I was in court yesterday when the Gloria Allred circus rolled in. She was less shrill than I’ve seen her on TV. Her client is what floored me. Not what I expected. I think I’m a relatively good looking guy that earns an above average income and my friends always say I’m a nice guy. How did an average looking GOP freak get a hot woman to say yes to a marriage proposal! SMH
Jon Ralston on KNPR this morning had some interesting comments regarding the Tao v. Cadish race for the NSC. I personally think both are very intelligent and would make fine justices, but I did find the revelations about Tao's campaign… off-putting. In sum, he's basically making it a partisan race, going so far as to change his party affiliation from Dem to Indy and he's apparently backed by the NV GOP machine.
RE: BOG elections. Remember to vote only for your candidates. I learned this when I was in a big firm and they were backing a candidate. If you have five votes and just toss them to other candidates, you decrease the chances of yours winning.
It's not particularly surprising that the GOP would be supporting Tao. Have to remember that he previously worked for Gov. Sandoval back when Sandoval was AG. Sandoval appointed Tao to the District Court and then the CoA.
In light of the GOP support for Tao, I would be very surprised to see Adelson going all in for Cadish. A moderate donation to both Cadish and Tao would be a prudent move for him to protect his own interests since both will survive this election in some capacity and likely have matters involving his interests in front of them no matter which bench they occupy after the election.
Guest
Anonymous
May 9, 2018 4:25 pm
Did you all watch the I-Team's story last night about Boulder City Attorney Steve Morris. Wow!
I watched yesterday's Supreme Court en banc arguments and am disgusted by how rude several of the justices were to the attorneys. Their hostility was entirely unnecessary and they should be ashamed. They didn't let the attorneys answer questions, the justices' contempt, for both parties, was over the top, and they were clearly there for the media show rather than letting the parties present their arguments. I am done voting for rude assholes. They are supposed to be distinguished leaders of the bar, but they are far from it. I cannot wait for Douglas and Cherry to leave, and I hope that Hardesty and Parraguirre are not too far behind.
They are not contending for Mr.or Ms. Congeniality, rather they have in their mind whatever issue/question they want to obtain an answer to which they believe is the crux of the matter and will be dispositive to the issue presented. They have an incredibly short amount of time in which to get the necessary answer (in a typical 30 minute en banc argument that translates to about 2-4 minutes each, time enough for 1 or 2 questions).
Unfortunately, many times the attorneys presenting their case are so focused on their arguments contained within their briefs, it comes across as if they are assuming that the justices haven't already read the briefs or the record on appeal (either personally or by way of a very through bench brief). The attorneys' then rehash the same material rather than closely tracking the justices reactions to the arguments or the questions asked.
The questions actually serve 2 purposes. First is to elicit facts/analysis for the justice to address some concern that the justice may have (either directly impacting this case or the effect the decision may have on the body of law down the line). Secondarily, the justice may know where another justice stands on some issue and is using the question to debate with the other justice (the attorney is merely the pawn in the game). In that situation, it is key that the attorney recognize the dynamic and assist the helpful justice by way of the manner in which the question is answered. For example, against a hostile justice, find ways to acknowledge the concern but demonstrate why the concern is misplaced in the instant case. For a supportive justice, find ways to demonstrate that they are correct in their analysis.
I seriously doubt that the justices feel contempt towards the attorneys, unless they feel that the attorney is being less than candid, evasive, avoiding their questions, wasting their time, etc.
10:53 is correct. Unlike district court, the appellate courts are usually focused on a few narrow issues. There is no need to allow an attorney to talk for 15 minutes straight if the attorney is not addressing the judges' or justices' concerns. At the appellate level, regardless of state or federal, numerous court officers have read the briefs before an attorney takes the lectern, including staff attorneys, law clerks, and usually the judges / justices. Further, a bench memorandum is distributed to all of the judges and justices before oral arguments. If a judge or justice cuts an attorney off, it's usually because either they know where they attorney is going, or that they realized they need to rephrase the question. And sometimes, attorneys just duck the question because the answer is bad for their side.
