- Quickdraw McLaw
- 19 Comments
- 136 Views
- President Trump’s former attorney Michael Cohen plead guilty to lying to Congress. [Las Vegas Sun]
- Former Las Vegas executive convicted in $1.5 Billion Ponzi scheme. [RJ]
- We have not heard anything about the courts going to a 7-day work week as a commenter asked about. We do know that pre-filed bill AB46 seeks to increase the base salary for Supreme Court Justices, Court of Appeals Judges, and District Court judges by $30,000 each. Also, AB43 would increase the number of district court judges in Clark County from 32 to 38 for non-family court judges, and 20 to 29 for family court judges. Anyone aware about the 7-day work week rumor or any other proposed changes?
- One of our readers has a question and is asking for your input:
“It is hard for me to get my head around managing confidentiality where lawyers from different firms share a physical space. Phone calls overheard, stuff, left on printers, theoretically, even unlocked file cabinets are data security and confidentiality issues. To make matters worse, what about spaces where non-lawyers (say a financial planning group) are in the same office?
I think of it as strict liability, if there is a breach, notwithstanding 1.6, it is the lawyer’s fault no matter what policies or steps were taken. Does that sound correct in practice? Her’s the question, would an NDA be worth the paper it is printed on if there was an allegation of disclosure between firms or businesses in an office space?”
My malpractice insurance carrier specifically requires me to disclose if I share office space with any other firm and any other business. If I do, I have to confirm to them in writing that I have a lock on my office door and that I have a lockable file cabinet that I lock when I am not in my office.
I do bankruptcy matters so I have a lot of client personal info – copy of SSN card, NV Driver's license, credit report, etc and my credit report provider requires the same. The credit report provider requires a lockable file cabinet regardless of shared office space or not though.
Our firm is not in a shared office so that's not an issue, but I do have the lockable file cabinet for compliance that I use for active BK cases pre-341.
I don't any more, but I used to share office space with another law firm. Rule 1.6 requires a lawyer to take "reasonable steps," whatever that means, to prevent unauthorized disclosure of client information. Like 9:39, my malpractice insurer was the one that really set out the standards, e.g., a locking door, file cabinet, password protections on the computer (we had separate networks also), etc.
I have no idea how bar counsel would view it, but it seems to me that an NDA would be just one of several steps that you would take toward establishing "reasonable" measures to prevent disclosure. However, it seems like a small thing, because the NDA would only be implicated when there was *already* an unauthorized disclosure. Its utility is limited to perhaps preventing *further* unauthorized disclosure, a la a facebook post of "hey everyone, look what I found on the printer at work!"
So if your other steps to prevent disclosure suck, the NDA is certainly not going to save you.
I'm sure there are ABA guidelines or ethics opinions from other states outlining what constitute "reasonable" steps.
So I know that this Board likes to discuss Alexis Plunkett. Here was an aspect of the case that I did not figure: Bar Discipline. Apparently when Plunkett got arrested, the OBC started disciplinary charges against her even without a conviction. When her charges were thrown out, the OBC and Plunkett negotiated a Conditional Guilty Plea in which Plunkett would agree to a 6 month suspension (with 3 months stayed) and paying $2500 for the suspension.
In what is a Mixed Blessing, the Nevada Supreme Court threw out the CGP meaning that Plunkett is not suspended because any disposition is premature. But in typical Supreme Court doublespeak, the Supreme Court stated that it would not accept a 6 month suspension on a case which could result in a felony conviction.
So the message from the Supreme Court is (again) do not try to resolve your case with the State Bar of Nevada because the OBC's word is worthless and cannot in any manner be trusted. Frankly you are wasting your time and money in any manner trying to deal with the OBC. Furthermore the Nevada Supreme Court also just stated that NO discipline should ever arise from a trial court conviction because that trial court disposition is not final. The Nevada Supreme Court and OBC could not screw up discipline cases any more inconsistently if they each tried.
What is the heck is this? I get the State Bar blast that says the EJDC is seeking comments on "Hearing Master candidates." Hearing masters for what I asked myself. Seems vague. Well at least the link will tell me right?
"The public is invited to provide comments regarding candidates for a hearing master position for the Eighth Judicial District Court. The public input will be part of a three-tiered recruitment process established in an administrative directive for selecting District Court hearing masters and commissioners. Input on the final five candidates can be e-mailed to the Eighth Judicial District Court Human Resources office EJDCRecruitment@clarkcountycourts.us or mailed to 200 Lewis Ave, Las Vegas, NV 89155. The public comment period will be open until Tuesday, December 4, 2018, at 5:01 p.m.
The candidates listed below are finalists who have already been through an application review committee and an oral panel interview. The public input on these candidates will go to a selection panel for the third and final tier of the hiring process.
â—ľAdriana White
â—ľTim Andrews
â—ľRandall Forman
â—ľRhonda Forsberg
â—ľShannon Wittenberger
All of the candidates are attorneys who are members of the State Bar of Nevada in good standing. The selected hearing master will be responsible for hearing matters and rendering legal opinions and decisions in relevant case law."
Hearing Masters for what kind of cases and what kinds of hearings? Juvie? Discovery? Guardianship? Family? Arraignments? "Rendering legal opinions and decisions" of what kind? This is the vaguest thing I have ever seen.
