Consequences are what they are. What had you hoped for? The death penalty? For a stupid decision that went horrifically wrong?
He lost a D1 Scholarship to his hometown School and potentially derailed what might have been an solid NBA career. The jailtime is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. But don't act like he isn't paying for his [bad] decisions.
I am truly sorry for the loss to his victims family, but what in your mind is reasonable in this case?
Thank you for your thoughtful response without insults. My opinion doesn’t really matter. I don’t even do criminal law. But personally, if one’s actions result in death then it would be something comparable e.g. maybe life in prison with no parole, maybe death penalty. I don’t know. The family of the victim will NEVER know their loved one again. Thank you for a civil conversation.
Simple, gross or reckless, negligence is a bitch. But IMO does not mandate life in prison or similar and the loss of one life does not mandate the destruction of another life. He has paid the price the Court determined was sufficient. Let him be.
Probably should just let Rittenhouse "be" as well? Actions have consequences, sometimes the lifelong kind. Collins will learn this daily going forward.
I think the real problem is the investigation, no?
During previous court proceedings, prosecutors told the judge the case had a "number of concerns" that resulted in negotiations yielding an "offer that was lower than we're usually comfortable with for a case of this nature."
1043 here.
I have lost family to tragedy and still do not want to see another life ruined for a stupid mistake. I have also had family unjustly imprisoned. So I see both sides and have come to the same conclusion.
Clearly Rittenhouse is irrelevant to this case. He was acquitted and found in the self defense of those trying to kill him. Leave him be.
With the investigation, them's the breaks. Family of vic should be pissed at Metro et al.
Most states use the MPC's classification for various mentes reae. The MPC organizes and defines culpable states of mind into four hierarchical categories:
Acting purposely – The defendant had an underlying conscious object to act.
Acting knowingly – The defendant is practically certain that the conduct will cause a particular result.
Acting recklessly – The defendant consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustified risk.
Acting negligently – The defendant was not aware of the risk, but should have been aware of the risk.
Thus, a crime committed purposefully would carry a more severe punishment than if the offender acted knowingly, recklessly, or negligently. The MPC greatly impacted the criminal codes of a number of states and continues to be influential in furthering discourse on mens rea.
Totally against the stupidity of DUI. People make mistakes on our roads every day that are reckless, stupid, dangerous, where "actions result in death." We want the death penalty for unsafe lane changes or following a motorcyclist too closely. I have no sympathy for Collins in dealing with the repercussions of his actions. However to argue that he should get the death penalty or life in prison is draconian beyond reason in my view.
11:43 let me put this in micro terms. I’m at the movie and one bumps into me and makes me spill my popcorn. I truly don’t care if he wasn’t paying attention or meant to or was pushed into me by someone else and did not avoid me. Unless u we’re trying to not hit me, you’re gonna pay for my popcorn. Let ability should extend wayyyyyy further than it does. My favorite movie quote of all time from Unforgiven (paraphrasing) “he should’ve armed himself he gonna decorate his saloon with my friend.”
11:43 – of course he is going to pay for the popcorn. That is what civil remedies are for. He's not going to jail unless he willfully and unlawfully used force against you and spilled your popcorn. So I am not sure what doctrine there is to extend.
CCSD is beyond repair. No amount of money is ever going to save it. School choice is the only way. If sending kids to religious schools, although if the parents find it objectionable then secular private/charter schools are a choice to, are the way to save our future generation from educational despair, then fine by me. I think parents are in a much better position to be making decisions of the kind of education their children should receive then random gov't employees that have proven time and time again they aren't equipped to do so (although exceptions clearly apply).
The problem is that CCSD is increasingly full of students whose parents just don't give a shit. If a parent cares, they can move their kids to a charter school. Ironically, those charter schools insulate CCSD's failure by removing what would normally be the most adamant voices (parents who care). As a community, we have a duty to ALL CHILDREN, including those left behind to the neglect of CCSD. We must break up CCSD. It is the only moral solution.
