Disgusting. Daily Stormer is a neo-nazi site. Keep that garbage off this blog. It is absolutely disgusting that members of the Las Vegas legal community would traffic in such filth.
The 1st may protect your right to free speech, but it also protects our right to tell you to fuck off and it protects the right of the blog admin to delete your Nazi trash.
Guest
Anonymous
March 22, 2021 6:26 pm
As for BOG elections, the perception is that the inner circle powers hat-be successfully grease in a status quo type candidate each time there is a vacancy.
When there is a true "change" candidate, such as an attorney in private practice, or from a small firm, and they are someone without much juice or name recognition, they have no real chance to beat an opponent from large, prominent firm.
The large, prominent firm often ask all their members to vote for such candidate, and also reach out to other large, prominent firms to likewise have their members vote for such candidate.
Not so 11:26 AM. BOG Elections and insiders. I do agree that most candidates are establishment candidates but……women have an advantage they get endorsements from SNWA. Other candidates get specialty bar or defense attorney (NACJ) endorsement promotion. Basically the BOG lets the Supreme Court and Kim Farmer (Director) do what they want Example: Mandatory Trust Audits and Malpractice Insurance. The oppositon from the attorneys shot it down after the bar promoted it. Hopefully they won't play around too much with reciporcity, adopting UBE and allowing out of state attorneys and Boyd grads to waive into the bar.
12:05. You start off by saying that you disagree with 11:26, but once you discuss and offer details, it appears you are essentially in agreement.
That said you do identify a carve-out exception(to the large-firm juiced-in candidate being heavily favored to be elected) whereby a SNWA endorsed female candidate also has a pretty chance. That's true.
But general problem is we seldom truly get a David vs. Goliath "Hope And Change" candidate pitted against a hand-picked, juiced candidate from a large, prominent firm.
For example, it is often the case that even when we have the above discussed dynamic of a SNWA endorsed female candidate, they also happen to be from a large, prominent firm, as opposed to being a relatively unknown solo or small-firm practitioner.
4:09–I tend to agree. Female, SNWA endorsed candidates do have a pretty good chance, and they tend to perform well in the elections.
But when such candidates actually do win a BOG election, they do tend to be from larger, prominent firms.
Being female, and endorsed by SNWA, certainly helps, but if such candidate is relatively obscure, and has no real name-recognition, the larger firm juiced-in candidate still probably has the greater advantage.
Guest
Anonymous
March 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford announced Monday that the state has agreed to a $45 million settlement with McKinsey & Company over its role in the deadly opioid epidemic.
So how much does his former partner, you know the one who removed the cap for private firms representing the state, receive from that $45million? Was it worth the former partner paying off Ford's tax liens?
So $9.45 million, plus costs. Ford owed $185,000 in taxes to the IRS between 2011 and 2014. But the tax liens were released in 2016. Not a bad investment.
Ha. I took on some insurance cases because the firm had lots of them and I'm trying like hell to settle them. But that's just because I hate insurance and wish I had come up with a better excuse.
1:12- Posters above were criticizing the Admins for not taking down a post that they found objectionable. It is a Monday morning. I would suspect that QuickDraw and LawDawg cannot spend 24/7/365 monitoring the group.
I heard he is billing Zurich and Safeco for his time in there but at least he is split billing.
Guest
Anonymous
March 22, 2021 10:42 pm
I saw in the Nevada Lawyer that Trevor Atkin is now at ARM. The ad says, "Hon. Trevor Atkin (RET.)". I don't have anything against Trevor but ask as a general question, is it accurate to advertise yourself as retired, when you lost an election? It seems misleading to me.
If voters had really understood what kind of judge he was, they would have kept him. Judge Peterson is great too. There are a few races where it was a choice between two candidates and others where it was a choice between two bad candidates.
Guest
Anonymous
March 23, 2021 2:54 am
3:42.I've been wondering about that myself.
