- Quickdraw McLaw
- 31 Comments
- 89 Views
John Seelmeyer over at Nevada Business has a nice article up about law firms today in Nevada. It’s as good of place as any to start a discussion about the state of the legal market in Nevada today. What do you think? Is Nevada going to be taken over by national firms? Is it getting harder to find good talent? Will we see more of an influx from out of state hanging a shingle here?
In my opinion, at least in construction law, some good lawyers have left or are leaving the national firms here in Las Vegas because nobody wants to pay the rates they are required to charge ($500-$650 per hour). Thus they cannot hold onto their clients. The lawyers are moving to small local firms that can better control overhead and charge lower rates.
Give some examples where you see this dynamic.
I'm not 9:03, but the two I can think of are Leon Mead, Bill Wray, and Sean Thueson. I'll admit that I don't know if those three are necessarily the big dog construction lawyers. I only know of them because I read their bios when I was going through OCI. All at smaller firms now, though, so fits 9:03's narrative.
*three I can think of. I thought of #3 after I had typed that sentence.
I agree with @9:03 and I've seen multiple examples but I can't disclose client information (as my young daughter would say – duh!). I also don't feel right naming attorney names but virtually all of the "associate" attorneys I grew up with in large/national firm(s) have left for smaller firms, totally burned out or are exceptionally happy at gov jobs. The jumps by clients come because the clients have worked with the attorney who left the larger firm and now in the new firm they are billed half the rates. I'm not talking about stealing clients – I'm talking about the attorneys getting their own clients in national or regional firms and leaving with those clients to start their own firm or work in better/smaller firms. Frank Flansberg who is quoted in the article is an excellent example. Good for him. I see a trend towards lawyers who are 10 to 15 years out coming out on their own and recognizing the benefits of small firms and big name clients are sticking with them. About the only benefit of national firms I see is their offices in many locations. Otherwise – I see very, very few benefits of large firms for clients. I for one am all for providing A plus services at a reasonable hourly rate ($250 on average – up to $350) and I think the market is ripe for the taking of big clients by small Nevada firms if they keep those rates competitive and the skill level high (like Flansberg). National firms will continue to come to Nevada, and welcome they will be – but I'm rooting for the continued success of the local shops (especially my own).
Sean is not a big dog construction lawyer. Furthermore Sean left one large regional firm to go to another large regional firm.
So who are the big dog construction lawyers?
Gordon & Rees is a national firm, not a large regional firm.
Big dog construction lawyers? What do you want? Plaintiffs? Defense? Commercial? Residential? Insurance defense?
I'm pretty sure Holland and Hart pays better than Gordon Rees, and I think H&H has higher billing rates. That seems like the type of downward lateral move someone would make if they're getting pressure from clients on billing rates.
Big Dog construction lawyers (assuming that you are not talking residential CD)– See CityCenter.
Doesn't look like Thueson is even at Gordon Rees anymore. He's not on their website.
I suspect he is not on their website yet, rather than any more.
Guess I am incorrect. His Social Media indicates that he has left Gordon & Rees and went to the Siegel Group.
So Ogilve and McGrath with McDonald Carano v. Ferrario and Coburn at Greenberg?
My observation is that everyone is doing very well right now. Be cautious to recognize that your current success may be in part to high tide, and not entirely because you are so f*cking awesome. Eventually, the tide will go out again.
So far, Abbi Silver has filed for Seat F and Lidia Stiglich for Seat G. https://twitter.com/nvelect
Cadish filed for Seat C
I really like Justice Stiglich. The opinions has has authored have been sound. When I have argued in front of the full panel, she is by far the best listener. Completely engaged. She seems very diligent. Very impressed.
No, Cadish please.
I have not heard about any of the three attracting any viable opposition(or even token opposition for that matter).
Has anyone heard of anything they consider a least semi-reliable in that regard?
RJ said Cadish is getting opponent
Hope E. Cadish has opp. They have a contribution from me. Happy New year!
Not sure where all this hating on Caddish comes from lately, including on this blog. So, perhaps someone can offer some meaningful explanation.
Up to fairly recently she appeared to be widely praised by attorneys for her fairness, preparation, intellect, as well as a respectful demeanor.
Additionally, when she was being considered for the Federal Bench, she was evaluated as being eminently qualified by the ABA. For those who could care less what the ABA thinks or does, consider that in every year she was evaluated locally in the Judging The Judges poll(the last poll was in late 2013) she was rated among the highest on the bench.
But it appears she is now being criticized for sometimes displaying an abrupt or condescending demeanor. But if she still remains fair and accurate on the law, then considering some of these other individuals we have on the bench, we should be grateful that she is usually valid in her rulings even if some believe her courtesy factor is deteriorating.
Or are people arguing that in addition to demeanor issues ,that she is also becoming significantly less prepared and less accurate in her rulings?
So, what in fact are the problems? Seems odd that someone would go from highly regarded to poorly regarded, in such a short amount of time, and although some people have amplified some concerns they have about her, no one has explained how things have apparently changed so dramatically and quickly.