The TNI piece makes sure you know: freedom of choice is an ideologically dangerous idea — it even encourages spending on education associated with religious sects! We should have one educational monolith with one religion – Wokeism – and no choice. That is not ideological at all. That's true freedom.
TNI author is making it sound like somebody is going to go around and put guns to parents heads and force their kids into religious schools. Want to send your kid to a religious school? Great! Don't? Great ! It's all about the choice, not allowing the educational monolith giving your children no options
School Choice advocates want to put a gun to my head and make me pay for a religious school's tuition. They know most people can't afford the tuition, even with the government cheese footing part of the bill. As a result, the ones who were going to go anyway (and who can afford it) get a discount on tuition courtesy of the government welfare teat.
Don't like me calling school choice people drains on society? Then pay for it yourself. Don't ask me to. After all, isn't that the same argument you make when it comes to student loans, school lunches, etc.?
Guest
Anonymous
September 12, 2023 5:44 pm
Other than the 8th jd being overwhelmed, is there any legitimate reason to have the parties submit orders? I just observed a motion hearing where the judge made a decision, specifically cited to the cases she was relying on, and then ordered the winning side to submit an order. It seems to me if the judge already knew what she wanted to do, and had the case law ready to go, she should've just issued the order.
To add onto this, the Second JD issues their own orders, the federal courts issue written orders, both appellate courts issue written orders. It just strikes me as odd the 8th doesn't
Here is my concern. It is not that attorney drafted Orders add extra burden to counsel. It is that I had a Motion for Summary Judgment where the judge said "Meh motion denied" and ordered Defendant to prepare the Order in which case we got a 27 page order with findings and conclusions (that the judge never made from the bench) but the judge signed it because the proposed Order was drafted by the prevailing party.
If a court says denied without explanation, I would interpret that to mean the court agreed with my motion or opposition and place my arguments in an order. I see nothing wrong with that. Not only.do I see nothing wrong, I assume that is the correct way of handling that scenario.
If the Court gives you the basic underpinnings for their reasoning, and you fill in the details, fine. But if the court just says "denied" and doesn't give any kind of rationale? I don't know. Seems like the right thing to do is to just say "Denied" in the order without explaining it. Sucks to be before a sucky judge, but you don't actually know where the judge agreed with you and where they thought you were full of it but based their decision on something else, like the burrito they had for lunch. If I was OC, I'd object to a full-throated acceptance of every argument you made, especially if that had Law of the Case ramifications.
I do not care if the Court writes its own Order but I do believe (1) courts need to provide rationale in either a decision from the bench or Minute Order and (2) need to have Orders submitted in MS Word and .pdf so that the Court can review the Order to see if it accurately sets forth the Court's reasoning and can modify it accordingly.
Yes the Supreme Court requires FFCL in every Order so that the appellate court can review the reasoning of the Court; rarely does/should a Court agree with everything that one side says. Yet that is how Orders are written and rubber stamped by lazy judges.
Always entertaining when the people in the courtroom don't realize the mics are on, before the bench bar meeting
Guest
Anonymous
September 12, 2023 7:38 pm
Noticed the topic of the hospital fighting the $48 million dollar judgement by challenging the process and manner in which two substitute judges were assigned to the case, to replace two Nevada Supreme Court justices who had recused from the case.
When a party can no longer fight effectively on the merits, and resorts to arguments concerning the composition of the court deciding the matter, that is almost always a losing approach of final desperation. A court virtually never rules that it was improper to appoint the substitute judge(s) to replace a recused judge(s) who was on the panel.
The issue was actually much more nuanced and goes to a bigger question of an elected judiciary where one can end up with Justices who were not elected. Same concerns with senior judges who are accountable to no one can be thrown onto your case.
Guest
Anonymous
September 12, 2023 7:49 pm
12:38- I agree that approach is always an uphill battle, but it is not as universally unsuccessful and useless as you suggest.
