- Quickdraw McLaw
- 19 Comments
- 136 Views
- Longtime gaming attorney Bob Faiss has passed away. RIP. [RJ]
- This wasn’t the first time Attorney/Judicial Candidate Jacob Hafter has made claims of anti-semitism against a judge. Oh, and his mom is, like, totally not voting for him. [RJ]
- Attorney William Errico, who was arrested last week on felony charges, apparently had a stroke less than a month ago and has posted the $100K to get out on bail. [RJ; @JGermanRJ]
- It shouldn’t be news that an attorney that pleaded guilty to felony charges faces potential disbarment, but in Las Vegas you never know…[RJ]
- The Green Rush is under way as Clark County Commissioners hold three days of hearings to determine which lucky 18 applicants will the golden tickets to dispense medical marijuana here. [8NewsNow]
- In light of yesterdays comments on passing the bar, we present the following poll question:
Ed. Sorry, it looks like the poll isn’t working.
How many times did you take the Nevada bar exam before you passed?
"“Say what you want … I don’t negotiate with terrorists.”
What a bad ass!
Dude, if your mom says this about you – “He’s not the person he professes to be, and what he did to Judge Vega is typical of him,” she said. “I don’t hate him. I feel sorry for him because he’s delusional. What I’m doing has nothing to do with animosity. I can’t see him being an impartial judge" – there is no way in hell I am voting of you. Although, in Hafter's case, I didn't need his mom to tell me that he was cray, cray – I already knew that!
Bob was a great attorney and did great things for Nevada. He will be missed.
Anyone want to take bets on when LS&C will now have to file for BK???
Shocker! I did not pass the bar exam the first time, and I have a high IQ. I know two other people who passed the bar exam on the second and third time, and they had documented genius IQs.
So, you people don't know what you are talking about. Keep up your rants, but my IQ an competence as a good, ethical attorney remains.
and
This MMJ stuff is out of control. You can sense people frothing at the mouth to get their hands on the money that will flow from it.
Online IQ tests don't count.
Neither does your online brilliance.
But my passing the bar on the first try does.
So does my passing the bar on the third try.
Folks who have trouble with the bar generally have trouble later on as attorneys. Example: Jeanie Winkler who was a chronic repeater. By the way folks, the bar was dumbed down for the first several crops of Boyd graduates. The pass rate would be much lower had the Supremes kept the passing score under the formula that they implemented but lowered because too many Boyd grads would not make it. Boyd (UNLV) professors are exempt from the bar and most would not pass anyway. They can waive in. It is ridiculous but this is true. Meanwhile they teach at Boyd that the profession and the Nevada judiciary are morons and they get special treatment. PS–Graduated from the night program at Boyd at passed first shot but still folks who did not make it. Did not even take the full bar review course. Just bought a set of materials and studied my brains out.
Steve Morris, one of the very best litigators in town, failed the bar the first time. It's kind of like your class standing in law school- once you've been out a few years, nobody gives a shit.
There you go, compare people who don't pass the bar exam to thieves. Awesome analogy, ass hat!
I took the bar zero times before I passed. I passed on my first try.
Good. I thought I was the only one who thought the question was being asked improperly.
Then you took the bar exam exactly 1 time before you passed. You couldn't pass it until you completed it. Had you got up and left in the middle, you wouldn't have passed. Also, there is period of several months where your bar exam results are like Schrodinger's cat, you have both passed and failed until they post the results. Therefore, you had to have taken it at least 1 time before you passed.
I don't think anyone is saying every person who didn't pass the bar on the first try is an idiot. However, I think it's fair to say it's more likely that someone who failed is more likely to have at least one (or more) of the following issues than someone who did pass on the first try: 1. Didn't study because lazy; 2. Didn't study because cocky; 3. Didn't have time to study because didn't plan properly; 4. Not good at time management; 5. Just not that smart. If I were hiring at attorney, I would consider any of these issues to be a potential problem. Not saying this necessarily applies to every person who didn't pass on the first try, just that it more likely applies to someone who didn't pass on the first try than to someone who did. Of course, a person could have suffered some tragedy that was truly out of his or her control (death of someone close, etc.). But it's more likely one of the issues I listed applies and I think that failing the bar usually doesn't just happen randomly to a smart person who prepared properly.
The bar exam is not indicative of your intelligence nor foretelling of your abilities as an attorney — it shows how good you are at studying for and taking bar exams. However, unless and until the State Bar of Nevada sets up an apprenticeship program, you KNOW you have to pass it in order to become an attorney; and if you are not smart enough to buckle down and study for it (or seek help) then I am not sure you are qualified to be an attorney.
When I came here in 97 after law school I showed up to the law firm where I was to clerk for pending bar results, and my boss told me that he didn't want to see me until after the bar — he stressed that my job that summer, and I was to treat it as a job, was to study for the bar because they couldn't use me if I didn't pass it, and more importantly, my JD was worthless without out it.
The bar is
What's interesting to me about all these comments is that many people are acting like there's only one definition of "intelligence." You could make the same argument about any test — SATs and LSATs included. You will do better on these tests if you have a certain type of intelligence — logical reasoning, in the case of LSATs. You will do better on the Bar if you have the type of intelligence that allows you to excel at the multiple-choice questions. I don't think anyone can legitimately dispute that.
I generally score in the top 1-2% on these multiple choice exams. Does that necessarily mean I'm more intelligent," as a whole, than someone who doesn't do well on these exams but excels with motion practice or trial advocacy? I would say no. It's just a different type of intelligence.