If she, not long ago, was one of the highest rated, and now she seems to be becoming increasingly unpopular in some circles, what precisely has changed about her performance?
I am not taking up for her. I am merely trying to understand this all, at least on some rudimentary level as the dialogue is perplexing. If she has always been poorly regarded, there would be no need to do much beyond pointing out her deficiencies. But since she was so widely well-regarded, and now many seem to resent and dislike her as a judge, I remain perplexed that no one is explaining what has changed.
If she's always been as bad as some now contend, how do we explain those survey results. I realize that survey was highly flawed, and of limited use, but still…
If someone responds that there is no marked deterioration as she has always been substandard, that view was clearly rejected by almost all attorneys until quite recently. So, how did she go from(apparently) really good to relly bad and exctly how is she now different?
To: 5:29. Despite the survey results(a survey which you appear to concede is fatally flawed)it is my considered view that she was never nearly as widely beloved as you paint her as being.
That said, she was generally viewed in a favorable manner when compared to all the other judges. If she wasn't as beloved as you indicate, she was certainly widely viewed as above average, and usually well above average.
So I do agree with your one point that the general view of her is nose-diving in certain circles, and I don't know why either.
But since some people appear to resent the demeanor they say she is demonstrating lately, it just goes to show how important that factor is to attorneys. If an attorney is treated like an annoying fly to swat away, and they are told very abruptly that their position has no merit and that they are clearly wrong about the law at issue, the attorney will(understandably) be so resentful that it is hard for them to always think objectively about the merits of the motion they just lost.
So, the answer to the question you pose may be that the primary problem is a fairly recent deterioration in how attorneys are treated. At least it sounds like that what is what some are suggesting.
Caddish's rating in RJ poll was in the 70% range. That was 4 or so years ago. That was crappy then. That was when she was decent. She went down the toilet.
The article about her withdrawing from consideration for the Federal Bench indicated her 2011 rating was 88%. Did she drop from 88% in 2011 all the way down to 70% by 2013?
Cadish is perfectly fine. Bright and well-qualified. In the "blip in time" of Trump, is it any surprise she would be trolled? Cadish for the Supremes!
The written Q & A form which sunk her federal aspirations included a question on gun ownership. Her response was that there should be reasonable restrictions in the interests of public safety. That sounds so broad, and seeming quite reasonable, to the point where even conservative, pro-gun ownership attorneys should have no problem with that. Those who are a documented risk to public safety should not have guns. But Heller and those who sought to sink her nomination were not messaging to educated, discerning conservatives, but instead were catering to the blind fury of the ultra right-wing, blindly government-hating uninformed.
Now,as to the second question they posed, specifically as to the Second Amendment, her response was, admittedly, more problematic.
She indicated that she does not believe that the Second Amendment provides for a specific right to own firearms. She subsequently attempted to "clarify" the issue by citing a recent opinion, but the damage was done based on how categorically she had initially responded to the question.
But I don't think that either of her responses(particularly considering that her response to the first question appears quite reasonable) should have sunk her nomination. The real problem I have is her judgment in completing the survey in the first place.
She should have ignored the request or indicated she cannot take a position on issues which may arise in her court. That may not have been the more courageous approach, but it certainly would have been the more intelligent approach. After all, none of those who opposed her appointment based on how she responded would at least admit she was courageous for responding. Her critics gave her zero credit for at least responding. All she accomplished was providing fodder to sink her Federal appointment.
And with what appears to be fairly liberal views on her part, she had zero chance of obtaining such organization's endorsement.
This is part of what is so wrong with judicial elections. These candidates act like candidates for other offices do, and will seek support from anywhere and everywhere they can scrounge a handful of votes.
She must have known she had no chance of the endorsement. She also should have known the answers she provided might sink aspirations for higher office.
Also, on the bizarre chance she actually received the endorsement, why the Hell would she want it? It would cause far more harm than good. Her being endorsed by such organization would antagonize all the more liberal, and even moderate, endorsements and sources of support she received. Who advises these people?
She wasn't thinking. And most judges don't think when running for re-election or retention, and attempting to save their livelihood. All objectivity and clear thought goes out the window. Again, just another problem with judicial elections.
But the judicial appointment process has its share of serious problems as well.
Liberal views, Cadish? Funny. She is pro-creditor. If you have one of those cases, recuse her.
True,as to appearing to have a pro-creditor lean in her rulings(and, candidly, most of the judges seem to be the same way), but as to her actual political affiliations, and her sources of endorsements, one could say she appears to be fairly liberal.
How these judges lean in court does not necessarily reflect their political affiliations. Former Judge Mosley was an active democrat, but in court appeared to often take a harder stance with criminal defendants than did many of his colleagues. At least it seemed that way to me.
Enough Holiday Nicey-Nicey stuff. Dear Member of the CCBA Board of Directors who hands out the "Pledge of Professionalism"– Yeah you are one of the most unprofessional, unethical practitioners in this town. I will be at the next public forum when you attempt to pontificate on your hypocrisy and make sure everyone knows the garbage that you pull.