With Judge Elizabeth Gonzalez retiring from the bench today, cases are being reassigned. Department 11 is no longer a business court department and her remaining business court cases were split between Judges Susan Johnson and Joanna Kishner, who are now both designated as business court departments. Some other reassignments were made as well so be sure and check for your cases. [eighthdcourt blog]
All Nevada Supreme Court oral arguments for September will be held via videoconference. [NVcourts]
Vegas ER doc says Covid patients are lining up in the hallways. [8NewsNow]
Not Vegas related, but a South Carolina attorney, whose wife and son were murdered in June, was grazed by a bullet over the weekend. Oh, and his firm is accusing him of taking money. [The Guardian]
Weird situation. Wanted to know if anyone had any ideas. Client comes to me to form and LLC for some rentals. LLC is formed, quit claims signed. Due to some turn over in my office, there is some delay in recording the quit claim deeds. Before they were recorded, the client sold the property without advising my office. Then the quit claim deed was recorded. The recorder's office accepted it, but the problem was caught on the back end and we got one of those "there is a problem here" letters from the assessor's office. Anyway, I was wondering what I need to do to fix this problem. You cannot exactly cancel a deed, would she just need to do a quit claim back to the purchaser? Some kind of corrective quit claim explaining the error and disclaiming all interest? Any advice would be very much appreciated. Thank you.
You can file a corrective quitclaim deed that outlines the error.
Guest
Anonymous
September 7, 2021 6:33 pm
Dammit, 10:49, did Property Law not teach you to record the deed pronto?
Okay, so Charlie Client owns Blackacre. Charlie deeds Blackacre over to Suemenot, LLC, but doesn't record. Someone (and it isn't clear from your question who) deeds Blackacre to Big Friendly Purchaser. Nevada is a race/notice jurisdiction, so assuming Big Friendly Purchaser has no knowledge of the transfer to Suemenot, LLC, and BFP has already recorded, BFP wins if the conveyance was from Client to BFP. Explain the situation to Client and maybe refund a portion of the fee. Suemenot has a claim against Client and possibly you, but if Suemenot is controlled by Client, not a big deal. If the conveyance was from Suemenot, LLC to BFP, BFP has a wild deed on their hands. They may need to re-record after you record yours.
10:49 suemenot is clients LLC. So the only issue Just the two parties. Just thinking I need to record something to make sure that it is clear that this was a mistake and that client who sold the property was not trying to then subsequently put it in their LLC.
Why, though? Sure, Client executed a deed to Suemenot. So what? Suemenot didn't record it first, so Suemenot is SOL, since it's void against BFP and all subsequent purchasers from BFP. Technically, it's still valid between Suemenot and Client, but if Suemenot is controlled by Client, and Client doesn't care, big whoop. Are you concerned that BFP is somehow harmed by a later filing?
I just wanted to avoid any possible issues in the future for my client. I don't want the buyer to go to sell it in the future and have some title company require them to file a quiet title against suemenot. Which of course my client wouldn't oppose, but still. Just wondering if there was someway I should clean this up to make sure there are absolutely no issues in the future.
Why complicate this? It is just a question of the timing of the deed recordation being wrong. As of the time the deed into the new Buyer was recorded, the grantor (the LLC) had no legal interest in the property. Have your client and his LLC do a quit claim deed, both the client and the LLC as grantors, to the third party buyer. So all of their interests have been conveyed.
Guest
Anonymous
September 7, 2021 7:19 pm
I have a let's-call-it-a-hypothetical client situation that I'd like to discuss. Let's say there's a person who has been sued in a business dispute. This person claims to have valid defenses, but we know that it will be a long (and expensive) slog before anything will be resolved. The defendant does not have the money to get to the end of the case, while the other side claims to have ample funds and appetite to pursue this. Plaintiff has rejected all settlement overtures. BK is not an option. What would you advise the defendant? Are there companies that would loan money to fund legal fees, maybe?
I am assuming this is some kind of commercial litigation if it is going to be an expensive long haul? Not in that kind of case usually. Way to much risk for most lenders to tie it to the litigation. They would have to look at some kind of personal loan. Seems like a pretty bad idea. Why is bankruptcy not an option? What kind of case is it?
