nonexistent."
Let me chime in here. Generally speaking older lawyers are like good bottles of wine. They get better with age. Sam Lionel is the exception rather then the norm. Most lawyers don't work or even live as long as him. Clients do not want kids representing them. The bar has gotten significantly younger with less experience from the law school and flood of California law grads who can't afford to live in California. I honestly don't see lawyers declining in their 50s or 60s. I see law grads and young lawyers showing lack of knowledge and experience. Lawyers are not scientists in any sense of the word. Einstein continued to contribute until his passing so did Stephen Hawking. Both died too young at age 76. Most of the older lawyers I deal with are much easier to work with than the journey level grads(ten years or less).
Robert Eglet is the best example of a somewhat older "Tiger in the Courtroom"-age 62, Who would want to go against him. Robert Vannah was another example. Big difference between an attorney who is in their 60s or 70s and someone in their 90s. Heard that Sam Lionel was the only attorney that could speak with or persuade billionaire Sheldon Adelson who once owned Comdex and the Venetian.
People above are confusing knowledge with skill. Bob Eglet is a fantastic lawyer. But is he a better lawyer today (sharper, better stamina, expanding etc.) than he was was in 2008? 2013? That is what the article points out which is one can be a wiser, more experienced lawyer as one ages while recognizing that success, productivity increases and one's best work is in the first 20 to 25 years of a career and then one sustains and gradually retrenches. Successful lawyers/entrepreneurs build machines around them so that they do not have to innovate and continue to work harder or be more productive.
Guest
anonymous
December 30, 2022 5:41 pm
9:07: My personal experience with Sam is admittedly limited and took place many years ago, when he was but a lad of 75 or so. He maintained very tight control over that firm, but a "vicious temper" was not anything that I saw or that I heard about from any of my colleagues there. As far as not being "good with money," I agree that it was probably a big mistake not to pursue a buyout or merger with a regional/national firm 15-20 years ago when they were still a "powerhouse" and probably could have made a good deal. Obviously I have no idea about his personal finances except to point out that he bought property in LaCosta back when it was relatively cheap, he was at one point a part-owner of 300 S. Fourth St., and he gave $2 million to Boyd within the last two or three years, so I highly doubt that "he passed in poverty." He had his flaws like everyone else, but he was a tremendous lawyer with a stellar career, as well as a philanthropist, and I don't approve of him being trashed in death.
Guest
Anonymous
December 30, 2022 6:05 pm
I met Sam in the early 80s when I was one of very few female litigators. He treated me with respect and encouragement when many others did not.
Guest
Anonymous
December 30, 2022 7:24 pm
This thread has been very illustrative of the fact that (1) death remains undefeated against life; (2) people will wait less than time than it takes for a body to cool to defecate on anyone who dies. Sam did not die penniless or in poverty any more than the old estate planning adage that one wishes effectively to leave an estate of zero because everything is handled outside of probate. However I can handle silly posthumous lies. It is the vicious venom and vitriol while people are continuing to mourn that I cannot stand.
Guest
Anonymous
December 30, 2022 7:54 pm
I think it’s important to discuss the good and the bad when eulogizing someone. Only discussing the good is effectively perpetuating a lie. I’m glad this blog is allowing people to do this and would be interested in hearing more stories about Sam’s failures.
Disagree. We often take the good in a person for granted while they are with us. A eulogy that celebrates the everyday virtues of the deceased not only honors them, but provides the living with perspective about life, gratitude and the wonder in each person that populates our individual worlds. That, in turn, allows the mourning to take a little piece of the deceased with them, in comfort, and in inspiration to be a better person. Eulogies honor the dead, provide a shared mourning experience and challenge us to be better.
I never met Sam Lionel, but I appreciate from afar his career and greatness. The people that actually knew him seem to paint a picture of a man who enjoyed the practice, who was a decent to good firm leader and cared deeply about his community. Celebrate that.
Guest
Anonymous
January 3, 2023 6:49 am
The post WWII era saw lots of legal stars flock here from more conventional towns: Lionel of course, but add to the list: R Jemison, D Goldwater, G Rudiak, E Wanderer, N Galatz, A Earl, T Steffen, L Weiner, M Shearing, B Barker, G Cromer, M Galane, E Pomeranz, Crockett & Meyers, B. Morse, J O'Brien, B Coulthard, B Singleton, Mallard Dubois to name a few. We won't see the likes of that stellar collection again.