I think context is important. Often when a judge is forced into involuntary, premature relinquishing of their judicial career, by being defeated in a re-election bid, they have already served like 12, 15, or even 18 years.
In these instances, even thought it can be slightly misleading and somewhat inaccurate to refer to themselves as "Retired Judge"(which implies they left on their own terms after reaching the standard range of retirement age) one can understand why they refer to themselves as "Retired District Judge." Not truly accurate, but they kind of earned the right to designate themselves as "Retired Judge."
But Trevor, who is still a young man relatively speaking, was in office about as long as it takes to listen to The Beatles' classic song "Hey Jude", prior to him being defeated in his retention election.
So, even though it is usually technically inaccurate and arguably somewhat misleading to refer to a defeated judge as "Retired", this is the first time I am actually a little put off by it.
He could easily get all the benefit, impact, and P.R. points of having served by listing himself as "Former District Judge" which does not imply(at least not for me) that he was defeated or forcibly removed.
But still being a relatively young man, and serving in the seat for six-and-a-half-minutes, and then referring to himself as "Retired Judge" is almost comical, and I think tends to create the false impression that he served many years and then gracefully left on his own accord.
So, IMO, ten lashes with a wet noodle for him, but that's about as far as it should go as to repercussions as he was an excellent and honorable lawyer, and the same can be said for his very short tenure on the bench.
But that does not change the fact that 3:42 is right.
I think he will be a great addition to ARM, I wish him Godspeed, and I will strongly recommend his services to attorneys and parties.
When former military officials put (Ret.) next to their name, it's a clarification that they are now civilians, not a statement about the circumstances of their departure from the service. I can see an argument that it's the same for judges. (Ret.) doesn't really mean "retired," it means "I'm not a judge anymore so there's nothing untoward about you hiring me for this." But if that's the case, there's a disconnect between how it's used in real life and what it would seem to literally mean, so maybe a different designation like (Fmr.) would be better.
Guest
Anonymous
March 23, 2021 6:28 pm
These advertisements should be, and probably are, governed by the rules of advertising that the rest of lawyers are required to follow, and I think the ads are sufficiently misleading that they should not be allowed. Saying "Ret." makes it sound like the judge voluntarily retired, which is not the case if the judge was simply not re-elected.
I would be upset if a hired a mediator who said he was a retired judge and found out after the fact that he had not retired but in reality had actually not been re-elected. Those two things are qualitatively different.
Even then, though you have situations like this last election:
A few of the Judges that got defeated REALLY REALLY deserved to be defeated. Mostly on karma catching up to them.
Most of the Judges who were defeated (I'm talking about the the male Judges over at District Court) just happened to be on the losing / not qualified side of the "Year of the Woman" when it came to judicial races. "Not qualified" meaning they were men, and thus, they lost because a woman ran against them. Several judges who would have been acceptable to most of the Bar serving another six years simply were steamrolled because it just happened to be "that year," which was only apparent with 20/20 hindsight.
I am excepting of course the half dozen Judges on Family Court, most of whom decided to retire – some due to longevity, most due to they knew they would lose because attorneys were fed up with their shit.
So its incorrect to give a blanket statement that (Ret.) is an inherently bad thing, automatically, if a Judge lost an election.
Not super responsive to the comment, but as a family law attorney…I continue to be fed up with their shit and the shit of the current round of judges. What a rolling dumpster fire family court is.
Disgusting. Daily Stormer is a neo-nazi site. Keep that garbage off this blog. It is absolutely disgusting that members of the Las Vegas legal community would traffic in such filth.
Agreed. Disgusting.
Blog admin should remove 10:22's post and that link. Gross.
Been wondering how long it would stay up. Seems to be endorsed by the blog admins considering how quickly they remove other posts.
In a land where humorless scolds hold sway, the daily stormer provides much needed levity.
Oh yeah, and the 1A. Sorry to hurt your feelings, ladies.
Scolds? Levity? So Nazis are funny to you?