Even though the argument was rejected in this case, there was a dissenting jurist. So, it's not always an argument that is completely lacking in merit, although, yes, based on law of averages, it is very, very seldom successful.
But once in while lightening does strike in the proper case and circumstances.
And if being crushed by a 48 million dollar judgement, attorneys will often take approaches that, objectively speaking, have less than one chance of a thousand of being successful.
48 million?! That's a lot. Even for a large hospital. Even for large hospital network that has several locations spread across a city. That puts a real dent(or more) in the annual budget. In some cases, upends the annual budget
He said that the more he hears the howls of anguish from solos on this blog, the more he knows he’s on the right track to holding them accountable. He’s doubling down.
12:53-Some are haters, but some raise legitimate issues.
I don't even want to get into the debate about whether there is disproportionate discipline for small or solo practitioners vs larger , influential firms, although it is a worthy discussion to have.
But, for our immediate purposes, let's take a brief look at Mr.Hooge's current presentation–trust accounting.
Obviously there are serious cases where desperate, out-of-control attorneys steal their clients' money, and in those instances, I seldom, if ever, encounter decisions where I think the State Bar came down too hard on the attorney. We don't need attorneys like that in our profession.
But there are a far greater number of cases where an attorney, with an unblemished record, has some seemingly minor, unintentional , very temporary accounting discrepancy or shortfall, and the matter is immediately rectified and no client is harmed. In such instances, it seems to usually generate at least a public reprimand, and often even a (sometimes stayed) suspension.
Some of those matters seem like disproportionate discipline concerning attorneys who are very unlikely to commit the same breach in the future.
1:40-That's not productive, quite unfair and very untrue.
And that type of name-calling distracts from the very legitimate issues and concerns many attorneys have–some of which are discussed by 1:38.
if we ever hope to engage an audience who could actually change things, we will get shut down right away if we indulge in personal attacks as our primary focus, rather than focusing on the issues.
Based on certain matters, including NSC decisions reviewing certain State Bar discipline, it seems to me there have been a couple justices who, to some extent at least, have shared some of the concerns that attorneys are expressing as to some of these discipline approaches.
That is the type of dynamic we should examine and attempt to develop, rather than calling vile names.
2:05, I realize that an approach like 1:40 changes nothing, but I chalk it up to simple venting. No need to over-react to it.
But my main concern is your suggestion that we might have allies among appellate justices, as to these concerns surrounding State Bar discipline. I'm not really aware of that, so if someone could point out to me specific cases or instances where such "support" was shown, that could prove helpful.
1:40 back. I’m a lawyer. I’ve seen real shit. Not fluffy contracts and cocktail mediations but murder, rose and every vile thing in this city. So I call it like I see it. I didn’t about 10 mini with Hooge alone day and he is the definition of a narcissistic. Don’t like my opinion then delete and carry on with your day as I will with mine. No venting just my observation.
I can’t wait to leave this state. As soon as I’m eligible, me and my license will leave and not come back. OBC is just one of the many reasons, but definitely a big part of the decision. The fact that Hooge thinks complaints mean he’s doing his job is completely on brand for this hell hole.
"I would never take a CLE from Hooge on any subject"
The guy who interprets and prosecutes the rules that your license is subject to is giving a CLE and you're not interested in what he has to say? Really?
I watched the CLE today and it was well done. I am glad Dan Hooge gives regular CLE's. I need to watch more of them.
2:34 is on point, Hooge is a narcissist and not who we want in power. Has he ever even run a law firm? Doesn't seem to pass the expert qualifications if he hasn't. 2:05 if we could get the info somehow then we would gladly take up the fight.
@3:01, what's to interpret? The NSC has the final say and they're not shy about smacking down the Bar's frequent overreach. The rules are the rules, stop browning your nose.
The answer as to who on the NSC has indicated some degree of reticence of overburdening or too much focus on solos was Cherry and Douglas. Hardesty hated solos (which was interesting given his experience in private practice) but Hardesty pretty much hated who he hated. On the current court, Justice Bell has privately indicated some concerns with overt focus on small practitioners.
