- Quickdraw McLaw
- 51 Comments
- 202 Views
- Here’s the list of judicial candidates in the primary being endorsed by the RJ.
- Dan Hill will no longer be taking over the Badlands case for the City of Las Vegas. [RJ]
- Understanding the lastest unemployment claims numbers in Nevada. [TNI]
- This article is about businesses rethinking office spaces for employee safety in the age of coronavirus—is your firm changing things around now? [Las Vegas Sun]
"…Judge William Kephart faces two challengers. Judge Kephart has had his issues, including a 55 percent retention rating in Judging the Judges. But he is the best choice in this field."
Both a gloss over and faint praise in one sentence.
It was the best Kephart could have hoped for.
It will be amusing to see if he touts this "endorsement" in his campaign material.
The same editorial bragged about Pickering's 69 percent approval rating. That is low. Also, they only mention their opponent just by name with no rationale for endorsement other than 95 percent of their endorsements are Republican. No on Pickering and Hardy.
The editorial says 75% and I checked – it is, with 4.1/5 on breakdowns.
Neither approval rating is good, Hardy or Pickering. You are right, there is no analysis of candidates. Just vote for them, because we tell you so. No.
Also, "vote for them because they ruled in our favor in our public-records case" or "vote against them because they ruled against us."
Oh good, the Pickering troll who gets basic facts wrong is back.
11:52, you sound defensive. The only mistake I saw was a 6 difference in your approval. That makes a troll?
I wish there were retention ratings for the BOG. Vote out the incumbents!!!!
My ballot:
Donald Green
Scott Lachman
Casey Quinn
Brittnie Watkins
You should strongly consider Mary Bacon (not an incumbent, strong commitment to pro bono)
Pro bono work is important, and I don't want to diminish it, but why is it relevant to the BOG?
Here's what I care about:
1. Stabilizing discipline. For years, there was some wild shit going on in this town. After some major scandals and Jane Ann Morrison columns, the pendulum has swung to the other extreme. There have also been some very disturbing incidents (ie, Ginapp case). Even now, the stories I am hearing are insane. We need a stabilized, common sense disciplinary system.
2. We need people who will protect the profession and public from self-serving forces that want to remove or diminish barriers to entry. Whether it be Dean Hamilton or out-of-state lawyers/firms, these people are invoking the public good to advance their own personal interests and agendas. Nevada cannot afford this.
3. At some point in my life, I'd like to go to an Annual Meeting. But I lack both the time and the money to do so. I'd like to see this meeting in LV at least every third year. That's not a lot to ask.
Amen, not Armeni. No to the status quo or the Craner and Coffing duo. Meet me over subs, and we also don't want Quinn. A vote for Lachman will not have a new spin to Bogs.
What 2:55 said.
I would like to see Nevada join the vast majority of other states in adopting reciprocity and a common sense bar exam. To deal with the problem of unethical or underqualified lawyers coming in, the bar should adopt consistent and stricter punishment for violations, as many other states do. No more of these two-year suspensions for trust account violations, etc.
3:37– Consistent? Sure. Stricter? WTH have you been lately?! Ever since Stan Hunterton was sent in to absolutely ignore all precedent and scorch the Earth, there has been no justice. 2:55 nails it, the pendulum has drastically and horrifyingly swung the other way. The Ginapp case where OBC obtained a disbarment on a case in which the attorney ended up being guilty of nothing more than not answering the letter from the OBC takes the cake. Some of that lays squarely and Hanging Judge RoyBean Hardesty but there is no question but that OBC has done little to stabilize the situation.
Looks like six months and a day, not disbarment? Why would you go on the internet and tell easily disproven lies? Maybe you have an agenda you’d like to push?
Before it got fixed, it was a disbarment.
Coffing, Goodey, Lachman, and Quinn are the only ones who addressed discipline in their candidate statements. I refuse to vote for Coffing for Bogs since he is running for judge. I voted for the other three and Amber. Amber just because she would have been a better judge than Hafen even with 4 years of experience. Lol.
So 2:55 have you actually read anything about what the current BOG is doing to possibly revamp attorney discipline? Not sure that I agree with all of it but it appears that you have not even tried to gain an understanding. We can all agree that there are problems but there are some who are trying to change it. So Maybe stop just bitching and suggest some real ideas.
Agreed. I am so tired of the 12:10s of this world. Everyone current is bad and anyone else must be better. No reasoning no analysis, and no discussion as to what you would do if you had the stones to volunteer to try and help.
Why should I vote for Green or Quinn? The others have been discussed.
4:37, it was disbarment for conflicts, misconduct, and failure to respond (and a default). Of course it was a disbarment at that point? Should the Supreme Court not disbar attorneys who don’t even have the good sense to file an answer to their disciplinary complaints? Ginapp showed up, for the default rescinded, and received an appropriate amount of discipline via guilty pleasure. System worked as intended. But I guess that doesn’t fit the narrative certain people would like to push?