Anybody who had even the slightest connection to the juvenile justice system knew for years and years that girls were underserved and DID NOT receive equal services. It’s about time that changes were made. Bill Voy turned a blind eye to this inequality. He was more concerned that “his” Spring Mountain Youth Camp sports teams (boys) were provided new uniforms! As for Jack Martin, he had been around the juvenile justice system at both the state and local level, and he should have pushed for girls equality sooner. Finally, moves are being made to offer Constitutionally guaranteed equality. We as a society can only hope this development continues!
Other than for the press it's getting by trying, does Kaplan really expect the court to say that anyone who bails someone out of jail becomes legally responsible for whatever the person does while they're out? Honestly there are times when I think if a person bails someone out a 2nd time they should have to sign an "assumption of liability" for anything the person does (mostly parents bailing out their idiot kid). However, that's not how it works otherwise bail bondsmen would be out of business.
Seems almost sanctionable, honestly.
He's also suing the strip mall owner for negligent security inside on of the tenant spaces, so…
@10:18am – Wait – he's claiming that the strip mall is required to provide security inside of the four walls of a space leased to a tenant? I get that if this was something like Meadows mall and it was in a common area, or if someone was shot out in the parking lot, but inside the tenant's own suite? Sure….. He's trying for nuisance settlements it would seem, but if the landlord's insurance settles that it just shows that it's worth doing; you get what you reward and they'd end up with a lot more of these claims when they're BS.
I thought better of Kory than to bring this frivolous suit. Yes I think there is a Rule 11 element to this suit. But it is not helped by Wolfson coming out making the nonsensical argument that someone who posts bails is "vouching" for the accused. No they are not. In the underlying case, the Clark County DA asked for and got bail set at $3000. Maybe Kaplan should due the DA for not requesting and requiring bail higher than $3000. All Bail Project did was take a $3000 gamble based upon what CCDA requested and Judge Chelini ordered.
But yeah I would imagine a Rule 11 letter would come across in this case followed by an itemization that this lawsuit has destroyed the organization as far as how large the sanctions would be if not withdrawn/dismissed.
10:18 here. According to the RJ article: "Kaplan alleges that the plaza’s property owner, U.S. Hui De Real Estate Investment Corp., is liable for not providing adequate security at the time Wang was shot". The shooting happened inside the restaurant where Wang was an employee.
The complaint says the shooter had been involved in a burglary at the same shopping center 1.5 weeks before the shooting. If true, and if the shopping center knew the shooter’s identity, the case against the shopping center is less frivolous.
The case from a practical standpoint, however, is worthless. Plaintiff named the intentional tortfeasor as a party.
My children are not allowed to go to Meadows Mall for just this reason. Ditto Boulevard Mall.
Lets play devil's advocate folks and see if we can craft some sort of a cogent legal argument for suing the Bail Project. Here is what I would potentially argue (if the facts supported it – which I admit I have no idea): Lets say Bail Project staff is very sloppy and they apply bail pay without scrutiny, due diligence and without doing any background checks to see if the person they are bailing out is likely to re-commit violent crimes, etc. Lets also suppose evidence show that the only requirement for the Bail Project to bail a violent criminal out is the concern of "equity" – i.e. some people would not qualify based on their skin color alone. And lets say discovery shows that out of 100 people that Bail Project Nevada Chapter bailed, 81 of those people went on to commit another violent crime and/or skipped on their bail and that Bail Project was keenly aware of those statistics. Perhaps you can eventually make a compelling negligence case? Not sure. Not even sure that any of the facts would shake out in favor of the Plaintiff. But I am not sure its Rule 11 sanctionable on its face.
Interestingly enough "not as a result" of this lawsuit, Bail Project Nevada has closed its doors. Coincidence?
Still no duty.
Still no duty. Still a constitutional right to bail. Yes very very NRCP 11 sanctionable.
Duty to keep public safe. Right to bail is not absolute – Bail can be denied, too high to be paid etc. This is not money that Defendant put up or his relatives – this is money being given to him and one can argue the charity has a duty to do its due diligence and prevent violent criminals from being released to commit more crimes. Anyway, its not completely black and white, nobody is getting dismissed and no Rule 11 can attach here. Discovery clearly needs to be done on the policies and procedures of this dangerous and failed "charity" before any determination can be made, in my opinion.
