- Quickdraw McLaw
- 74 Comments
- 222 Views
Since it’s a slow legal news morning, we’ll take the prompt from one of the comments posted this morning:
When I first started practicing some 25+ years ago there were stereotypes for the various legal specialties. Family law = bottom of the barrel/unintelligent. Criminal defense attorneys = sleazy and sloppy. Civil defense attorneys = boring and stuffy. Plaintiff personal injury attorneys = horny and sexist (males) and slutty (females). I went to Court this week and noticed things seem the same, generally speaking. Thoughts?
workers' comp = bottom of barrel
I have to say collections work takes the lowest spot.
Nothing but threatening letters and small claims defaults.
I actually agree with some of these. The most sexist attorneys I've met are personal injury attorneys. I have yet to meet a classy criminal defense attorney, they all act and appear sleazy and sloppy. Civil defense attorneys are stuffy and dull, particularly in bed. Transactional attorneys are even worse.
Sounds like this is the first time you went to Court in 25 years? You need to go back and re-evaluate.
This. This entirely. I find the Family Law attorneys that I know to be compassionate, intelligent attorneys in their field. There are some run of the mills attorneys in the area who handle the lower dollar cases, which is good because otherwise those cases get no representation. I only know the criminal defense attorneys who do white collar, and they are top notch. Sure there are criminal defense attorneys who race through their cases and pay no attention to details but on cases where either no one is paying you or you have a track of cases to get through, that is unfortunately what the job entails (which also explains sloppy and sleazy prosecutors. It does not explain why AUSAs are sloppy and sleazy; that is explained by the fact that they can be because they have cannons behind them). Civil defense attorneys that I know run the gamut from gregarious to boring; however what I consider boring is really their eye for minutiae which is critical in their work. Plaintiff personal injury attorneys– OK this one I might agree with but it is purely out of abject jealousy on my part. Except for the slutty part. Female PI attorneys are far too picky for my tastes. You are the company you keep.
I’m a defense attorney and far from stuffy or boring. In Clark County where the juries are so pro Plaintiff, it truly takes brains and skills to get the upper hand. I make a good living, drive a luxury car, and never worry about waiting to get paid from settlements. That said.l, I also have immense respect for a majority of the Plaintiffs’ Bar.
obc+bogs=bottom of the barrel
You really don't have to post every day. If there is no relevant legal news tomorrow, lets try to avoid a post on the BK hottie or 2013 Boyd grads.
Will there be another compensation survey this year?
As a guy that's thinking about eventually leaving his (boring) civil defense job to start a (sexist? slutty?) small personal injury firm, this year I'd like to see some data points on what those folks bring home and at what experience level, if possible.
Impossible to answer. I know PI attorneys who have been practicing 30 years that barely make ends meet and others who have practiced less than 10 making 7 figures. It's pretty saturated. I hope you have a business plan and a good referral source. Or money to advertise. People (especially civil defense attorneys) think it's easy to bring cases in the door, but it's not.
Got it. The problem for me is that I'm making about $350k, but doubt I could ever make too much more in civil defense. A family member has a seemingly successful PI firm he tells me he'd like to pass down to me, and I always kick the can down the road because I'm somewhat happy where I'm at now. But the family member is now thinking about retirement. I know the move is to go take a look at the books, spend some time with the firm, etc., but I don't want to start down that route if it's not going to work from the get go. There are other complications, but that's the main rub.
You know, this blog is often a valuable source of information and discussion, but topics like the one set out today are embarrassing to the profession and really take away from any sense that this blog should be considered a valuable resource. Why not just make a blank – is there anything interesting happening out there statement and see what happens?
then don't read it today. I find this to be a valuable topic. Stereotypes exist for a reason, there is some truth to it. It's good to know what people perceive so that we can address those areas, otherwise we become oblivious in our own little bubble. Kinda like judges…
Yeah, who made 9:32 am pope of this blog? You're free to post something with more erudition, but otherwise let us chat or not (that's the point of the blog)
Hate to say it, but I have to agree with the topic statement. I am the same vintage and see the same thing. At least we have a seperate family court building now.
I think this topic is just fine. We talk on this Blog often about how our profession is perceived by the public, and then we talk frequently about how our profession is perceived by those within the profession.