I've only seen them in the context of personal injury cases. Not sure if they exist for other types of cases. There is a national company that provides litigation financing, but I can't recall the name. If I remember I will report back. Have you googled it? Might be your best best if you can't learn anything here.A word of caution. The interest charged is likely to be very high. And make sure your fees are paid along the way (you might want to read the agreement your client signs with the financing company to make sure there is no clause that prioritizes repayment before paying your fees).
@12:19p – Unless you practice in the bankruptcy arena or regularly deal with litigation cases in bankruptcy, it would be beneficial for your client to have a consultation with a reputable bankruptcy attorney. Make sure the attorney does more than just bankruptcy though, otherwise your client will magically be a perfect bankruptcy candidate. They need to know what options there are. It may not be bankruptcy, but there have been times when I've stepped in to discuss settlement negotiations with opposing counsel and walked them through what would happen if my client had to file bankruptcy and it wasn't pretty for OC's client and hurt my client much less. Such conversations often help facilitate legitimate settlement of claims.
Guest
Anonymous
September 7, 2021 8:45 pm
These niche questions are thrilling and all but here's a topic that affects everyone. Did the state bar sneakily and silently kill flat fee agreements? The latest issue has an unsigned "editorial" let's call it that chides lawyers to "take that earned on receipt" language out of flat fee agreements. Nevermind that there's been no change in the rules that I know of, which for years allowed such language. Might also mention the State Bar's own recommended fee agreement includes it – you can google "nevada state bar model flat fee agreement" like I did and see for yourself. In conclusion this is a BS change put forth in a BS manner that completely ignores how certain areas of law operate. So now what, criminal lawyers should wait to bill until the case is complete? What if the client bench warrants, for years – just keep that money in trust just in case! Family law, all kinds of unbundled services, all would feel the impact. I am begging you the reader to do what you love doing – tell me I'm wrong!
I have taken 1 case in my entire career on a flat fee. At the time I worked at a large-ish firm. Despite the flat fee arrangement I was told by my firm to keep track of my time for 2 reasons. 1 to tell the firm whether my arrangement made financial sense. 2 in case I ever needed to defend my fees. This was over 10 years ago. I interpret whatever article to are referring to as meaning you need to make sure you aren't ripping off clients. I wouldn't read too much into it.
Several years ago, I contacted the Ethics hotline when I opened my own practice because I wanted to understand how flat fees and trust accounts worked. They told me then that I needed to put it into the trust account until it had reasonably been earned. The basic premise was that a fee for doing nothing was unreasonable, and violates NRPC 1.5. So, that meant to me that I could transfer it into the operating account when the work was substantially done. I incorporated a provision in my fee agreements that explained when the work was substantially done, and I consider it good. Does it increase the accounting work that I have to do? Minimally. So, yeah. I'm okay with the stance the anonymous author took. To me, the "earned on receipt, but you can get a refund on unearned amounts" stance is just weird. Either it's earned and it's mine, or it's not yet earned, and I'm just holding it for the client until I do earn it.
As a crim guy, 90% of our cases are flat fee. The whole "earned upon acceptance" thing was deemed to be unethical and I get that. But suggesting flat fee cases are per se unethical strikes me as mind blowing. I mean the solution is to create an hourly fee this is much higher than business attorneys charge but at that point I feel the State Bar will litigate what a reasonable hourly fee is. It just seems that they like to go after the low hanging fruit of solo members of the defense bar. In doing short trials and other civil matters I am constantly amazed with some of the stuff the insurance defense guys get away with and you never see them get slapped down at all, except for that one time against Jennifer Arledge. But I have personally seen attorneys who come in at trial admit that prior in house counsel withheld evidence, I have seen an attorney try to withdraw admission to liability in the middle of trial and it just is beyond the pale. These are things that are a matter of record and yet no one attempts to punish them. I just don't get it.
Why are we stuck in the 18th century? The value of my services is not tied to the number of hours I worked; instead, it is tied to the results I produce. Time can be a vague proxy, at best, but thankfully I do not toil in the ID trenches.
I get how "earned on receipt" is questionable, especially if you do no work at all and the next day the client changes their mind and wants their money back, but this is just nonsense.