So if Wells Fargo loaned his family money for bail, they are liable for acts committed by the criminal out on bail? Bail bondsmen are now liable for acts committed by those that they bail out? Parents, friends and spouses are liable for acts undertaken while out on bail? The decision as to what the bail amount would be that would keep the public safe was already made by the court; the decision was $3000. So posting $3000 was pursuant to an Order of the Court.
It seems like every person I've met that calls him/herself a "life coach" (save one) turns out to be a colossal loser and an epic failure at life.
The last time I told someone I was a graduate of "Rodd U." I got slapped.
I didn't spend all morning on this, but a quick Odyssey search reveals Sam Lionel's name appearing on pleadings as late as the end of 2018. He would have been 99 years old. I'm sure he was not the scrivener, but still.
Last time I saw Sam in a courtroom was right before the pandemic. He never made argument but it was always accompanying another attorney to add gravitas to his client's position.
Sam was still practicing when he turned 100.
I saw him argue a motion when we was either 100 or 101.
I don't think Sam came to the courthouse after COVID hit which was 33 months ago so it might have been after he was 100.
I wonder how many lawyers he hired over his career in Las Vegas, died before his own demise?
What fortitude and vision he possessed, to uproot himsel from the east coast and here, create Lionel and Sawyer out of thin air.
Nevada mention included: https://www.propublica.org/article/911-call-analysis-fbi-police-courts
This is bananas. Great article and even more telling about the lengths that prosecutors will go for a win, at any costs.
Reads more like bad judges to me.
No question. First time in print seeing what I have believed for years. Judges do not know how to apply Daubert.
Not commenting on 1:36 PM's experience, but to be clear, the Nevada case referenced *in the article* was a Lyon County murder prosecution in which the judge excluded the junk science. Doesn't say which of the two judges it was.
136 here. 20+ years in. I was referring to my experience in the EJDC and Federal Courts.
Seen Daubert applied properly without hesitation by exactly two judges. Betsy Gonzalez and Jim Mahan. Seen it misapplied and not applied more than a dozen times incorrectly by all other judges. Doug Smith got it right once, but with some extended persuasive arguing by myself.
If you think the civil judges are bad at applying Daubert, try family court. What a dumpster fire! Even experienceD pracTitioners who've ended up on the bench do a terrible job.
Re girls in juvenile justice: I worked in closely related child services field for about 8 years and I saw so much abuse in foster care, etc. it made me want to vomit. Not exactly the same, but reminded me of it. I have blocked it from my memory now but almost all, as I remember, was crack related.
Does anyone have a link or citation to an overview of the LSC implosion? I think the word on the street back then was pension liabilities or some other legacy cost. Is there more? And who got Sam's stapler?
Seems like the typical formula for firm collapse is too many partners combined with sky high overhead. Don't know if that is what happened there, but seems to be a common occurrence.
Second or third-hand information here, so take it for what it is worth (although I am an alumnus from years back, and I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night). I understood that Sam was the one personally guaranteeing the line of credit. He decided he didn't like the direction things were headed, so he pulled the plug. No matter how many "partners" they had, it was always *his* firm.
Yes, I heard he would put up a $3 million line of credit each year, but then he refused and the firm went into BK.
Wonder what "direction" he didn't like? I heard that when they knew they were closing, the firm made a bunch of people partner to help them land new jobs. Not sure if those folks would have been made partner if not for the closing or not. But, not a bad gesture either way.
Mr. Lionel lived more in one life than any three people collectively.
I wasn't a LSC alumnus but I had heard something about them allowing widows to remain as silent partners after the death of their partner spouse and receive distributions, instead of a buyout requirement at death. Plus, if you followed their bankruptcy, the they had a large overhead just in storage costs for archived client files (however, that is an indicator of success – the quantity of physical files one has to hold for a few years.)