If you'll recall, there was a hearing a few years ago where NVSC considered mandatory malpractice insurance. They ultimately declined, but in the hearing, Jim Hardesty made the comment that he never had to deal with a malpractice suit. I nearly fell out of my chair. See 108 Nev. 878.
Right. Hardesty is the subject of a published opinion that proves him to be a liar. No person has done more damage to courts in Nevada in recent years than Hardesty.
2:39. We do. Is there a particular department that you are seeking the link for?
Guest
Anonymous
September 12, 2023 10:48 pm
Please tell me how Jimmerson who had a major public reprimand several years ago got another public reprimand instead of a suspension after he misappropriated trust funds? You think the Bar doesn't show favoritism?
Mr. Collins sure learned a harsh lesson.
Consequences are what they are. What had you hoped for? The death penalty? For a stupid decision that went horrifically wrong?
He lost a D1 Scholarship to his hometown School and potentially derailed what might have been an solid NBA career. The jailtime is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. But don't act like he isn't paying for his [bad] decisions.
I am truly sorry for the loss to his victims family, but what in your mind is reasonable in this case?
Thank you for your thoughtful response without insults. My opinion doesn’t really matter. I don’t even do criminal law. But personally, if one’s actions result in death then it would be something comparable e.g. maybe life in prison with no parole, maybe death penalty. I don’t know. The family of the victim will NEVER know their loved one again. Thank you for a civil conversation.
52 days is an insult to the family of the victim. And Salt Lake Community College now joins Collins in making that insult.
Simple, gross or reckless, negligence is a bitch. But IMO does not mandate life in prison or similar and the loss of one life does not mandate the destruction of another life. He has paid the price the Court determined was sufficient. Let him be.
10:43 that is often the opinion of someone until it is their loved one. It allows the appearance of virtue without making the hard decisions.
Probably should just let Rittenhouse "be" as well? Actions have consequences, sometimes the lifelong kind. Collins will learn this daily going forward.
I think the real problem is the investigation, no?
During previous court proceedings, prosecutors told the judge the case had a "number of concerns" that resulted in negotiations yielding an "offer that was lower than we're usually comfortable with for a case of this nature."
1043 here.
I have lost family to tragedy and still do not want to see another life ruined for a stupid mistake. I have also had family unjustly imprisoned. So I see both sides and have come to the same conclusion.
Clearly Rittenhouse is irrelevant to this case. He was acquitted and found in the self defense of those trying to kill him. Leave him be.
With the investigation, them's the breaks. Family of vic should be pissed at Metro et al.
Most states use the MPC's classification for various mentes reae. The MPC organizes and defines culpable states of mind into four hierarchical categories:
Acting purposely – The defendant had an underlying conscious object to act.
Acting knowingly – The defendant is practically certain that the conduct will cause a particular result.
Acting recklessly – The defendant consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustified risk.
Acting negligently – The defendant was not aware of the risk, but should have been aware of the risk.
Thus, a crime committed purposefully would carry a more severe punishment than if the offender acted knowingly, recklessly, or negligently. The MPC greatly impacted the criminal codes of a number of states and continues to be influential in furthering discourse on mens rea.
Totally against the stupidity of DUI. People make mistakes on our roads every day that are reckless, stupid, dangerous, where "actions result in death." We want the death penalty for unsafe lane changes or following a motorcyclist too closely. I have no sympathy for Collins in dealing with the repercussions of his actions. However to argue that he should get the death penalty or life in prison is draconian beyond reason in my view.
11:43 let me put this in micro terms. I’m at the movie and one bumps into me and makes me spill my popcorn. I truly don’t care if he wasn’t paying attention or meant to or was pushed into me by someone else and did not avoid me. Unless u we’re trying to not hit me, you’re gonna pay for my popcorn. Let ability should extend wayyyyyy further than it does. My favorite movie quote of all time from Unforgiven (paraphrasing) “he should’ve armed himself he gonna decorate his saloon with my friend.”
