- Quickdraw McLaw
- 86 Comments
- 645 Views
- A secret shipment of plutonium rolled through town at some point last year without any locals knowing. [Las Vegas Sun]
- AG Aaron Ford will recuse himself from selecting outside counsel for opioid suits. [TNI]
- Justice Hardesty told lawmakers that the judiciary needs 16.2% increase in its budget over the next 2 years. [Nevada Appeal]
At the end of Tuesday's posts, there was a discussion of a really fine attorney who, in the estimation of some, did not turn out to be a very good judge.
It is interesting how we assume there is a clear connection–i.e. that really good attorneys will make really good judges. It is surprising how often that is wrong.
Likewise, sometimes attorneys who are mediocre(or worse) surprise everyone by being a solid judge once they are on the bench.
Anyone have any ideas as to why there seems to be a lack of any real consistency in this area? I realize the skill sets between a lawyer and a judge are somewhat different, but one would think that there would be more consistency wherein hard-working, knowledgeable attorneys would become hard-working, knowledgeable judges. But it's startling how often that is not the case.
One possible explanation is that new judges are often assigned to an area which is not the area they practiced in as an attorney.
We should elect attorneys who have a civil and criminal background.
No, we should have a set of judges who handle only criminal cases, and a set of judges who handle only civil cases, based on their real world experience. It is done elsewhere.
A couple of possible explanations. (1) As we saw with Bailus, he was a fine attorney who believed that he was retiring into a position where he did not have to work as hard. If you believe that a judgeship is a less taxing job than your previous life, you will treat it as a step down. (2) Great attorneys seek justice. Sometimes great attorneys on the bench don't want to call balls and strikes; they want to hit the ball. So the opposite of 1, they become too involved in the process and fail to serve the judicial role. (3) Many great attorneys work their way away from the courtroom and the picayune practice of courtroom drudgery. For this reason, I say this with no great pleasure as a civil practitioner, sometimes the criminal guys do better because they are in the courtroom constantly whereas the top civil guys are taking depositions, preparing settlements and contracts and work their way away from the courtroom and find the transition back is not as easy as anticipated.
9:28– We tried that in the EJDC. The criminal guys were home by noon; the civil guys were overwhelmed with work. It was an unmitigated disaster and caused rifts in the Courthouse. And yet with the "Murder Panel" and "Business Court", there are strains of returning to specialization amongst the judges.
9:35, doesn't that just indicate there were too many judges assigned to criminal dockets and not enough assigned to civil dockets?
I think that that 9:35 has addressed the question posed by 9:07 as effectively as the inquiry can be answered. I was aware of Factor #1 9:35 mentioned, about some judges viewing the job from the wrong perspective–as glorified semi-retirement wherein the judge is not intending to work very hard.
But I hadn't really considered Factors #2 and #3 discussed by 9:35. But now that I do, that seems to make a lot of sense and helps solve the puzzle to a large extent. And it was in fact puzzling on a certain level as it is surprising how often solid attorneys do not transition into solid judges.
9:56 here. When I referred to 9:35 in my post, I meant to say 9:32.
Bill Maupin and Stu Bell were great attorneys and great judges. T. Art Richie was a mediocre attorney, but a fine judge. Jesse Walsh was an average attorney and a lousy judge. You never know.
What was Walsh's link to Eglet? She always stood on her head to please them.
I always liked Jessie Walsh. Not her.
"Not her"? Meaning?
I wear Adidas, and I like Walsh, too. They meant that it was not Walsh saying she liked herself.
Where is Walsh now?
I heard Walsh was in Florida, taking care of a parent.
That means Eglet will be the opioid attorney. Shocker.
Natch.
The fix was always in.
I am shocked—shocked—to find that gambling is going on in here!
Still he's probably the best lawyer / firm in Nevada for the job.
Says Eglet
No, B&L should get the job. Look at all of the campaign money Tisha Black raised.
Who is B&L?
Black and lovello. I was told they were not accepting new cases. True?
I used to work for Black and LoBello, not a nice place to work.
Do you feel comfortable elaborating a bit?
Not 409, but I was opposing counsel on a case, and T. Black was horrible to deal with.
They have good coffee there. There was one attorney who I worked with there who was a real piece of work. I cannot think of his name, but I worked with another group of attorneys there. He was tall. He had no hair. I cannot think of his name.
@ 4:37, Steven Mack?
Mr. Clean is hot. He refers to himself as Mack Daddy. Come to papa, Mack Daddy.
Milk does a body good. Mr. Clean=Daddy Mack
Wait, Steve Mack refers to himself as Mack Daddy, no? I need to see this.
His personal email address is "MackDaddy".
Speaking of attorneys who abused their earlobes, whatever happened to Gary Stein?