Unbundled attorneys are terrible and unethical as far as I'm concerned, but the state bar doesn't say or do jack about them. I've had family court cases that have dragged on and on for months (and months and months) because the opposing party had a new attorney at every hearing and every attorney would argue they just came on the case and needed more time and then they'd withdraw. It was a litigation tactic by the opposing party and they were allowed to do it because our great state bar says it's ethical.
@10:16
Flat fees/unbundled – for the every day client, it works. The attorney is taking the risk that he/she is efficient enough to get the work done at the price, the client is protected from a lazy attorney running up the billable hours.
Changing Attorneys and Continuances.
The "new attorney to the file" stuff should be controlled, but that's up to the judge. Once or twice maybe, but the new attorney is responsible for preparing for trial and understanding the case before accepting the work. As explained to me painfully by Burbank Superior Court Judge Murphy in the 80's, changing pitchers in the bottom of the ninth does not get you an extra inning.
Like anyone cares what "Burbank Superior Court Judge Murphy" had to say 100 years ago.
Guest
Anonymous
September 7, 2021 8:52 pm
I did a thorough , long brief on this once and it was permissible and well argued in most states ie flatfees are very beneficial so of course NSB wont like as it cuts into the large firms that control it as puppet masters. Excuse text on cell
Is anyone aware of any COVID-related injury / death lawsuits? SB 4 of the 32nd special session included some immunity language and seemed to make a pretty high bar for plaintiffs. Although it seems to me that it would be hard to prove causation in any event, immunity or no.
Or have there been a shit load of them, but they just haven't gone anywhere yet?
There is immunity and unless it is a nursing home case you have no shot at winning a Covid case. Even in nursing home cases there are obstacles, but at least you eliminate the need to prove where the client got Covid since they can’t go anywhere.
Guest
Anonymous
September 8, 2021 3:52 am
So long, Betsey.
Guest
Anonymous
September 8, 2021 5:09 pm
Well that did not take long
"ARM WELCOMES HON. ELIZABETH GONZALEZ (RET.) TO OUR DISTINGUISHED PANEL OF NEUTRALS"
To be clear, we all knew this was coming; the only thing that surprises me is that she joined ARM (which is only local) when I would have thought she would join JAMS and have a more regional involvement. But it is a no-brainer. Bill at $500 an hour to read briefs, eat cookies and mediate cases as opposed to being paid the equivalent of $90 an hour (yes I know they get benefits) to be a Business Court Judge, have to deal with litigants and trials and worst of all Hardesty. I dont blame her in slightest.
Weird situation. Wanted to know if anyone had any ideas. Client comes to me to form and LLC for some rentals. LLC is formed, quit claims signed. Due to some turn over in my office, there is some delay in recording the quit claim deeds. Before they were recorded, the client sold the property without advising my office. Then the quit claim deed was recorded. The recorder's office accepted it, but the problem was caught on the back end and we got one of those "there is a problem here" letters from the assessor's office. Anyway, I was wondering what I need to do to fix this problem. You cannot exactly cancel a deed, would she just need to do a quit claim back to the purchaser? Some kind of corrective quit claim explaining the error and disclaiming all interest? Any advice would be very much appreciated. Thank you.
You can file a corrective quitclaim deed that outlines the error.
Dammit, 10:49, did Property Law not teach you to record the deed pronto?
Okay, so Charlie Client owns Blackacre. Charlie deeds Blackacre over to Suemenot, LLC, but doesn't record. Someone (and it isn't clear from your question who) deeds Blackacre to Big Friendly Purchaser. Nevada is a race/notice jurisdiction, so assuming Big Friendly Purchaser has no knowledge of the transfer to Suemenot, LLC, and BFP has already recorded, BFP wins if the conveyance was from Client to BFP. Explain the situation to Client and maybe refund a portion of the fee. Suemenot has a claim against Client and possibly you, but if Suemenot is controlled by Client, not a big deal. If the conveyance was from Suemenot, LLC to BFP, BFP has a wild deed on their hands. They may need to re-record after you record yours.
10:49 suemenot is clients LLC. So the only issue Just the two parties. Just thinking I need to record something to make sure that it is clear that this was a mistake and that client who sold the property was not trying to then subsequently put it in their LLC.