11:43 – of course he is going to pay for the popcorn. That is what civil remedies are for. He's not going to jail unless he willfully and unlawfully used force against you and spilled your popcorn. So I am not sure what doctrine there is to extend.
Ummm if someone pushes me into you, I’m not paying for your popcorn.
Great. Now I have to watch "Unforgiven" again.
CCSD is beyond repair. No amount of money is ever going to save it. School choice is the only way. If sending kids to religious schools, although if the parents find it objectionable then secular private/charter schools are a choice to, are the way to save our future generation from educational despair, then fine by me. I think parents are in a much better position to be making decisions of the kind of education their children should receive then random gov't employees that have proven time and time again they aren't equipped to do so (although exceptions clearly apply).
Just my take on it all!
The problem is that CCSD is increasingly full of students whose parents just don't give a shit. If a parent cares, they can move their kids to a charter school. Ironically, those charter schools insulate CCSD's failure by removing what would normally be the most adamant voices (parents who care). As a community, we have a duty to ALL CHILDREN, including those left behind to the neglect of CCSD. We must break up CCSD. It is the only moral solution.
OP here. Breaking up CCSD, in addition to school choice, is my preferable solution.
For the parents that care (which I think is a substantial amount) give them a direct choice in their children's education.
For the parents that don't: have a public school system that actually gives their kids a chance to get an education.
The TNI piece makes sure you know: freedom of choice is an ideologically dangerous idea — it even encourages spending on education associated with religious sects! We should have one educational monolith with one religion – Wokeism – and no choice. That is not ideological at all. That's true freedom.
216 is Based.
TNI author is making it sound like somebody is going to go around and put guns to parents heads and force their kids into religious schools. Want to send your kid to a religious school? Great! Don't? Great ! It's all about the choice, not allowing the educational monolith giving your children no options
School Choice advocates want to put a gun to my head and make me pay for a religious school's tuition. They know most people can't afford the tuition, even with the government cheese footing part of the bill. As a result, the ones who were going to go anyway (and who can afford it) get a discount on tuition courtesy of the government welfare teat.
Don't like me calling school choice people drains on society? Then pay for it yourself. Don't ask me to. After all, isn't that the same argument you make when it comes to student loans, school lunches, etc.?
Other than the 8th jd being overwhelmed, is there any legitimate reason to have the parties submit orders? I just observed a motion hearing where the judge made a decision, specifically cited to the cases she was relying on, and then ordered the winning side to submit an order. It seems to me if the judge already knew what she wanted to do, and had the case law ready to go, she should've just issued the order.
To add onto this, the Second JD issues their own orders, the federal courts issue written orders, both appellate courts issue written orders. It just strikes me as odd the 8th doesn't
@10:46 All I can say is the federal court is well staffed and the 2nd JD is a low-volume court.
Federal court takes like a year to issue an order on a substantive motion. Give me attorney drafted orders any day of the week.
Here is my concern. It is not that attorney drafted Orders add extra burden to counsel. It is that I had a Motion for Summary Judgment where the judge said "Meh motion denied" and ordered Defendant to prepare the Order in which case we got a 27 page order with findings and conclusions (that the judge never made from the bench) but the judge signed it because the proposed Order was drafted by the prevailing party.
"History is written by the victors"
11:45 a.m. X 100. It is a process ripe for abuse, and it gets abused every day. The court should write its own orders. The court should DO ITS JOB.
If a court says denied without explanation, I would interpret that to mean the court agreed with my motion or opposition and place my arguments in an order. I see nothing wrong with that. Not only.do I see nothing wrong, I assume that is the correct way of handling that scenario.
If the Court gives you the basic underpinnings for their reasoning, and you fill in the details, fine. But if the court just says "denied" and doesn't give any kind of rationale? I don't know. Seems like the right thing to do is to just say "Denied" in the order without explaining it. Sucks to be before a sucky judge, but you don't actually know where the judge agreed with you and where they thought you were full of it but based their decision on something else, like the burrito they had for lunch. If I was OC, I'd object to a full-throated acceptance of every argument you made, especially if that had Law of the Case ramifications.