I don't know, but I saw him talking to one hot chick in court not too long ago. Leggy brunette, who looked to young for him. Whoa, lawyer hottie.
He owns Daddy Mack's Chill Powder….but his website is down…looks like pot potables.
Nevada Powders
https://www.nevadapowders.com/
Nevada Powders CBD. … NevadPowderLogo.png. Home of Daddy Mack's Chill Powder. I affirm I am over the age of 21.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaiTcJ-WTpU
I think I may know who are talking about. If she is tall, then she is pretty. I met her, but I do not recall her name. Seemed nice enough. Sort of quiet.
Isn't B&L totally dependent on Randy Black? When he went BK B&L just about went under. I think the arrogant male attorney was John Jones? No, the attorneys there are not easy to stomach.
They have financial issues. I am surprised they are still open. Their receptionist is nice. I had a few appearances over there. Attorney, not so much.
Steve Mack refers to himself as Mack Daddy. Classy. I won't say what that sounds like. Name speaks for itself.
'Tish for Commish' bragged about her war chest she raised, and she still lost the race to Justin Jones. Tisha Black.
Oh well, back to the bottom Tish. After all, life begins at $49,950.
Lindeman or Wiese, please. No on Steve Mack.
14th
Hardesty wants a budget increase for what? Thank you for the laugh.
I have an appeals question, is the font 12 point or 14 point? Thanks.
14-point proportionally spaced typeface. NRAP 32(a)(5)(A).
Gracias.
Deniro.
Pacino.
See???? This blog is far from dead, you negative nancies.
No. 74711. Allow me to briefly summarize: For the umpteenth effing time, do not hide evidence and then lie about it.
11:28: How do you know so quickly when orders are released? If there's a feed please share the address. Thanks in advance.
11:28 is probably a staff attorney or law clerk at the NV SCt.
For the umpteenth time, that is a woman saying that, stop ignoring evidence NSC.
My guess is that 11:28 is a party to that case.
Not so fast. People can be critical of rulings without being a party.
Mother Russia, the ballots are good. We are good in the hood. Harry is on his death bed. Need to protect the party so more sheep can be mislead.
@2:55: 2:23 here. My guess was about how 11:28 knew about the decision shortly after it was issued. Has nothing to do with 11:28's commentary about the decision.
Me likey, 305
It's a cloudy boring afternoon so I pulled up this case. I haven't heard of it before – I'm surprised. I went to the attorney's bio and this is what it states … "an experienced litigator, xxxxx is recognized for her aggressive advocacy." I can't say I'm surprised that any attorney guilty of concealing evidence fancies herself an "aggressive" advocate. I'm now not so ashamed of my "passive" and "apathetic" advocacy lately.
I don't have the energy, who is the attorney?
I already have a bad karma feeling for even posting my vanilla comment. I'm constantly paranoid I'll jack some case up, so I won't post her name but the Answering brief to the writ is really …interesting. There but for the grace of God go I….(but I hope my jack ups are pure old fashioned negligence and not intentional deceit).
I am fat and ugly as fuck, now I have to look up the case.
@4:21 I think I'm in love with you, but not enough to look the case up for you. Just do it – it will make you feel like a good lawyer. And this is the first time I've ever said – damn Judge Israel, good job.
421 wins the post of the month. That's funny.
Though it doesn't appear to always be updated daily, the Supreme Court has a web page listing newly filed unpublished orders: https://nvcourts.gov/Supreme/Decisions/Unpublished_Orders/
As does the Court of Appeals: https://nvcourts.gov/Supreme/Decisions/Court_of_Appeals/Unpublished_Orders/
9:01, those lists are usually updated the morning after when orders are entered.
Good Attorneys are often great speakers. Good Judges are great listeners. Typically Bad Judges talk too much and don't listen near enough.
Any word on Sisolak's appointment to the Court of Appeals? Doesn't he only have a short period of time within which to appoint?
Thirty days from submission of the list. If he declines to pick from the three, it goes back to the Committee to try again.
I suspect that they well keep the configuration of 2 from the South and 1 Non-South seat–form either the North or the rest of the state.
Silver now goes to the Supremes which leaves Tao(from the South) and Gibbons(who was from Douglas county, so that takes care of the one Non-South seat).
So, of the three prospective appointees, Wiese makes by far the most sense. I don't think the attorney from up North is likely to get appointed. As for Bulla, she is a bit too polarizing, which can make it difficult to get appointed. She is in a highly visible position wherein, rightly or wrongly, a large percentage of the attorneys take a dim view of her demeanor as well as other concerns. Also, whatever one thinks of her, it is many times worse to appoint someone new to the positon as the first 7 or 8 months as Commissioner would be a nightmare learning curve which would cause far greater problems. The sheer volume, and nature of the position, make it nearly impossible that Bulla, or anyone else, would be widely beloved. A thankless position to be sure.