In many ways we perpetuate the very sterotypes that we want to avoid. For example, we are concerned that attorneys are perceived as horny scumbags and then post that attorneys are horny scumbags. Stan Hunterton gives a speech about the problem with all attorneys being greedy people willing to steal and his intent to root that out of the profession which unnecessarily perpetuates a myth which is harmful to the profession. Our wounds are self-inflicted.
I have serious doubts as to whether Stan Hunterton made the alleged claim that All attorneys were greedy people willing to steal. I have no doubts about his intent to root such people out of the profession.
If he did in fact make such a claim (or actually believe such), I disagree with him as I have known several attorneys that regularly place the interest of others well above their own interest and have suffered substantial financial hits because doing so benefited their client. That being true, I also have, after decades as an attorney, had enough personal experiences and seen enough anecdotal evidence to agree with him to the extent that there is an unreasonably large percentage of attorneys that fit that statement and agree that they need to be dealt with if the profession is to be allowed to self police.
OBC is the model for nothing, except for an Ensure commercial.
Spoken like someone who has received discipline courtesy of OBC.
This is what you created, Hardesty. You are an ass.
This shit show brought to you care of H&H Rectal Thermometers.
Oh the irony drips. Supreme Court issued one Decision yesterday. Order Dismissing Appeal and referring the attorney to the State Bar (guy is named John Collier from up north). Collier was supposed to file his transcript request form on or before August 15, 2017, and the opening brief and appendix on or before September 15, 2017. Collier was cautioned that failure to comply could result in the imposition of sanctions, including the dismissal of the appeal. Collier failed to file the transcript request form and the opening brief and appendix.
Supreme Court noted "[w]e have repeatedly stated that we expect all appeals to be 'pursued in a manner meeting high standards of diligence, professionalism, and competence.' (citations omitted). It is incumbent upon Mr. Collier, as part of his professional obligations of competence and diligence to his clients, to know and comply with all applicable court rules. See RPC 1.1; RPC 1.3. These rules have been implemented to promote cost-effective, timely access to the courts; it is 'imperative' that he follow these rules and timely comply with our directives….
Mr. Collier's failure to comply with our rules and orders has forced this court to divert our limited resources to ensure his compliance and needlessly delayed the processing of this appeal. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal. Because it appears that Mr. Collier's conduct in this appeal may constitute violations of RPC 1.3 (diligence), 3.2(a) (expediting litigation), and 8.4 (misconduct), we refer Mr. Collier to the State Bar of Nevada for investigation pursuant to SCR 104-105."
I have no problem with the dismissal and referral to the Bar based upon delays in the appellate process. But these Justices cannot look at themselves in a mirror with a straight face after writing "we expect all appeals to be pursued in a manner meeting high standards of diligence, professionalism, and competence" while cases languish in front of them for years without movement. If they are truly worried about diligence, maybe they should try handling their docket with diligence or else decide that they do not have to live by the same rules that they cite.
Ironing aside, the case seems like a shitty situation for Collier. If you look at the docket he filed a motion to extend time because his client couldn't afford to pay for transcripts. Then he filed an opposition to a motion to dismiss. The court granted the first extension of time and apparently a second, all on the same issue. Then it sort of dropped off and was dismissed.
So Collier was not exactly negligent, just seems like he was a little out of his league handling NSC appeals and had a client who wouldn't pony up.
You need to get a cost retainer before ever filing that notice of appeal because the NSC is not friendly about letting attorneys out of cases and won't do shit without transcripts. Regardless, Collier should have made a motion to w/d as soon as it was clear his client would not pay for transcripts.
I read the opinion. I think it was the failure to "otherwise communicate with the court" that probaly doomed him. Seems to suggest and past practice from the court would suggest had he sought even an additional extension or to withdraw, this could all have been avoided.
Good for the NSC.. (though I do have concerns about the client suffering by dismissal of the appeal if the fault rests with the attorney rather than the client).
Perhaps if litigants understood that the rules exist for a reason and failure to comply will result in real consequences, the existing gridlock will begin to reduce, burdens would be shifted from the complying party back to the non-complying party, and justice may not be as delayed…
Agree with the failure to communicate but if the Court wants to live in a glass house regarding the importance of timeliness, it best not be throwing stones at someone who was 60 days late when other parties are waiting years for the Court to release more than one Unpublished Decision per day.