I do not care if the Court writes its own Order but I do believe (1) courts need to provide rationale in either a decision from the bench or Minute Order and (2) need to have Orders submitted in MS Word and .pdf so that the Court can review the Order to see if it accurately sets forth the Court's reasoning and can modify it accordingly.
Yes the Supreme Court requires FFCL in every Order so that the appellate court can review the reasoning of the Court; rarely does/should a Court agree with everything that one side says. Yet that is how Orders are written and rubber stamped by lazy judges.
Joey Gilbert working over Douglas County: https://carsonnow.org/story/09/12/2023/joey-gilbert-charges-douglas-schools-35000-during-august-concerning-policy-changes-
Psshhaahh.
Get your money Joey. Eff the haters.
It's 100% Douglas County's fault, they'll get what they deserve.
Serves them right.
Always entertaining when the people in the courtroom don't realize the mics are on, before the bench bar meeting
Noticed the topic of the hospital fighting the $48 million dollar judgement by challenging the process and manner in which two substitute judges were assigned to the case, to replace two Nevada Supreme Court justices who had recused from the case.
When a party can no longer fight effectively on the merits, and resorts to arguments concerning the composition of the court deciding the matter, that is almost always a losing approach of final desperation. A court virtually never rules that it was improper to appoint the substitute judge(s) to replace a recused judge(s) who was on the panel.
The issue was actually much more nuanced and goes to a bigger question of an elected judiciary where one can end up with Justices who were not elected. Same concerns with senior judges who are accountable to no one can be thrown onto your case.
12:38- I agree that approach is always an uphill battle, but it is not as universally unsuccessful and useless as you suggest.
Even though the argument was rejected in this case, there was a dissenting jurist. So, it's not always an argument that is completely lacking in merit, although, yes, based on law of averages, it is very, very seldom successful.
But once in while lightening does strike in the proper case and circumstances.
And if being crushed by a 48 million dollar judgement, attorneys will often take approaches that, objectively speaking, have less than one chance of a thousand of being successful.
48 million?! That's a lot. Even for a large hospital. Even for large hospital network that has several locations spread across a city. That puts a real dent(or more) in the annual budget. In some cases, upends the annual budget
$48 million is nothing compared to how much they make, not to mention the damage they caused.
Hooge is giving a CLE on trust accounting and just gave a shout out to the haters on this blog.
That's hilarious. What did he say?
He said that the more he hears the howls of anguish from solos on this blog, the more he knows he’s on the right track to holding them accountable. He’s doubling down.
12:53-Some are haters, but some raise legitimate issues.
I don't even want to get into the debate about whether there is disproportionate discipline for small or solo practitioners vs larger , influential firms, although it is a worthy discussion to have.
But, for our immediate purposes, let's take a brief look at Mr.Hooge's current presentation–trust accounting.
Obviously there are serious cases where desperate, out-of-control attorneys steal their clients' money, and in those instances, I seldom, if ever, encounter decisions where I think the State Bar came down too hard on the attorney. We don't need attorneys like that in our profession.
But there are a far greater number of cases where an attorney, with an unblemished record, has some seemingly minor, unintentional , very temporary accounting discrepancy or shortfall, and the matter is immediately rectified and no client is harmed. In such instances, it seems to usually generate at least a public reprimand, and often even a (sometimes stayed) suspension.
Some of those matters seem like disproportionate discipline concerning attorneys who are very unlikely to commit the same breach in the future.
Hubris is being confident that you know everything when you know virtually nothing.
1:40-That's not productive, quite unfair and very untrue.
And that type of name-calling distracts from the very legitimate issues and concerns many attorneys have–some of which are discussed by 1:38.
if we ever hope to engage an audience who could actually change things, we will get shut down right away if we indulge in personal attacks as our primary focus, rather than focusing on the issues.