Why, though? Sure, Client executed a deed to Suemenot. So what? Suemenot didn't record it first, so Suemenot is SOL, since it's void against BFP and all subsequent purchasers from BFP. Technically, it's still valid between Suemenot and Client, but if Suemenot is controlled by Client, and Client doesn't care, big whoop. Are you concerned that BFP is somehow harmed by a later filing?
I just wanted to avoid any possible issues in the future for my client. I don't want the buyer to go to sell it in the future and have some title company require them to file a quiet title against suemenot. Which of course my client wouldn't oppose, but still. Just wondering if there was someway I should clean this up to make sure there are absolutely no issues in the future.
Why complicate this? It is just a question of the timing of the deed recordation being wrong. As of the time the deed into the new Buyer was recorded, the grantor (the LLC) had no legal interest in the property. Have your client and his LLC do a quit claim deed, both the client and the LLC as grantors, to the third party buyer. So all of their interests have been conveyed.
I have a let's-call-it-a-hypothetical client situation that I'd like to discuss. Let's say there's a person who has been sued in a business dispute. This person claims to have valid defenses, but we know that it will be a long (and expensive) slog before anything will be resolved. The defendant does not have the money to get to the end of the case, while the other side claims to have ample funds and appetite to pursue this. Plaintiff has rejected all settlement overtures. BK is not an option. What would you advise the defendant? Are there companies that would loan money to fund legal fees, maybe?
I am assuming this is some kind of commercial litigation if it is going to be an expensive long haul? Not in that kind of case usually. Way to much risk for most lenders to tie it to the litigation. They would have to look at some kind of personal loan. Seems like a pretty bad idea. Why is bankruptcy not an option? What kind of case is it?
I've only seen them in the context of personal injury cases. Not sure if they exist for other types of cases. There is a national company that provides litigation financing, but I can't recall the name. If I remember I will report back. Have you googled it? Might be your best best if you can't learn anything here.A word of caution. The interest charged is likely to be very high. And make sure your fees are paid along the way (you might want to read the agreement your client signs with the financing company to make sure there is no clause that prioritizes repayment before paying your fees).
@12:19p – Unless you practice in the bankruptcy arena or regularly deal with litigation cases in bankruptcy, it would be beneficial for your client to have a consultation with a reputable bankruptcy attorney. Make sure the attorney does more than just bankruptcy though, otherwise your client will magically be a perfect bankruptcy candidate. They need to know what options there are. It may not be bankruptcy, but there have been times when I've stepped in to discuss settlement negotiations with opposing counsel and walked them through what would happen if my client had to file bankruptcy and it wasn't pretty for OC's client and hurt my client much less. Such conversations often help facilitate legitimate settlement of claims.
These niche questions are thrilling and all but here's a topic that affects everyone. Did the state bar sneakily and silently kill flat fee agreements? The latest issue has an unsigned "editorial" let's call it that chides lawyers to "take that earned on receipt" language out of flat fee agreements. Nevermind that there's been no change in the rules that I know of, which for years allowed such language. Might also mention the State Bar's own recommended fee agreement includes it – you can google "nevada state bar model flat fee agreement" like I did and see for yourself. In conclusion this is a BS change put forth in a BS manner that completely ignores how certain areas of law operate. So now what, criminal lawyers should wait to bill until the case is complete? What if the client bench warrants, for years – just keep that money in trust just in case! Family law, all kinds of unbundled services, all would feel the impact. I am begging you the reader to do what you love doing – tell me I'm wrong!
I have taken 1 case in my entire career on a flat fee. At the time I worked at a large-ish firm. Despite the flat fee arrangement I was told by my firm to keep track of my time for 2 reasons. 1 to tell the firm whether my arrangement made financial sense. 2 in case I ever needed to defend my fees. This was over 10 years ago. I interpret whatever article to are referring to as meaning you need to make sure you aren't ripping off clients. I wouldn't read too much into it.