2:18 here. There were a few old-timers who passed away years ago (Grant Sawyer, Jon Collins, Bob Buckalew and maybe one or two others I've overlooked). From what I've heard, their "partnership agreement" was basically a handshake deal with Sam, and I have no doubt that surviving spouses would have been taken care of by the firm, in that Sam essentially called all of the shots as sort of a benevolent dictator. But I don't think that this would have been a major factor in bringing the firm down. They lost quite a bit of talent starting in the mid-late 90's or so (Morris, Pickering, Brignone, Kennedy and others) and I think finally just got to where they could not compete with some of the national and regional firms that started moving in.
I whipped Sam at a trial years ago I didn’t find him to be much of a trial lawyer. Sore loser as well. He didn’t expect a young buck to come at him like I did since he thought he was untouchable.
Unless "years ago" was in the 80s, are you really bragging about beating up an old man?
3:47-true what you observe about 2:51.
But, even more to the point, I would ask if 2:51 could have waited an appropriate period before eulogizing Sam Lionel as a bitter, untalented trail lawyer and a petty sore loser.
Also, since no on else in the free world(except for that anonymous post) has ever described this incredible lawyer and human being in that fashion, should you, 2:51, not chalk it up to your unique perspective, and even more unique experience, and since your observation does constitute such a rare exception to the established narrative, could you not have shared your opinion in another time and place, and with a different audience, rather than such broad dissemination right after he passes?
And, even more fundamentally, the tone, lack of maturity, lack of judgement or decorum or restraint, and childish bragging and name-calling, suggests that you are not an older, or even a middle-aged, attorney, but instead you are a very young attorney.
So, although I doubt you ever went toe to toe with Sam Lionel, if you did, then as 3:47 suggests, Sam may have virtually been a centenarian by that point.
2:51 drives a lifted truck with rubber testicles hanging from the rear hitch.
I bet if you had asked S.L. about the time he went to trial with 2:51, his response would have been "who?"
There's a great scene in MadMen which is on point:
Ginsberg, to Draper: I feel bad for you.
Draper: I don't think about you at all.
As far as the LSC implosion, I agree with 1:58. I wasn't there but know people who were. It's wasn't much different than other firm implosions. High overhead costs (both expensive office space and high dollar demanding big name partners who look good on the letterhead but don't work the hours needed to maintain their costs) and hubris hurting business development efforts (not directed at Sam but in my view the overall partnership the last 5 years or so did not transition to the new generation of business owners and decision-makers at institutional clients and simply didn't have the work they once did. Eventually the weight up top becomes too much.
Sam did keep trying cases into his 90s and he did lose his edge. It would not surprise me if what 2:51 says is true.
Maybe it's true, maybe it's not. One thing is for certain, it was an uncouth statement to make in the context of his passing.
I don’t see myself doing trials much past 60, at least not as a first-chair. It is increasingly a young person’s game, and there are other ways I would rather spend the finite amount of time I have left.At least Sam had plenty of backup. to bring with him. Some people are just wired differently, and for him this is what kept him getting out of bed every morning.
There are a really good set of articles (and turned into a book) by Arthur Brooks about this very fact.
"No one expects an Olympic athlete to remain competitive until age 60. But in many physically nondemanding occupations, we implicitly reject the inevitability of decline before very old age. Sure, our quads and hamstrings may weaken a little as we age. But as long as we retain our marbles, our quality of work as a writer, lawyer, executive, or entrepreneur should remain high up to the very end, right? Many people think so. . . . The data are shockingly clear that for most people, in most fields, decline starts earlier than almost anyone thinks.
According to research by Dean Keith Simonton, a professor emeritus of psychology at UC Davis and one of the world’s leading experts on the trajectories of creative careers, success and productivity increase for the first 20 years after the inception of a career, on average. So if you start a career in earnest at 30, expect to do your best work around 50 and go into decline soon after that. The specific timing of peak and decline vary somewhat depending on the field. Benjamin Jones, a professor of strategy and entrepreneurship at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management, has spent years studying when people are most likely to make prizewinning scientific discoveries and develop key inventions. . . .
Looking at major inventors and Nobel winners going back more than a century, Jones has found that the most common age for producing a magnum opus is the late 30s. He has shown that the likelihood of a major discovery increases steadily through one’s 20s and 30s and then declines through one’s 40s, 50s, and 60s. Are there outliers? Of course. But the likelihood of producing a major innovation at age 70 is approximately what it was at age 20—almost nonexistent."
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/07/work-peak-professional-decline/590650/
Should be teaching this at CLEs instead of telling me to drink less or relax.