Based on certain matters, including NSC decisions reviewing certain State Bar discipline, it seems to me there have been a couple justices who, to some extent at least, have shared some of the concerns that attorneys are expressing as to some of these discipline approaches.
That is the type of dynamic we should examine and attempt to develop, rather than calling vile names.
2:05, I realize that an approach like 1:40 changes nothing, but I chalk it up to simple venting. No need to over-react to it.
But my main concern is your suggestion that we might have allies among appellate justices, as to these concerns surrounding State Bar discipline. I'm not really aware of that, so if someone could point out to me specific cases or instances where such "support" was shown, that could prove helpful.
2:09-I'm not aware of it either, so let 2:05 point it out as they are the one who alluded to this supposed support.
I would never take a CLE from Hooge on any subject
1:40 back. I’m a lawyer. I’ve seen real shit. Not fluffy contracts and cocktail mediations but murder, rose and every vile thing in this city. So I call it like I see it. I didn’t about 10 mini with Hooge alone day and he is the definition of a narcissistic. Don’t like my opinion then delete and carry on with your day as I will with mine. No venting just my observation.
I can’t wait to leave this state. As soon as I’m eligible, me and my license will leave and not come back. OBC is just one of the many reasons, but definitely a big part of the decision. The fact that Hooge thinks complaints mean he’s doing his job is completely on brand for this hell hole.
"I would never take a CLE from Hooge on any subject"
The guy who interprets and prosecutes the rules that your license is subject to is giving a CLE and you're not interested in what he has to say? Really?
I watched the CLE today and it was well done. I am glad Dan Hooge gives regular CLE's. I need to watch more of them.
2:34 is on point, Hooge is a narcissist and not who we want in power. Has he ever even run a law firm? Doesn't seem to pass the expert qualifications if he hasn't. 2:05 if we could get the info somehow then we would gladly take up the fight.
@3:01, what's to interpret? The NSC has the final say and they're not shy about smacking down the Bar's frequent overreach. The rules are the rules, stop browning your nose.
@301 actually has a point. And as much disdain as I have for OBC and DH . . .
Know Thy Enemy
–Sun Tzu
The answer as to who on the NSC has indicated some degree of reticence of overburdening or too much focus on solos was Cherry and Douglas. Hardesty hated solos (which was interesting given his experience in private practice) but Hardesty pretty much hated who he hated. On the current court, Justice Bell has privately indicated some concerns with overt focus on small practitioners.
If you'll recall, there was a hearing a few years ago where NVSC considered mandatory malpractice insurance. They ultimately declined, but in the hearing, Jim Hardesty made the comment that he never had to deal with a malpractice suit. I nearly fell out of my chair. See 108 Nev. 878.
Right. Hardesty is the subject of a published opinion that proves him to be a liar. No person has done more damage to courts in Nevada in recent years than Hardesty.
Take a look at the actual stats. It appears that solos generate the majority of grievances, but do not generate any more actual cases. https://nvbar.org/for-lawyers/ethics-discipline/discipline-statistics-office-of-bar-counsel-reports/
Does anyone have a master list of the Blue Jeans links for all departments of the EJDC?
You do know that Blue Jeans is going away, right? It will be 100% gone in the first half of 2024. Not just for the EJDC, but for everyone.
2:39. We do. Is there a particular department that you are seeking the link for?
Please tell me how Jimmerson who had a major public reprimand several years ago got another public reprimand instead of a suspension after he misappropriated trust funds? You think the Bar doesn't show favoritism?
I think Hogge asked the disciplinary panel to recommend suspension and got it. It was the Sup Ct which gave the public reprimand.
4:07 is correct. It wasn't SBN/OBC/Hogge showing favoritism. Guess who it was.
The guy the Taco Bell Courtroom is named after?
Jimmerson went to trial and ultimately prevailed. That is not bias. The Bar website just put out discipline stats
Don't forget that the Bar allowed the medical mafia to skate.