Several years ago, I contacted the Ethics hotline when I opened my own practice because I wanted to understand how flat fees and trust accounts worked. They told me then that I needed to put it into the trust account until it had reasonably been earned. The basic premise was that a fee for doing nothing was unreasonable, and violates NRPC 1.5. So, that meant to me that I could transfer it into the operating account when the work was substantially done. I incorporated a provision in my fee agreements that explained when the work was substantially done, and I consider it good. Does it increase the accounting work that I have to do? Minimally. So, yeah. I'm okay with the stance the anonymous author took. To me, the "earned on receipt, but you can get a refund on unearned amounts" stance is just weird. Either it's earned and it's mine, or it's not yet earned, and I'm just holding it for the client until I do earn it.
As a crim guy, 90% of our cases are flat fee. The whole "earned upon acceptance" thing was deemed to be unethical and I get that. But suggesting flat fee cases are per se unethical strikes me as mind blowing. I mean the solution is to create an hourly fee this is much higher than business attorneys charge but at that point I feel the State Bar will litigate what a reasonable hourly fee is. It just seems that they like to go after the low hanging fruit of solo members of the defense bar. In doing short trials and other civil matters I am constantly amazed with some of the stuff the insurance defense guys get away with and you never see them get slapped down at all, except for that one time against Jennifer Arledge. But I have personally seen attorneys who come in at trial admit that prior in house counsel withheld evidence, I have seen an attorney try to withdraw admission to liability in the middle of trial and it just is beyond the pale. These are things that are a matter of record and yet no one attempts to punish them. I just don't get it.
Why are we stuck in the 18th century? The value of my services is not tied to the number of hours I worked; instead, it is tied to the results I produce. Time can be a vague proxy, at best, but thankfully I do not toil in the ID trenches.
I get how "earned on receipt" is questionable, especially if you do no work at all and the next day the client changes their mind and wants their money back, but this is just nonsense.
Unbundled attorneys are terrible and unethical as far as I'm concerned, but the state bar doesn't say or do jack about them. I've had family court cases that have dragged on and on for months (and months and months) because the opposing party had a new attorney at every hearing and every attorney would argue they just came on the case and needed more time and then they'd withdraw. It was a litigation tactic by the opposing party and they were allowed to do it because our great state bar says it's ethical.
@10:16
Flat fees/unbundled – for the every day client, it works. The attorney is taking the risk that he/she is efficient enough to get the work done at the price, the client is protected from a lazy attorney running up the billable hours.
Changing Attorneys and Continuances.
The "new attorney to the file" stuff should be controlled, but that's up to the judge. Once or twice maybe, but the new attorney is responsible for preparing for trial and understanding the case before accepting the work. As explained to me painfully by Burbank Superior Court Judge Murphy in the 80's, changing pitchers in the bottom of the ninth does not get you an extra inning.
Like anyone cares what "Burbank Superior Court Judge Murphy" had to say 100 years ago.
I did a thorough , long brief on this once and it was permissible and well argued in most states ie flatfees are very beneficial so of course NSB wont like as it cuts into the large firms that control it as puppet masters. Excuse text on cell
Omar coming!
RIP
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yu3qIakos9k
Is anyone aware of any COVID-related injury / death lawsuits? SB 4 of the 32nd special session included some immunity language and seemed to make a pretty high bar for plaintiffs. Although it seems to me that it would be hard to prove causation in any event, immunity or no.
Or have there been a shit load of them, but they just haven't gone anywhere yet?
There is immunity and unless it is a nursing home case you have no shot at winning a Covid case. Even in nursing home cases there are obstacles, but at least you eliminate the need to prove where the client got Covid since they can’t go anywhere.
So long, Betsey.
Well that did not take long
"ARM WELCOMES HON. ELIZABETH GONZALEZ (RET.) TO OUR DISTINGUISHED PANEL OF NEUTRALS"
To be clear, we all knew this was coming; the only thing that surprises me is that she joined ARM (which is only local) when I would have thought she would join JAMS and have a more regional involvement. But it is a no-brainer. Bill at $500 an hour to read briefs, eat cookies and mediate cases as opposed to being paid the equivalent of $90 an hour (yes I know they get benefits) to be a Business Court Judge, have to deal with litigants and trials and worst of all Hardesty. I dont blame her in slightest.
Good for her!
Hopefully she has more time for her family as well.
That will be a strike of her on my list. No thanks.
https://armadr.com/hon-elizabeth-gonzalez-ret/