Don't know enough about her to be able to articulate a well-founded opinion. On a personal level, Harter is a good guy. Based upon prior history, however, I'm not sure he is willing to put the time in and do the heavy lifting that the position requires.
I like Stiglich personally. She had the potential to be a great Justice. However she is entirely up Hardesty's ass. I talked with her at a campaign event about an Opinion written by Hardesty where she sided with him, an opinion that both Appellant and Respondent joined in a Petition for Rehearing because Hardesty got his facts wrong. Stiglich joinded Hardesty in denying Rehearing even on these facts. I gave her the chance to explain how a jurist could do this. She couldn't explain it other than that she relied upon the fact that Justice Hardesty got it right. Whatever her potential, she has no business ruling on appellate issues.
10:53 – did you see yesterday's argument on the lethal injection case? It was close to 1.5 hours and it was horrible. Most of the judges were downright hostile. They were not just asking questions – they were spewing contempt. Douglas interrupted the attorneys who were trying to answer his questions. He used to be decent, but now his questions are bungled messes and it's hard to know what he's asking. The attorneys were trying to respond but clearly the question he asked in his mind was different than the one that came out of his mouth. Hardesty was obnoxiously rude. This was not a 15 minute argument and it was not a situation in which the attorney was offended because he didn't get to give a prepared speech. It was ugly and mean and they should all be ashamed.
Thank God I can go back to stealing client money again.
Guest
Anonymous
May 9, 2018 5:56 pm
Nice comment, Hardesty.
Guest
Anonymous
May 9, 2018 6:36 pm
10:53 AM was obviously written by a Nevada Supreme Court justice, or even more likely, by his/her law clerk. It is possible to re-direct an attorney during oral argument without demeaning him/her. Hardesty, who mishandled client funds while in private practice, is now the self-appointed high priest of ethics.
Cadish is Eglet's puppet, and we do not need a Jesse Walsh on the NSC.
"Effective June 4, 2018 for The Eighth Judicial District Court: Electronic Service via File & Serve will be effectuated upon submission. This is a departure from the current procedure of serving filings at the time of court acceptance." About (bleeping) time. Welcome to 2018.
Now if they could only progress to a "filed upon submission" regime, as in federal court. If something was filed wrong, do a notice of non-compliant filing and allow for a correction, rather than acting as a gatekeeper.
From: e-filing support [mailto:donotreply@tylertech.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 9, 2018
Subject: Eighth Judicial District Court Electronic Service Changes
Effective June 4, 2018 for The Eighth Judicial District Court: Electronic Service via File & Serve will be effectuated upon submission. This is a departure from the current procedure of serving filings at the time of court acceptance.
For more information on these changes, please visit The District Court Website.
I would like to take this opportunity to tell you get up, stretch, and make sure to vote for your BOGs who are entering too many attorneys in a shitty job market. Have a nice 30 year student loan payments while you are willing to take a job at ATMS or Akermann.
Guest
Anonymous
May 9, 2018 11:09 pm
Do we assume it is watered down merely because it is the February test and not the July test?
Also, if anything, since the creation of Boyd, the guardians at the gate seem to be attempting to control admission. Up through the mid-90's passage rates were high 70's, low 80's.
So, if anything, the test, or at least the grading, has seemingly become more difficult in order to lower the percentage of those admitted each year.
If you have info. indicating otherwise, please let us know. Otherwise why do you want to make a bunch of kids who already feel miserable for failing, feel more miserable? You are telling them that they can't even pass an exam that has been modified to the point that a cretin should pass it.
And no, I'm not being defensive because I am one of those who failed.
In fact I took it so many years ago–years before Boyd even existed. In fact, back when I took it, it was only offered once per year, and was just the essay part on the first day, and the multi-state on the second day.
Will the Boyd Law dean lobby them to lower it further now? God help us.
Guest
Anonymous
May 10, 2018 1:38 pm
Good on them re trust account audits. It would be nice if they regrouped and did trust account education instead of audits–maybe a person whom people can call with questions. They were poised to spend a lot of money on new employee for this.
