Does anyone have any tips or suggestions on where to find attorney candidates to hire? Traditional options like the state bar and Indeed are not producing any applicants.
why don't you post it here? Most of us are attorneys and know attorneys. You probably won't though because you're embarrassed by what you intend to pay or the work you intend to have them do, right? Well, then that might be part of your problem. Also, it could just be that people don't want to work the way it has always been done.
Cue whiney boomer mating call: no one wants to work anymore! everyone just wants to laze about at home feeding off the govment! this what we get for socialism! (I'm with the French–burn it all down. Yesterday.)
We are having luck attracting folks that were recently laid off by some big law firms in other states. In short, cast as wide a net as possible in your search, and you may be surprised by the number of folks willing to pick up and move to Nevada (and take our bar exam).
Nice transaction: have sex with me or your mother will die.
Guest
Anonymous
April 6, 2023 4:27 pm
Telles you have truly jumped the shark. Of course you want what is on German's personal devices and you want to stomp your feet that you are not getting all of German's sources and all of the other stories that German was looking into who might have had motive. Stop trying to play nice with the LVRJ; they are never going to play nice with you. Even if there is no nothing exculpatory on those devices you want to examine because you unquestionably killed him, you want to keep that defense
People keep trying to make Telles out to be some genius – dude did everything possible to get caught, and now you want to what, help his defense? Let the man hang himself in peace.
Telles is sunk, all the BS in the world doesn't overcome the mountain of physical and video evidence he produced, he should get a good lawyer who can try to pressure the RJ and the DA into a 20-life deal, at least he could see daylight again before he dies. Dumb bastard.
I wonder if you always make so little sense when you write.
Guest
Anonymous
April 6, 2023 5:19 pm
Perhaps some of our criminal colleagues could weigh in on a few issues in the Telles murder trial. I have watched all the hearings. Telles must pay the price now. Still, he is entitled to due process. I see potential problems with this case, but I have no experience so I would like to have some feedback on these observations.
1. What is the standard for indigence? Telles, at a minimum, lacks the liquidity to fund his defense right now. He’s explicitly said he’s trying to sell these Arkansas properties to hire counsel. This is a challenge, however, because the 5 properties have one mortgage and must be sold together. Even then, it’s only $150,000.00 which is presumptively not enough to fund a murder defense through trial. I assume the right to counsel includes pretrial litigation and discovery, right? If Telles doesn’t qualify for standby counsel, but can’t pay for counsel right now, how has is right to counsel been preserved?
2. Telles has repeatedly stated that after he gets funds he wants to try to hire counsel. Yet, there seems to be a position that Telles has irrevocably waived his right to counsel. Is that right? If Telles hires counsel, what happens? If Telles hires counsel and runs out of funds, and his counsel files to withdraw, what happens? The PD takes over? More likely, what happens if Telles can’t find an attorney who will take this through trial for $150,000.00? Also, given that Telles has already harmed his own case, why would an attorney pick this case up?
3. I watched the hearing yesterday. Perhaps I misunderstood what happened. As I understand it, Telles tried to issue subpoenas unilaterally- the same way we do it as officers of the court in civil matters. This is apparently procedurally improper. This is another example of Telles’ folly in proceeding on his own in pretrial litigation. So Telles took his motion to compel off calendar after Judge Leavitt explained his subpoenas were procedurally improper. Telles said he wanted to avoid a confrontation with the Review Journal, but I don’t believe he actually waived his right to German’s personal devices. Yet, I wake up and go pick up the paper from my driveway and here is the headline in the print edition of the RJ: “Murder suspect doesn’t want reporters devices.” Did I miss something? Telles did foolishly refer to the RJ’s interest here as a “constitutional right.” The reporters privilege isn’t a constitutional right, but Telles’ rights to due process are. Dumb, dumb, dumb, Telles.
4. It seems to me that the RJ has and is influencing this case. Telles was previously found indigent. Then, the RJ ran investigative pieces noting his Arkansas properties. Now, that indigence finding has been reversed. The RJ is seeking to limit the production of information from German’s devices. I worry that the RJ may be giving Telles a foothold for appeals. Thoughts?
Unless it's just days before trial the judge would be asking for reversal turning down a request for counsel to come on board. The prejudice of not having counsel is too extreme and the right too important. But right now he's on his own, he was canvassed and was cleared to rep himself. "Changing lawyers" would be the same standard for anyone else asking to change lawyers. It can't be for the purpose of delay, prejudice the other parties, etc.