The 1st may protect your right to free speech, but it also protects our right to tell you to fuck off and it protects the right of the blog admin to delete your Nazi trash.
As for BOG elections, the perception is that the inner circle powers hat-be successfully grease in a status quo type candidate each time there is a vacancy.
When there is a true "change" candidate, such as an attorney in private practice, or from a small firm, and they are someone without much juice or name recognition, they have no real chance to beat an opponent from large, prominent firm.
The large, prominent firm often ask all their members to vote for such candidate, and also reach out to other large, prominent firms to likewise have their members vote for such candidate.
Also, did you notice there is only 1 up this time? It's because the BOG changed the term so that they're in longer.
So throw your hat in the ring and ask all the solos and small firms to vote for you.
Not so 11:26 AM. BOG Elections and insiders. I do agree that most candidates are establishment candidates but……women have an advantage they get endorsements from SNWA. Other candidates get specialty bar or defense attorney (NACJ) endorsement promotion. Basically the BOG lets the Supreme Court and Kim Farmer (Director) do what they want Example: Mandatory Trust Audits and Malpractice Insurance. The oppositon from the attorneys shot it down after the bar promoted it. Hopefully they won't play around too much with reciporcity, adopting UBE and allowing out of state attorneys and Boyd grads to waive into the bar.
The ones in there are establishment. Stop voting for large firm people.
12:05. You start off by saying that you disagree with 11:26, but once you discuss and offer details, it appears you are essentially in agreement.
That said you do identify a carve-out exception(to the large-firm juiced-in candidate being heavily favored to be elected) whereby a SNWA endorsed female candidate also has a pretty chance. That's true.
But general problem is we seldom truly get a David vs. Goliath "Hope And Change" candidate pitted against a hand-picked, juiced candidate from a large, prominent firm.
For example, it is often the case that even when we have the above discussed dynamic of a SNWA endorsed female candidate, they also happen to be from a large, prominent firm, as opposed to being a relatively unknown solo or small-firm practitioner.
4:09–I tend to agree. Female, SNWA endorsed candidates do have a pretty good chance, and they tend to perform well in the elections.
But when such candidates actually do win a BOG election, they do tend to be from larger, prominent firms.
Being female, and endorsed by SNWA, certainly helps, but if such candidate is relatively obscure, and has no real name-recognition, the larger firm juiced-in candidate still probably has the greater advantage.
Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford announced Monday that the state has agreed to a $45 million settlement with McKinsey & Company over its role in the deadly opioid epidemic.
So how much does his former partner, you know the one who removed the cap for private firms representing the state, receive from that $45million? Was it worth the former partner paying off Ford's tax liens?
21%
So $9.45 million, plus costs. Ford owed $185,000 in taxes to the IRS between 2011 and 2014. But the tax liens were released in 2016. Not a bad investment.
Who else in the State could handle the case? Eglet was already hired by Clark and Washoe County.
Who's repping Caesars in that coverage case?
Flansburg local and Latham Watkins lead.
Thanks, was wondering the same thing. Anyone have a case number?
CASE NO: A-21-831477-B
Department 16
Timmy!
and Delaware on both sides of the caption, so not removable to fed ct
Why does Delaware on both sides mean it is not removable? I understand if the defendant is a Nevada resident, but what does Delaware mean?
@10:39 – you have to have complete diversity on both sides of the v. for federal jurisdiction. If both parties are from Delaware, you can't remove it.
10:39 is Boyd '13.
What insurance company is not fighting coverage right now? Most of our bad faith cased are being fought tooth and nail.
Ha. I took on some insurance cases because the firm had lots of them and I'm trying like hell to settle them. But that's just because I hate insurance and wish I had come up with a better excuse.
Cases
Y’all need to chill. Some of us have jobs.
Huh?
1:12- Posters above were criticizing the Admins for not taking down a post that they found objectionable. It is a Monday morning. I would suspect that QuickDraw and LawDawg cannot spend 24/7/365 monitoring the group.
Okay, thanks. I like the law dawg.