A Hearing Master in the District Court can be assigned (and reassigned) to any division or case type within the court.
As the majority of the Hearing Masters are assigned to the family division, and whereas Dave Gibson was a Dependency Hearing Master, I would anticipate that this spot would, at least initially, be assigned to the family division. There is of course the possibility that a decision has been made that Bulla's duties have grown too large and that another Discovery Commissioner might be an appropriate allocation of resources.
Well but how can someone comment on the qualifications of the candidates without knowing where they will serve? I know Beecroft did ADR and some domestic discovery which made some sense because it was Beecroft. For example, as someone practicing civil and some Family litigation for 22 years, I feel entirely competent and qualified to apply for and hear civil discovery matters. However I would never deign to hear arraignments because they are way outside of my lane. None of the foregoing people are qualified to hear everything.
De La Garza will be a JP in January. This is presumably for her old LLA arraignment gig.
@ 1:37: I think you are reading far too much into the request for public comments. What I believe they are seeking is information about honesty, integrity, intellect, reputation, work ethic, team player vs. rebel, etc.
What their assignment might be is a secondary consideration, if weighed at all. At best it might be a tie breaker between 2 closely matched candidates. There are a few reasons for this, including the fact that the assignment is subject to change based upon the needs of the court. A competent candidate with sharp intellect and a strong work ethic can quickly come up to speed in any area of law.
It should be noted that other than the 8th and 2nd JD (Washoe and Clark) a District Judge in any of the remaining Judicial Districts of the state (the rest of the state) they hear all cases filed in their district… One day they may be hearing a capital case, the next day a divorce along with a personal injury case. The next week a mining or water rights case and a juvenile matter.
Additionally, it is easier to give a hearing master (as opposed to a judge) an assignment outside their wheelhouse as a hearing master only issues reports and recommendations not orders. If the party disagrees with a hearing master the remedy is an objection to the assigned judge whereas with a judge order it requires an appeal from a judgment or writ (if appropriate).
"It should be noted that other than the 8th and 2nd JD (Washoe and Clark) a District Judge in any of the remaining Judicial Districts of the state (the rest of the state) they hear all cases filed in their district… One day they may be hearing a capital case, the next day a divorce along with a personal injury case. The next week a mining or water rights case and a juvenile matter."
The difference is that District Court Judges are elected officials whose credentials are up for review and scrutiny. This is an appointed position. So if in fact it is really to be an umpire in any setting at any time, well then I guess say that.
The salary bump for the Gang Who Can't Shoot Straight is $60k. Half upon the adoption of the measure, and half when they get re-elected in a uncontested election.
$60,000? Are you serious? Let me guess that the BDR came from Hardesty. You miserable piece of ****.
How is it $60k? I thought it said $30k/year?
Sorry, I misread the amended statute. The amendments changed the base salary of $140k to $170k, and then a bump to $200k. But the old statute had set the salary at $140k, with a bump to $170k.
It says 30k except for those whose terms are up 2021 which shall be 60k and then everyone else gets 60k after that. It is really 60k.
And don't cry for me Argentina. As if their pay is what is going to cause them to quit the Nevada Supreme Court and go take a job with the Arizona or Utah Supreme Courts.
Michael A Cherry JUDICIAL ELECTED OFFICIALS
State of Nevada, 2017 $206,830.27 $0.00 $0.00 $206,830.27 $60,344.25 $267,174.52
Michael L Douglas JUDICIAL ELECTED OFFICIALS
State of Nevada, 2017 $206,830.27 $0.00 $0.00 $206,830.27 $75,302.96 $282,133.23
Mary K Pickering JUDICIAL ELECTED OFFICIALS
State of Nevada, 2017 $196,611.57 $0.00 $0.00 $196,611.57 $57,743.86 $254,355.43
Ron D Parraguirre JUDICIAL ELECTED OFFICIALS
State of Nevada, 2017 $206,830.27 $0.00 $0.00 $206,830.27 $60,259.42 $267,089.69
Mark W Gibbons JUDICIAL ELECTED OFFICIALS
State of Nevada, 2017 $206,830.27 $0.00 $0.00 $206,830.27 $60,307.70 $267,137.97
Here is an interesting twist: for state court judges (DJs and Supremes), assuming the raise becomes effective January 1, 2019 (hypothetically), those effected by the raise will have to work an additional three years in order to earn a bump in their PERS benefit. Certainly if granted, the raise could impact those folks who have been talking retirement.
double bump won't apply to judges elected in 2020 will it? And won't most of them be? So this applies to court of appeals and sct judges except gibbons and pickering?
My former firm shared space with a smaller firm, whose offices were literally scattered inside our office space. My office was directly across from the office of one of the partners of the other firm, and he would put all of his calls with clients on speaker phone. I heard practically all of his conversations with his clients. I was appalled, and I mentioned the breach of confidentiality to members of both firms. No one else seemed to believe there was a problem.
The Supremes yesterday killed the proposed amendments to NRAP for summary appeals of final judgments granting motions under NRCP 12(b)(2), 12(b)(5), or 56. http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/document/view.do?csNameID=34909&csIID=34909&deLinkID=689290&sireDocumentNumber=18-906025
Good. That was terrible. Basically converting an appeal to a motion to reconsider.