Guest
Anonymous
May 11, 2018 2:35 am
The solution for the State Bar having lost the random audit petition is obvious. Require all attorney's with trust accounts submit a certificate from an independent CPA annually at time of license renewal that the CPA has reviewed the account, that the attorney is complying with GAAP and that no irregularities are present. Very similar to the requirement by the SEC of any publicly traded company.
Not that anyone here wants to see that sort of a rule, but I can see the day coming where it is proposed as a solution.
A very modest proposal. First, where can I find the "GAAP" standards for trust accounts? Does this apply to fully earned retainers? Second, it is good that CPAs are so much more ethical than attorneys, and would never fail (intentionally or otherwise) to miss a problem. Indeed isn't it accountancy overview of publicly traded companies has eliminated fraud completely?
I was in court yesterday when the Gloria Allred circus rolled in. She was less shrill than I’ve seen her on TV. Her client is what floored me. Not what I expected. I think I’m a relatively good looking guy that earns an above average income and my friends always say I’m a nice guy. How did an average looking GOP freak get a hot woman to say yes to a marriage proposal! SMH
https://www.thedailybeast.com/ex-fiancee-nevada-gop-adviser-made-me-his-sex-slave
Some crazy ass shit
Hold on. Did you see the victim? I know her personally and "hot" is definitely not how I'd describe her.
Random trust account audits are dead–for now: http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/document/view.do?csNameID=45388&csIID=45388&deLinkID=649465&sireDocumentNumber=18-17506
Good to hear some sane news for once.
I am two for two. My next prediction is the NSC race. Tao will win.
You should also send good vibes to Andrew Cramer and the others who spoke out about this.
Don't send good vibes. Vote for Andrew and for every single other candidate who stridently and strongly comes out against the status quo and the BoG.
When are the elections?
Jon Ralston on KNPR this morning had some interesting comments regarding the Tao v. Cadish race for the NSC. I personally think both are very intelligent and would make fine justices, but I did find the revelations about Tao's campaign… off-putting. In sum, he's basically making it a partisan race, going so far as to change his party affiliation from Dem to Indy and he's apparently backed by the NV GOP machine.
RE: BOG elections. Remember to vote only for your candidates. I learned this when I was in a big firm and they were backing a candidate. If you have five votes and just toss them to other candidates, you decrease the chances of yours winning.
And Elissa Cadish is trying or is getting Sheldon Adelson money. That is scary.
is trying or is getting?
Trying
It's not particularly surprising that the GOP would be supporting Tao. Have to remember that he previously worked for Gov. Sandoval back when Sandoval was AG. Sandoval appointed Tao to the District Court and then the CoA.
In light of the GOP support for Tao, I would be very surprised to see Adelson going all in for Cadish. A moderate donation to both Cadish and Tao would be a prudent move for him to protect his own interests since both will survive this election in some capacity and likely have matters involving his interests in front of them no matter which bench they occupy after the election.
Did you all watch the I-Team's story last night about Boulder City Attorney Steve Morris. Wow!
link?
http://www.lasvegasnow.com/news/i-team-new-boulder-city-attorneys-contract-land-buys-raise-questions/1167847286
That's President Morris, to you, 9:25 AM. Please show respect to priesthood authority and further refrain from evil speaking of the Lord's anointed.
That will do.
I watched yesterday's Supreme Court en banc arguments and am disgusted by how rude several of the justices were to the attorneys. Their hostility was entirely unnecessary and they should be ashamed. They didn't let the attorneys answer questions, the justices' contempt, for both parties, was over the top, and they were clearly there for the media show rather than letting the parties present their arguments. I am done voting for rude assholes. They are supposed to be distinguished leaders of the bar, but they are far from it. I cannot wait for Douglas and Cherry to leave, and I hope that Hardesty and Parraguirre are not too far behind.
Our court is full of rude political grandstanders without any concern for attorneys???? I cannot get the shocked face off.