Conflicts? OBC does shitty about attorney client conflicts. The statute is mandatory, and they did nothing. Hoggee authored the denial of complaint letter.
OBC does no discipline. Coffing and Lachman want to go after attorneys. No to you.
I'm so tired of the 5:20's this world. No rationale as to what the current BOGs have done, and no discussion about what they plan to do. All I've seen over the past few years is kumbaya in Vail and Seattle. Get to work and stop spending our bar dues.
5:39– Ginapp's case is one of the most egregiously horrible in recent memory. OBC gets a Complaint and sends a letter setting a hearing. Ginapp is having personal problems and reaches out to the OBC to continue the Hearing.
–> OBC does not tell the Panel that Ginapp had reached out.
–> OBC does not have the Complainant testify. Instead OBC goes forward and puts on its investigator Dawn Meeks and has the Investigator testify via hearsay allegations as to what happened, allegations that even the Complainant later attests to be false.
–> OBC does not present the exculpatory documents in its file which showed that some of the charges were unsupportable.
–> Upon remand (and David Mincavage no longer being on the case for OBC) OBC does the right thing and dismisses all of the charges in exchange for a CGP for failure to answer the original Complaint.
If you honestly believe the OBC system "works as intended" by attempting to disbar a guy on perjured testimony and not disclosing exculpatory evidence, well you and I are part of very different Bars.
Is Mincavage the scientologist?
To get on 5:20's nerves, do not vote for incumbent BOGs or incumbent judges, because they all suck. I am sorry, but is true.
It is, the grammar whammy will be out.
6:13, I didn’t realize you had the transcript in front of you. Care to link it so we can all see? Or did you just want to rest on your own hearsay testimony and be a giant hypocrite?
I wonder who 5:39 PM and 5:33 AM is. Those sure are some strong opinions defending how the Ginapp matter was handled.
I voted for Brittnie Watkins, Mary Bacon, Andrew Craner, and Terry Coffing.
5:33 a.m. Go read the appellate briefs, followed by the Supreme Court decision of limited remand and the ultimate resolution. Talk with some of the Assistant Bar Counsel who are no longer in the office but were there when this stain went down. You asked for a links:
http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseView.do?csIID=40232
http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseView.do?csIID=45669
It is not a secret amongst people who handle discipline cases that the Ginapp case was dirty, including having the OBC Paralegal testify to false facts that even the Complainant said were false. Once the case got transferred away from Mincavage, OBC backed off of the false allegations and reduced the case to a violation for not answering the OBC's demand for response.
Yes, please go read a random sampling of a Nevada Supreme Court orders with the briefs, and you will see why you don't want to vote for Pickering or Bonnie Bulla.
With of course the understanding that Bonnie Bulla is not on the Supreme Court.
Yes, with and the Court of Appeals orders as well as it pertains to Bonnie Bulla.
No Casey Quiin, he is the opposite of what you want.
I've seen a lot of these kind of statements, but no explanation. What do people have against him? I have never had a case against him.
I would be leery of Scott Lachman. He is a Nevada Supreme Court ex pat, current buddy of justices.
As far as these judicial endorsement editorials,there seems to be a continued fixation on "judicial activism" while having no real sense of what that is. Their definition would seemingly be that when a judge interprets, rather than simply applies the law, that this constitutes judicial activism.
Now, if a law is clear and unambiguous, and a judge ignores it and substitutes his/her own judicial philosophy, that is in fact a problem.
But most of the time it is nothing that clear. Often ambiguous language is being interpreted. And, in some cases, appellate courts declare a law unconstitutional. That is not activism. Instead, it is in fact the job of certain appellate courts.
A judge's job is to interpret facts, and apply the law, as well as, in many cases, by necessity, interpret the law when it is unclear. Or sometimes the law is fairly clear as written, but it has been inconsistently and unfairly applied. That may also merit intervention.
90% of the time when someone screams "judicial activism" they simply don't agree with a ruling.
And often "judicial activism" is raised when discussing "value" issues. Someone is apparently a "judicial activist" if they rule differently than our values. If they rule consistent with our values they are then a constitutional sound judge who merely "applies" the law but does not "interpret" it. It's all completely self-serving.
1:00–A greater problem with these endorsements is that they put a big emphasis on the survey ratings, but are very inconsistent and selective about it.
Someone may have a retention rating of about 70%, but may not receive the endorsement, while someone else has a 55% rating yet does receive the endorsement.
They seem to justify this by implying that no two races are the same, and that the quality of challengers vary in each race. Fair enough on the surface, but they fail to analyze or explain that in any way.