He presumptively meets the standard for indigence because he is incarcerated. However, there is no right to stand-by counsel. You have a constitutional right to counsel, and you have a constitutional right to represent yourself, but you do not have a constitutional right to standby counsel. See Harris v. State, 113 Nev. 799. Now, if he were to ask for regular counsel and be denied without more inquiry into indigency, that could be an issue on appeal.
If he changed his mind, and now wanted to be appointed counsel, I don't think that there would be a deep dive and analysis performed to see if he really financially qualified. I believe the D.A. and the Court would be very relieved if there is now counsel aboard as it greatly protects the record form a lot of un-necessary possible error. After all, we are dealing with right to counsel in a homicide case. The court should not be influenced by the media arguing that he might eventually be able to sell his Arkansas properties and generate fees for an attorney. Let's not play those stupid games and hand him some huge, and valid, issue he can preserve for review. The Court should make certain that if he has now changed his mind and wants to be represented, that is great and let it happen(whetr his own retained counsel or appointed at tax payer expense).
If the court honors his right to counsel if he decides he wants counsel after all, the good news is that the rest of his tactics and antics are nothing to worry about. They generate him some temporary attention and publicity, but after it's all over he will fade from the public memory and spend the rest of his life(or most of the rest of his life) in prison. Jurors these days worship at the altar of DNA, and there is compelling DNA evidence which directly connects him.
So, none of the rest of what he does or says creates any public or media sympathy. Complaining about the jail does him no good. And it is particularly ludicrous to attack a judge for mocking and disrespecting him when all the judge did is fulfill her duty to be firm and thorough when canvassing some misguided soul who insists on representing himself when he risks the rest of his life in prison.
I understand that Judge Leavitt may not be universally beloved by every attorney(in fact, no judge is). That understood, even a Judge Leavitt critic should easily concede that this canvassing was totally appropriate. Yes, she was no-nonsense and firm, but that was because she was far more concerned with protecting his rights than stroking his ego. He seemed more concerned with being insulted that the court exposed that he has very little meaningful criminal experience, than he was concerned about protecting himself from the likelihood of being sent away for life.
She performed a thorough and proper canvassing of his rights. Instead of him focusing on whether he can create or increase the possibility that he will ever again draw a free breath, he gets all caught up in his delicate ego being wounded by the judge suggesting that he lacked the expertise, or emotional distance and objectivity, to represent himself in a murder charge.
Someone should have pointed out to him the following–that if the top criminal law attorneys were put on trial for homicide, they WOULD NOT dream of solely representing themselves without at least co-counsel being involved.
5:03 you are exactly correct. She was trying to get through to him that this is a really dumb idea and that while Telles is free to make dumb decisions that she wanted to go the extra mile to try to wake him up.
Guest
Anonymous
April 6, 2023 6:02 pm
Just got an email from CCBA about the Liberty Bell Award (which has zero meaning after they gave it to Alexis Brown last year for exactly zero contributions to the legal community). Good news: Bryan Scott you are getting the award. Bad news: We never bothered to check what your name is before announcing your award.
Far more than the person mentioned above. The difference is I did not nominate myself for the award for a lifetime of service being given out by my own organization.
After the Alexis Brown fiasco last year, this year's Liberty Bell Award recipients can at least point to careers of service to the community. But why have we gone to 3 recipients instead of the long tradition of 2?
If he’s not indigent now, it sounds like he will be very soon. Let’s not create any appellate issues please.
Guest
Anonymous
April 6, 2023 10:09 pm
I was sorry to see the post where someone outed themselves despite claiming to be Anonymous nuked. To have a civil discussion on that topic, no I do not believe that the OBC intentionally blew the filing deadline on an appeal.
That wasn’t an attempt to be civil. OBC is obsessed with a certain number of attorneys in town, all of whom are small/solo attorneys. One of those attorneys has an ex who is aligned with he who shall not be named and keeps trying to generate some kind of controversy in retaliation for their divorce proceedings. The ex got the response they deserved and it got nuked.
He outed himself with a hateful comment about a black guys dreds calling it a wig,etc – and it is a fact PP has covered for him , don’t say stuff anon u wouldn’t say irl
You who wouldn’t believe the OBC blew a deadline. Would you believe an email from Phil writing hey Alex hurry with your response so I can bury it before Hooge gets back?
Where did the ex get nuked? I saw his Letter of Reprimand but saw no mention of any ex-spouse or proceedings related to an ex-spouse.
Guest
Anonymous
April 6, 2023 10:56 pm
Of course they didn't do it deliberately. Wish i knew what the deleted post said.