But Wiese is a real solid judge, humble guy, treats attorneys, litigants, colleagues, support staff and jurors well, and certainly has the legal chops to perform well. He seems to be fairly well-liked across the board.
Wiese is the safest and best choice by far.
No, I'm not Wiese nor am I a friend or connected in any way. Simply seems like the best choice of the three. I may well be wrong, but that's my view, and it appears to be shared by many I have spoken to.
The only reason I think Bulla will be the pic is to avoid an all-male Court of Appeals. In this political climate, as long as the person is a democrat, it's gonna be the woman nominee. I agree with your north vs. south analysis though. I guess at this point we can only speculate. I'm just worried who will fill Bonnie's spot if she's gone. Guess it can't get much worse, but who knows.
If they're going for efficiency, Lindeman should be the pick. She spent years writing orders and opinions as a Staff Attorney for the court.
Efficiency? You mean the woman who presided over the backlog at the Court becoming historically huge as its Clerk? Is that the efficiency of which you speak?
Off topic, but I am concerned with how many names I forget as the years pass.
Perhaps someone can help me with my latest dilemma.
What is the name of that Family Court Judge who lost his re-election bid about four years ago, and posters used to say he resembled a furby, and that he had a maddening tendency to invent his own procedural rules, and then sanction attorneys for not complying with these non-codified, invented rules?
He also used to get barbecued in the press for performing very poorly in the Judging The Judges survey.
Speaking of Judging The Judges, it has not appeared since 2012 or 2013, so I assume it has been permanently abandoned. That's too bad. Although it was heavily flawed in some key respects, it at least was the only highly visible media forum for analyzing a judges strengths as well as shortcomings. And, by extension, such broad exposure also provided some real level of potential accountability. Bad results sometimes translated into a judge attracting a decently funded and decently supported opponent in the next election.
But now, barring an occasional judicial scandal, we really have nothing
in terms of any real media exposure as to judicial performance. All we have left is that if you google a judge's name you will find some anonymous posts from disgruntled litigants and attorneys.
Ken Pollock.
My understanding is the State Bar bowed out of its participation in the Judging the Judges survey. That said, the anonymous comments had gotten particularly nasty. Initially, the comments would be provided to the judge. The second to last year, you had to request them and, the final year, they weren't even provided if you asked. In my opinion, some of that nastiness may have contributed to the poll not going forward.
The Review Journal participated and published the results of the judicial survey which was handled by a third party for the polling. The Clark County Bar participated in the survey. The surveys have been gone for a long time. The Clark County Bar withdrew from the survey. The survey continued on by the newspaper and was done on line. Sometimes they were spot on. Several reporters confronted judges without the results being provided to the judges ahead of time. The surveys were anonymous. There were opportunities for the attorneys to make comments some of which were nasty. Some of the comments were published by reporters. But it was no different than the comments attorneys made to each other privately. I miss the surveys.
Perhaps an opportunity for this Blog or an industrious member of the Bar to put up an online poll to Judge the Judges. Online polling has become cheaper and easier than ever to do.
To:4:53. I have not heard that the Northern lawyer is not seriously in the running, but I have heard that Wiese is assumed to be favored for the appointment.
That may or may not be for some of the reasons you mentioned, but it does seem he is the presumptive appointee.
But, of course, we will never know until the appointment is actually made, as we have seen quite a few judicial surprises as to appointments.
Who was the candidate who lost to Halverson?
In the General Election, Bill Henderson lost to Halvorsen.
In the Primary, (1) Jerry Wiese; (2) Mike Villani; (3) Bruce Gale; (4) Gerald Gardner and (5) Mike Federico all bowed out
Bill Henderson was the one who lost the General Election to Halverson, in what rounded off to a 50%/50% result.
I understand that to this day he is ashamed he lost that race, but he had company–prominent company.
Future judges Wiese and Villani were eliminated in the primary, as well Chief Deputy Attorney General Gerald Gardner who was widely expected to win.
Halverson was the only female in a primary of like 8 candidates, and she had some real name recognition when she started the race as two years earlier she came close to defeating sitting Judge Gerry Hardcastle.
It all shows how little the public knows about any of these races. A lot of Halverson's future issues were already on full display at the time of that race, but no one paid attention until a few months into the position she attracted all that media attention based on her behavior.
The fat that she could significantly outpoll excellent future judges like Villani and Wiese, as well as beating favored candidate Gerald Gardner, really speaks to the absurdity of judicial elections.
I agree with much of what you said (other than the Freudian slip about "the fat that she could…"). I will be honest that I did not think either Villani or Wiese would be excellent future judges. I am not certain that I am not still half right between those two.
That is a very interesting slip, but probably unconscious and unintentional as the poster seems to be fairly diplomatic and civil.