They are not contending for Mr.or Ms. Congeniality, rather they have in their mind whatever issue/question they want to obtain an answer to which they believe is the crux of the matter and will be dispositive to the issue presented. They have an incredibly short amount of time in which to get the necessary answer (in a typical 30 minute en banc argument that translates to about 2-4 minutes each, time enough for 1 or 2 questions).
Unfortunately, many times the attorneys presenting their case are so focused on their arguments contained within their briefs, it comes across as if they are assuming that the justices haven't already read the briefs or the record on appeal (either personally or by way of a very through bench brief). The attorneys' then rehash the same material rather than closely tracking the justices reactions to the arguments or the questions asked.
The questions actually serve 2 purposes. First is to elicit facts/analysis for the justice to address some concern that the justice may have (either directly impacting this case or the effect the decision may have on the body of law down the line). Secondarily, the justice may know where another justice stands on some issue and is using the question to debate with the other justice (the attorney is merely the pawn in the game). In that situation, it is key that the attorney recognize the dynamic and assist the helpful justice by way of the manner in which the question is answered. For example, against a hostile justice, find ways to acknowledge the concern but demonstrate why the concern is misplaced in the instant case. For a supportive justice, find ways to demonstrate that they are correct in their analysis.
I seriously doubt that the justices feel contempt towards the attorneys, unless they feel that the attorney is being less than candid, evasive, avoiding their questions, wasting their time, etc.
I am torn on voting for Stiglich. I have heard good things about her, but if she is up Hardesty's ass, I will vote for Harter. Thoughts?
10:53 is correct. Unlike district court, the appellate courts are usually focused on a few narrow issues. There is no need to allow an attorney to talk for 15 minutes straight if the attorney is not addressing the judges' or justices' concerns. At the appellate level, regardless of state or federal, numerous court officers have read the briefs before an attorney takes the lectern, including staff attorneys, law clerks, and usually the judges / justices. Further, a bench memorandum is distributed to all of the judges and justices before oral arguments. If a judge or justice cuts an attorney off, it's usually because either they know where they attorney is going, or that they realized they need to rephrase the question. And sometimes, attorneys just duck the question because the answer is bad for their side.
Don't know enough about her to be able to articulate a well-founded opinion. On a personal level, Harter is a good guy. Based upon prior history, however, I'm not sure he is willing to put the time in and do the heavy lifting that the position requires.
Stiglich is smart and well reasoned. Agreeing with hardesty on an issue doesn't mean he is up his ass.
Vote for Stiglich no matter what side of the aisle you are on. The longer she stays on the court, the better it will be for all of us.
I like Stiglich personally. She had the potential to be a great Justice. However she is entirely up Hardesty's ass. I talked with her at a campaign event about an Opinion written by Hardesty where she sided with him, an opinion that both Appellant and Respondent joined in a Petition for Rehearing because Hardesty got his facts wrong. Stiglich joinded Hardesty in denying Rehearing even on these facts. I gave her the chance to explain how a jurist could do this. She couldn't explain it other than that she relied upon the fact that Justice Hardesty got it right. Whatever her potential, she has no business ruling on appellate issues.
10:53 – did you see yesterday's argument on the lethal injection case? It was close to 1.5 hours and it was horrible. Most of the judges were downright hostile. They were not just asking questions – they were spewing contempt. Douglas interrupted the attorneys who were trying to answer his questions. He used to be decent, but now his questions are bungled messes and it's hard to know what he's asking. The attorneys were trying to respond but clearly the question he asked in his mind was different than the one that came out of his mouth. Hardesty was obnoxiously rude. This was not a 15 minute argument and it was not a situation in which the attorney was offended because he didn't get to give a prepared speech. It was ugly and mean and they should all be ashamed.
Keep it in perspective. The Ninth Circuit is much nastier. Just ask Luis.
Hardesty is aggressively rude in oral argument and if Stiglich has departed from his vote in any cases I don't know when/where that happened.
Has Bill Maupin sat in on any oral arguments lately? He was supposed to have senior status.
I heard that too. Also Saitta, Rose and Shearing.