Guest
Anonymous
April 6, 2023 11:25 pm
Probate brothers and sisters, have any of you experienced the weird obsession the PC currently has with ancillary probate? You have a Will that's filed in State A, and is therefore unavailable to be lodged in Nevada. When that's the case, NRS 136.180 says, hey, give us a copy and it's all good. Instead, the PC is demanding copies of orders admitting the will to probate. Like, dude, why does Nevada care what another court has done? I think I counted 3-4 cases each week for the last few months demanding it, and in most cases, the case gets bumped. And these aren't even self-represented folks either, but experienced probate counsel.
Here is my read on Commissioner Fontano. He is cautious by nature, which isn't a bad thing. He had done some probate in his time as a private practitioner, but the record shows it was very straightforward stuff with summary proceedings and set asides. Much of what he is dealing with is new to him. Understandably, he is proceeding cautiously, which I can't and don't fault him for. Additionally, generally speaking, some of the increased demands and requirements lately aren't coming from him, but from one or more of the judges above him. It's entirely possible that these additional ancillary requirements aren't coming from him. Overall, I like him. I think you'll see him ease up a little bit once he hits his stride, but I could be wrong.
Guest
Anonymous
April 6, 2023 11:50 pm
Looks like Zaon Collins either ran out of money, or could only get another continuance by changing counsel. Discuss.
Guest
Anonymous
April 7, 2023 4:17 pm
I've noticed lately that far more attorneys are making personal attacks against counsel in hearings. It's bush league, and the only one it makes look bad is the attacker. I've been the recipient once or twice, and every time it was the villain throwing shade.
Yeah…I appeared for my boss on a case I was pretty unfamiliar with aside from the specific issue I was addressing at that hearing. OC had made a bad judgment call and was losing so they proceeded to name-call my boss. It was super awkward. Neither the judge nor I even acknowledged the behavior.
That is the right response. The Court knows it. In the last 5 years I have had to do something I never did in the preceding 20 years of practice: file motions to strike (and sometimes seal) pleadings filed by Opposing Counsel as being so inappropriate and nasty. I have only had a judge not strike the pleading one time, often with admonishments to counsel at the bench to take that garbage somewhere else.
Does anyone have any tips or suggestions on where to find attorney candidates to hire? Traditional options like the state bar and Indeed are not producing any applicants.
LinkedIn.
We are having the same problem. No applicants except a couple who want to work from home on a contract basis.
why don't you post it here? Most of us are attorneys and know attorneys. You probably won't though because you're embarrassed by what you intend to pay or the work you intend to have them do, right? Well, then that might be part of your problem. Also, it could just be that people don't want to work the way it has always been done.
Cue whiney boomer mating call: no one wants to work anymore! everyone just wants to laze about at home feeding off the govment! this what we get for socialism! (I'm with the French–burn it all down. Yesterday.)
Triggered much, ❄??
A little presumptuous, considering that someone was looking to get his job listing out there a little more effectively.
I've had luck getting candidates via Indeed.
We are having luck attracting folks that were recently laid off by some big law firms in other states. In short, cast as wide a net as possible in your search, and you may be surprised by the number of folks willing to pick up and move to Nevada (and take our bar exam).
i had used Linkedin successfully before
Not my area, but the “transactional” defense doesn’t seem like a great one, particularly where the victim is unable to consent as a matter of law.
Nice transaction: have sex with me or your mother will die.
Telles you have truly jumped the shark. Of course you want what is on German's personal devices and you want to stomp your feet that you are not getting all of German's sources and all of the other stories that German was looking into who might have had motive. Stop trying to play nice with the LVRJ; they are never going to play nice with you. Even if there is no nothing exculpatory on those devices you want to examine because you unquestionably killed him, you want to keep that defense
People keep trying to make Telles out to be some genius – dude did everything possible to get caught, and now you want to what, help his defense? Let the man hang himself in peace.
Telles is sunk, all the BS in the world doesn't overcome the mountain of physical and video evidence he produced, he should get a good lawyer who can try to pressure the RJ and the DA into a 20-life deal, at least he could see daylight again before he dies. Dumb bastard.
Why would the DA ever agree to that, 1:41 PM?
Because the RJ doesn't want to turn over the phone, no other reason
When you comment you should know who had the phone and other stuff.
I wonder if you always make so little sense when you write.
Perhaps some of our criminal colleagues could weigh in on a few issues in the Telles murder trial. I have watched all the hearings. Telles must pay the price now. Still, he is entitled to due process. I see potential problems with this case, but I have no experience so I would like to have some feedback on these observations.