Thanks! We love almost all of you!
I wonder how Nelson Cohen is doing in jail.
I heard he is billing Zurich and Safeco for his time in there but at least he is split billing.
I saw in the Nevada Lawyer that Trevor Atkin is now at ARM. The ad says, "Hon. Trevor Atkin (RET.)". I don't have anything against Trevor but ask as a general question, is it accurate to advertise yourself as retired, when you lost an election? It seems misleading to me.
If voters had really understood what kind of judge he was, they would have kept him. Judge Peterson is great too. There are a few races where it was a choice between two candidates and others where it was a choice between two bad candidates.
3:42.I've been wondering about that myself.
I think context is important. Often when a judge is forced into involuntary, premature relinquishing of their judicial career, by being defeated in a re-election bid, they have already served like 12, 15, or even 18 years.
In these instances, even thought it can be slightly misleading and somewhat inaccurate to refer to themselves as "Retired Judge"(which implies they left on their own terms after reaching the standard range of retirement age) one can understand why they refer to themselves as "Retired District Judge." Not truly accurate, but they kind of earned the right to designate themselves as "Retired Judge."
But Trevor, who is still a young man relatively speaking, was in office about as long as it takes to listen to The Beatles' classic song "Hey Jude", prior to him being defeated in his retention election.
So, even though it is usually technically inaccurate and arguably somewhat misleading to refer to a defeated judge as "Retired", this is the first time I am actually a little put off by it.
He could easily get all the benefit, impact, and P.R. points of having served by listing himself as "Former District Judge" which does not imply(at least not for me) that he was defeated or forcibly removed.
But still being a relatively young man, and serving in the seat for six-and-a-half-minutes, and then referring to himself as "Retired Judge" is almost comical, and I think tends to create the false impression that he served many years and then gracefully left on his own accord.
So, IMO, ten lashes with a wet noodle for him, but that's about as far as it should go as to repercussions as he was an excellent and honorable lawyer, and the same can be said for his very short tenure on the bench.
But that does not change the fact that 3:42 is right.
I think he will be a great addition to ARM, I wish him Godspeed, and I will strongly recommend his services to attorneys and parties.
When former military officials put (Ret.) next to their name, it's a clarification that they are now civilians, not a statement about the circumstances of their departure from the service. I can see an argument that it's the same for judges. (Ret.) doesn't really mean "retired," it means "I'm not a judge anymore so there's nothing untoward about you hiring me for this." But if that's the case, there's a disconnect between how it's used in real life and what it would seem to literally mean, so maybe a different designation like (Fmr.) would be better.
These advertisements should be, and probably are, governed by the rules of advertising that the rest of lawyers are required to follow, and I think the ads are sufficiently misleading that they should not be allowed. Saying "Ret." makes it sound like the judge voluntarily retired, which is not the case if the judge was simply not re-elected.
I would be upset if a hired a mediator who said he was a retired judge and found out after the fact that he had not retired but in reality had actually not been re-elected. Those two things are qualitatively different.
Even then, though you have situations like this last election:
A few of the Judges that got defeated REALLY REALLY deserved to be defeated. Mostly on karma catching up to them.
Most of the Judges who were defeated (I'm talking about the the male Judges over at District Court) just happened to be on the losing / not qualified side of the "Year of the Woman" when it came to judicial races. "Not qualified" meaning they were men, and thus, they lost because a woman ran against them. Several judges who would have been acceptable to most of the Bar serving another six years simply were steamrolled because it just happened to be "that year," which was only apparent with 20/20 hindsight.
I am excepting of course the half dozen Judges on Family Court, most of whom decided to retire – some due to longevity, most due to they knew they would lose because attorneys were fed up with their shit.
So its incorrect to give a blanket statement that (Ret.) is an inherently bad thing, automatically, if a Judge lost an election.
Not super responsive to the comment, but as a family law attorney…I continue to be fed up with their shit and the shit of the current round of judges. What a rolling dumpster fire family court is.