A former prosecutor, and thus someone who the RJ may perceives as a conservative republican, receives the endorsement despite a 55% rating because he is simply the best his race has to offer(or so we told). But they never discuss either of his opponents. On the other hand, someone who has a rating of 70% may not receive the endorsement. Why? Probably because he or she is a democrat and thus would be viewed as a "judicial activist."
Now, although they will occasionally criticize a sitting judge who they will not be endorsing, they seldom single out or discuss the merits of a challenger if they will in fact be endorsing the judge in such race.
The reason may be that, if not endorsing the judge, his/her low ratings can fairly be referenced, and does not give rise to any legitimate defamation claims. But when endorsing a judge, they usually say nothing about the challengers because this(criticizing a challenger) does seem to have resulted in some litigation in the past.
These claims have usually been dismissed out early and deemed as frivolous, but they are still expensive and time-consuming to defend.
So, if someone is some wack-job perennial candidate who seems to be delusional and have sued everyone who ever looked at them cross-eyed, the newspapers(quite wisely in my estimation)no longer point any of that out.
So, on that level I understand not discussing a challenger if they have those kind of issues, and are prone to sue everyone who ever says anything unpleasant about them. But, still, in a race where we are told that a poorly performing judge is the best choice in the race, we need to at least be told a little about the challengers.
All they, RJ, said about Tegan was het name, and she is a public defender. This first rrspinder is voting for her, Herndon, and Esther Rodriguez. The others I am researching on my own.
The RJ also endorsed candidates based on "experience" without any regard to actual qualities, like temperment or even intelligence. I feel like this year they really dropped the ball. Based on how they (mis)evaluated the candidates I am familiar with, I'm not going to give them any credence in races I'm not familiar with.
The RJ has no editorial board any longer really. Sebelius interviewed some of the candidates but it is not his votes you see in there. The RJ was written like a slate from Culinary because it really is nothing more than Sheldon's slate.
All but one or two RJ endorsement are, which suck, are all or most Republican. All male, but 1, and all white. I am not voting for any of the endorsements.
I am sorry 2 women out of 12.
Except for races where I have personal first hand knowledge, I always follow RJ, sometimes regretting it later.
1:00 and 1:21 offer detailed analysis, but I believe it is a lot simpler than those posts suggest.
11:29 hit the nail on the head.
When analyzing judicial performance and experience, for the purpose of the editorial board endorsement, here's all you need to know.
If a judge ruled that the autopsy reports are confidential, they are a really bad judge. Plus they are a blue meanie. Just really bad.
But if they ruled the autopsy reports are public record, they are a really great judge, and must be a really neat person as well.
Now that all said it was baffling for the one judge to order the RJ to destroy redacted autopsy reports which had already been released to them, and wherein it could not be determined which individuals the autopsy reports concerned.
To rule the redacted autopsy reports could not be released in the first place, although that would have been an invalid ruling, it may have at least made some logical sense as to what it was attempting to avoid. But to release the redacted reports and then order the newspaper to destroy them is ludicrous. Like trying to un-ring a bell, or stuff the genie back into the bottle, or any other appropriate cliché.
If you think the RJ Endorsements on the RJC races leave much to be desired, just wait till the Family Court endorsements on Wednesday.
In fairness to the RJ, the endorsements seem to largely be based on the content of the judicial debates the RJ sponsored for each race. To base an endorsement on such debates, as opposed to basing the endorsements on a standard editorial board interview of each candidate, is in fact an interesting and somewhat promising approach. They are thinking outside the box a little.
But that said, if the debates turn out to be useless and vapid, it will be difficult to issue effective endorsements–unless it is endorsing the candidate who was less useless and vapid.
Although arguably the RJ could have asking better and more probing questions, the fault for the dreadful debate performances lie almost solely with the candidates. It was an exercise in who could be the most safe and boring and speak in the most universal of unobjectionable platitudes.
In one or two of these Family Court debates, the candidates kept repeating that "best interests of children" must be focused on in custody disputes. Had someone actually suggested otherwise? Was this actually a bone of contention to any rational extent?
In another debate, the candidates, each wanting to be the one who puts the most distance between themselves and the potential tainting effect of contributions, kept trying to top each other as to which one despises financial contributions the most. Wonder what their campaign managers thought of such dialogue.
The effect of money on judicial races is a very serious issue, so we would welcome a serious, mature and nuanced dialogue on such matter. But a contest as to who hates contributions the most hardly seems like a mature discussion.
Also, everyone realizes that when political candidates(judicial or otherwise) go out of their way to say they take a dim view on contributions and will not seek or accept any, that is usually a convenient stand to take as such candidate usually has little or no financial support–which provides them the seeming luxury of being the one "principled" person in the race.
The Indy results should be interesting when they come out.
No social distancing at restaurants, Crazy Pita. Now, downtown Summerlin.
Excellent! The revolution is starting.