1. What is the standard for indigence? Telles, at a minimum, lacks the liquidity to fund his defense right now. He’s explicitly said he’s trying to sell these Arkansas properties to hire counsel. This is a challenge, however, because the 5 properties have one mortgage and must be sold together. Even then, it’s only $150,000.00 which is presumptively not enough to fund a murder defense through trial. I assume the right to counsel includes pretrial litigation and discovery, right? If Telles doesn’t qualify for standby counsel, but can’t pay for counsel right now, how has is right to counsel been preserved?
2. Telles has repeatedly stated that after he gets funds he wants to try to hire counsel. Yet, there seems to be a position that Telles has irrevocably waived his right to counsel. Is that right? If Telles hires counsel, what happens? If Telles hires counsel and runs out of funds, and his counsel files to withdraw, what happens? The PD takes over? More likely, what happens if Telles can’t find an attorney who will take this through trial for $150,000.00? Also, given that Telles has already harmed his own case, why would an attorney pick this case up?
3. I watched the hearing yesterday. Perhaps I misunderstood what happened. As I understand it, Telles tried to issue subpoenas unilaterally- the same way we do it as officers of the court in civil matters. This is apparently procedurally improper. This is another example of Telles’ folly in proceeding on his own in pretrial litigation. So Telles took his motion to compel off calendar after Judge Leavitt explained his subpoenas were procedurally improper. Telles said he wanted to avoid a confrontation with the Review Journal, but I don’t believe he actually waived his right to German’s personal devices. Yet, I wake up and go pick up the paper from my driveway and here is the headline in the print edition of the RJ: “Murder suspect doesn’t want reporters devices.” Did I miss something? Telles did foolishly refer to the RJ’s interest here as a “constitutional right.” The reporters privilege isn’t a constitutional right, but Telles’ rights to due process are. Dumb, dumb, dumb, Telles.
4. It seems to me that the RJ has and is influencing this case. Telles was previously found indigent. Then, the RJ ran investigative pieces noting his Arkansas properties. Now, that indigence finding has been reversed. The RJ is seeking to limit the production of information from German’s devices. I worry that the RJ may be giving Telles a foothold for appeals. Thoughts?
Unless it's just days before trial the judge would be asking for reversal turning down a request for counsel to come on board. The prejudice of not having counsel is too extreme and the right too important. But right now he's on his own, he was canvassed and was cleared to rep himself. "Changing lawyers" would be the same standard for anyone else asking to change lawyers. It can't be for the purpose of delay, prejudice the other parties, etc.
He presumptively meets the standard for indigence because he is incarcerated. However, there is no right to stand-by counsel. You have a constitutional right to counsel, and you have a constitutional right to represent yourself, but you do not have a constitutional right to standby counsel. See Harris v. State, 113 Nev. 799. Now, if he were to ask for regular counsel and be denied without more inquiry into indigency, that could be an issue on appeal.
If he changed his mind, and now wanted to be appointed counsel, I don't think that there would be a deep dive and analysis performed to see if he really financially qualified. I believe the D.A. and the Court would be very relieved if there is now counsel aboard as it greatly protects the record form a lot of un-necessary possible error. After all, we are dealing with right to counsel in a homicide case. The court should not be influenced by the media arguing that he might eventually be able to sell his Arkansas properties and generate fees for an attorney. Let's not play those stupid games and hand him some huge, and valid, issue he can preserve for review. The Court should make certain that if he has now changed his mind and wants to be represented, that is great and let it happen(whetr his own retained counsel or appointed at tax payer expense).
If the court honors his right to counsel if he decides he wants counsel after all, the good news is that the rest of his tactics and antics are nothing to worry about. They generate him some temporary attention and publicity, but after it's all over he will fade from the public memory and spend the rest of his life(or most of the rest of his life) in prison. Jurors these days worship at the altar of DNA, and there is compelling DNA evidence which directly connects him.
So, none of the rest of what he does or says creates any public or media sympathy. Complaining about the jail does him no good. And it is particularly ludicrous to attack a judge for mocking and disrespecting him when all the judge did is fulfill her duty to be firm and thorough when canvassing some misguided soul who insists on representing himself when he risks the rest of his life in prison.
4:50-Agreed as to the Judge Leavitt situation.
I understand that Judge Leavitt may not be universally beloved by every attorney(in fact, no judge is). That understood, even a Judge Leavitt critic should easily concede that this canvassing was totally appropriate. Yes, she was no-nonsense and firm, but that was because she was far more concerned with protecting his rights than stroking his ego. He seemed more concerned with being insulted that the court exposed that he has very little meaningful criminal experience, than he was concerned about protecting himself from the likelihood of being sent away for life.