Thank God I can go back to stealing client money again.
Nice comment, Hardesty.
10:53 AM was obviously written by a Nevada Supreme Court justice, or even more likely, by his/her law clerk. It is possible to re-direct an attorney during oral argument without demeaning him/her. Hardesty, who mishandled client funds while in private practice, is now the self-appointed high priest of ethics.
Cadish is Eglet's puppet, and we do not need a Jesse Walsh on the NSC.
Concur. If you want worse than what we have now on NSC, then vote for Cadish. I voted for her before and will not this time.
Eglet got many robe-wearing puppets.
Is there any investigation into Wolfson and Dave Thomas with the missing 42k? OBC?
Marisa Border.
Ma.Border is a fairy God mother.
Nothing to see here.
"Effective June 4, 2018 for The Eighth Judicial District Court: Electronic Service via File & Serve will be effectuated upon submission. This is a departure from the current procedure of serving filings at the time of court acceptance." About (bleeping) time. Welcome to 2018.
Now if they could only progress to a "filed upon submission" regime, as in federal court. If something was filed wrong, do a notice of non-compliant filing and allow for a correction, rather than acting as a gatekeeper.
One step at a time my sister/brother…
Where was that announcement? Thanks.
From: e-filing support [mailto:donotreply@tylertech.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 9, 2018
Subject: Eighth Judicial District Court Electronic Service Changes
Effective June 4, 2018 for The Eighth Judicial District Court: Electronic Service via File & Serve will be effectuated upon submission. This is a departure from the current procedure of serving filings at the time of court acceptance.
For more information on these changes, please visit The District Court Website.
And the notice from the Court's website: http://www.clarkcountycourts.us/res/news/Service%20Notificiation.pdf
Congrats to 51% of the February bar takers. To the 49% – you failed a watered down test. Sad
You're an asshole.
And a particular kind of asshole–the type who only feels good about themselves when others are suffering misfortune.
I would like to take this opportunity to tell you get up, stretch, and make sure to vote for your BOGs who are entering too many attorneys in a shitty job market. Have a nice 30 year student loan payments while you are willing to take a job at ATMS or Akermann.
Do we assume it is watered down merely because it is the February test and not the July test?
Also, if anything, since the creation of Boyd, the guardians at the gate seem to be attempting to control admission. Up through the mid-90's passage rates were high 70's, low 80's.
So, if anything, the test, or at least the grading, has seemingly become more difficult in order to lower the percentage of those admitted each year.
If you have info. indicating otherwise, please let us know. Otherwise why do you want to make a bunch of kids who already feel miserable for failing, feel more miserable? You are telling them that they can't even pass an exam that has been modified to the point that a cretin should pass it.
And no, I'm not being defensive because I am one of those who failed.
In fact I took it so many years ago–years before Boyd even existed. In fact, back when I took it, it was only offered once per year, and was just the essay part on the first day, and the multi-state on the second day.
The Supremes lowered the score needed pass last year:
https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/education/nevada-lowers-bar-for-state-legal-exam-as-passage-rate-skids/
Will the Boyd Law dean lobby them to lower it further now? God help us.
Good on them re trust account audits. It would be nice if they regrouped and did trust account education instead of audits–maybe a person whom people can call with questions. They were poised to spend a lot of money on new employee for this.
The solution for the State Bar having lost the random audit petition is obvious. Require all attorney's with trust accounts submit a certificate from an independent CPA annually at time of license renewal that the CPA has reviewed the account, that the attorney is complying with GAAP and that no irregularities are present. Very similar to the requirement by the SEC of any publicly traded company.
Not that anyone here wants to see that sort of a rule, but I can see the day coming where it is proposed as a solution.
A very modest proposal. First, where can I find the "GAAP" standards for trust accounts? Does this apply to fully earned retainers? Second, it is good that CPAs are so much more ethical than attorneys, and would never fail (intentionally or otherwise) to miss a problem. Indeed isn't it accountancy overview of publicly traded companies has eliminated fraud completely?