Sam had a vicious temper and was not good with money. He passed in poverty. Sad.
Let me chime in here. Generally speaking older lawyers are like good bottles of wine. They get better with age. Sam Lionel is the exception rather then the norm. Most lawyers don't work or even live as long as him. Clients do not want kids representing them. The bar has gotten significantly younger with less experience from the law school and flood of California law grads who can't afford to live in California. I honestly don't see lawyers declining in their 50s or 60s. I see law grads and young lawyers showing lack of knowledge and experience. Lawyers are not scientists in any sense of the word. Einstein continued to contribute until his passing so did Stephen Hawking. Both died too young at age 76. Most of the older lawyers I deal with are much easier to work with than the journey level grads(ten years or less).
Yes. Sam was the exception in that he did not age like a fine wine. He spoiled.
Robert Eglet is the best example of a somewhat older "Tiger in the Courtroom"-age 62, Who would want to go against him. Robert Vannah was another example. Big difference between an attorney who is in their 60s or 70s and someone in their 90s. Heard that Sam Lionel was the only attorney that could speak with or persuade billionaire Sheldon Adelson who once owned Comdex and the Venetian.
People above are confusing knowledge with skill. Bob Eglet is a fantastic lawyer. But is he a better lawyer today (sharper, better stamina, expanding etc.) than he was was in 2008? 2013? That is what the article points out which is one can be a wiser, more experienced lawyer as one ages while recognizing that success, productivity increases and one's best work is in the first 20 to 25 years of a career and then one sustains and gradually retrenches. Successful lawyers/entrepreneurs build machines around them so that they do not have to innovate and continue to work harder or be more productive.
9:07: My personal experience with Sam is admittedly limited and took place many years ago, when he was but a lad of 75 or so. He maintained very tight control over that firm, but a "vicious temper" was not anything that I saw or that I heard about from any of my colleagues there. As far as not being "good with money," I agree that it was probably a big mistake not to pursue a buyout or merger with a regional/national firm 15-20 years ago when they were still a "powerhouse" and probably could have made a good deal. Obviously I have no idea about his personal finances except to point out that he bought property in LaCosta back when it was relatively cheap, he was at one point a part-owner of 300 S. Fourth St., and he gave $2 million to Boyd within the last two or three years, so I highly doubt that "he passed in poverty." He had his flaws like everyone else, but he was a tremendous lawyer with a stellar career, as well as a philanthropist, and I don't approve of him being trashed in death.
I met Sam in the early 80s when I was one of very few female litigators. He treated me with respect and encouragement when many others did not.
This thread has been very illustrative of the fact that (1) death remains undefeated against life; (2) people will wait less than time than it takes for a body to cool to defecate on anyone who dies. Sam did not die penniless or in poverty any more than the old estate planning adage that one wishes effectively to leave an estate of zero because everything is handled outside of probate. However I can handle silly posthumous lies. It is the vicious venom and vitriol while people are continuing to mourn that I cannot stand.
I think it’s important to discuss the good and the bad when eulogizing someone. Only discussing the good is effectively perpetuating a lie. I’m glad this blog is allowing people to do this and would be interested in hearing more stories about Sam’s failures.
Disagree. We often take the good in a person for granted while they are with us. A eulogy that celebrates the everyday virtues of the deceased not only honors them, but provides the living with perspective about life, gratitude and the wonder in each person that populates our individual worlds. That, in turn, allows the mourning to take a little piece of the deceased with them, in comfort, and in inspiration to be a better person. Eulogies honor the dead, provide a shared mourning experience and challenge us to be better.
I never met Sam Lionel, but I appreciate from afar his career and greatness. The people that actually knew him seem to paint a picture of a man who enjoyed the practice, who was a decent to good firm leader and cared deeply about his community. Celebrate that.
The post WWII era saw lots of legal stars flock here from more conventional towns: Lionel of course, but add to the list: R Jemison, D Goldwater, G Rudiak, E Wanderer, N Galatz, A Earl, T Steffen, L Weiner, M Shearing, B Barker, G Cromer, M Galane, E Pomeranz, Crockett & Meyers, B. Morse, J O'Brien, B Coulthard, B Singleton, Mallard Dubois to name a few. We won't see the likes of that stellar collection again.