She performed a thorough and proper canvassing of his rights. Instead of him focusing on whether he can create or increase the possibility that he will ever again draw a free breath, he gets all caught up in his delicate ego being wounded by the judge suggesting that he lacked the expertise, or emotional distance and objectivity, to represent himself in a murder charge.
Someone should have pointed out to him the following–that if the top criminal law attorneys were put on trial for homicide, they WOULD NOT dream of solely representing themselves without at least co-counsel being involved.
5:03 you are exactly correct. She was trying to get through to him that this is a really dumb idea and that while Telles is free to make dumb decisions that she wanted to go the extra mile to try to wake him up.
Just got an email from CCBA about the Liberty Bell Award (which has zero meaning after they gave it to Alexis Brown last year for exactly zero contributions to the legal community). Good news: Bryan Scott you are getting the award. Bad news: We never bothered to check what your name is before announcing your award.
What are your contributions to the legal community, friend?
Far more than the person mentioned above. The difference is I did not nominate myself for the award for a lifetime of service being given out by my own organization.
After the Alexis Brown fiasco last year, this year's Liberty Bell Award recipients can at least point to careers of service to the community. But why have we gone to 3 recipients instead of the long tradition of 2?
Yes Alexis Brown was a ridiculous fiasco. Good word for it.
There is a standard for indigence established by the NSC. See post yesterday quoting the order. In my opinion, his right to counsel has been violated.
Is Michelle Leavitt being influenced by the RJ reports on Telles assets and rental properties?
Of course. And she probably doesn’t even know about the ADKT order
If he’s not indigent now, it sounds like he will be very soon. Let’s not create any appellate issues please.
I was sorry to see the post where someone outed themselves despite claiming to be Anonymous nuked. To have a civil discussion on that topic, no I do not believe that the OBC intentionally blew the filing deadline on an appeal.
That wasn’t an attempt to be civil. OBC is obsessed with a certain number of attorneys in town, all of whom are small/solo attorneys. One of those attorneys has an ex who is aligned with he who shall not be named and keeps trying to generate some kind of controversy in retaliation for their divorce proceedings. The ex got the response they deserved and it got nuked.
He outed himself with a hateful comment about a black guys dreds calling it a wig,etc – and it is a fact PP has covered for him , don’t say stuff anon u wouldn’t say irl
You who wouldn’t believe the OBC blew a deadline. Would you believe an email from Phil writing hey Alex hurry with your response so I can bury it before Hooge gets back?
Not dreads
Where did the ex get nuked? I saw his Letter of Reprimand but saw no mention of any ex-spouse or proceedings related to an ex-spouse.
Of course they didn't do it deliberately. Wish i knew what the deleted post said.
Probate brothers and sisters, have any of you experienced the weird obsession the PC currently has with ancillary probate? You have a Will that's filed in State A, and is therefore unavailable to be lodged in Nevada. When that's the case, NRS 136.180 says, hey, give us a copy and it's all good. Instead, the PC is demanding copies of orders admitting the will to probate. Like, dude, why does Nevada care what another court has done? I think I counted 3-4 cases each week for the last few months demanding it, and in most cases, the case gets bumped. And these aren't even self-represented folks either, but experienced probate counsel.
Here is my read on Commissioner Fontano. He is cautious by nature, which isn't a bad thing. He had done some probate in his time as a private practitioner, but the record shows it was very straightforward stuff with summary proceedings and set asides. Much of what he is dealing with is new to him. Understandably, he is proceeding cautiously, which I can't and don't fault him for. Additionally, generally speaking, some of the increased demands and requirements lately aren't coming from him, but from one or more of the judges above him. It's entirely possible that these additional ancillary requirements aren't coming from him. Overall, I like him. I think you'll see him ease up a little bit once he hits his stride, but I could be wrong.
Looks like Zaon Collins either ran out of money, or could only get another continuance by changing counsel. Discuss.
I've noticed lately that far more attorneys are making personal attacks against counsel in hearings. It's bush league, and the only one it makes look bad is the attacker. I've been the recipient once or twice, and every time it was the villain throwing shade.
Yeah…I appeared for my boss on a case I was pretty unfamiliar with aside from the specific issue I was addressing at that hearing. OC had made a bad judgment call and was losing so they proceeded to name-call my boss. It was super awkward. Neither the judge nor I even acknowledged the behavior.
That is the right response. The Court knows it. In the last 5 years I have had to do something I never did in the preceding 20 years of practice: file motions to strike (and sometimes seal) pleadings filed by Opposing Counsel as being so inappropriate and nasty. I have only had a judge not strike the pleading one time, often with admonishments to counsel at the bench to take that garbage somewhere else.