Who are the three justices?
I am sorry. I was thinking I was posting in the 9th Cir. case.
Whether or not the NSC in general, and our appellate rules in particular, are too stringent is not really the point because these have always been difficult waters to navigate. It will never change.
The rules, as well as the NSC itself(even accounting for changing personnel over the years)have always been very strict about procedure, format, deadlines, etc.–to the point where many believe that form is being extolled over substance.
But since we know, or should know, that that is the way it operates, and it has certainly not become less difficult over the last 30 years, attorneys best beware.
Before accepting a case either as a private attorney who has a client who wants to appeal, or accepting an appeal as an appellate track attorney(or whatever they are called), it is critical that one has a crack staff.
If just dealing with matters at the District Court level, some attorneys can do quite nicely without the necessity of a high quality support staff. But, if one accepts appellate work, IMO, they need top notch paralegals who have significant knowledge and experience in processing appeals.
After all, it's simply incredible how many errors can be detected. Attorneys think they have everything lined up correctly, and they receive back a list of everything they did wrong, all the way down to your margins were a bit off.
So, with appeals, sometimes the substance is not really the difficult part as the attorneys may have their research, arguments, and drafting in pretty good shape. The downfall is often matters of format. No matter how hyper-technical or innocuous some procedural or formatting error is, the NSC will find it, and many others for good measure.
That's why most of these attorneys processing appeals should not get within 10 miles of one. Some of these attorneys have never run into any real ethical problems, until they accept an appeal.
I never got burned by this because I never let myself get burned by this. I noticed this phenomenon when I was a law clerk, and subsequently never got involved in any appellate work.
One attorney put it more succinctly than me. He said "when considering appeals, it's often not the question of how good the attorney is, but instead how good the support staff is."
Is Bulla nice to the people who kiss her ass?
I have never seen her ass; she is always sitting down when I have been in her Court.
Bonnie is nice to no one.
It cracks me up when Bulla lectures attorneys on civility when she is as nasty as she is.
bulla gets a bad rap, she ha a tough jobs and there are many people who stretch and push the rules to the limit
Bulla does not get a bad wrap. It is a job. She can quite. Instead, she stays on and is nasty to those that appear before her. She could actually go back into the wild and be a real lawyer, but I suspect the promise of a cushy pension makes her stay at a job she hates (or at least seems to hate). We all have had jobs we hate, but one can always quit. If she stays in her quasi-judicial role, she should learn to be civil. But, alas, she has had the job for many years, has gotten even meaner, and will likely continue to have the job until she retires or quits since there does not seem to be any way to challenge her.
I do not understand why the commissioners are not either elected or their positions put up for competition every so often.
When a judicial officer tends to be unpleasant, that is not to be confused with them hating their job.
Quite the contrary. It usually means they enjoy their job, including the perceived status and perks of it, and enjoy lording over people.
Bad temperament does not usually indicate burn out and that they can't wait to dump the job and move on. Instead, it usually means they enjoy flaunting their power and authority and belittling or intimidating attorneys.
I'm not saying that my observations do or don't apply to the particular judicial officer in question. I am merley pointing out that nasty judicial officers enjoy being nasty judicial officers, and that such temperament is not an indication that they are marking the days till they quit or retire.
Spell check should have caught "merley." It's "merely."
Ooops, I notice a few others that it should have caught.
Forget the spelling. What matters is the point, and I generally agree.
Now, there have been some grumpy older judges whose patience was worn paper thin from their years of service, and were biding their time till retirement.
However, usually bad temperament is what you mention–they don't hate their jobs, and in fact enjoy intimidating and reprimanding attorneys.
Tough luck for you, 3:34 / 3:36. For your error, you get to make a contribution to the Law Library within 10 days. Your should feel grateful the site doesn't instant-ban you and then take liberties with your spouse/SO, in addition to the contribution. Next case.
Bonny is the weasel, not Ayon.
I am team not Bonnie. Anybody but Bonny.
Brat Ivan….
I saw a "prominent" criminal defense attorney yesterday walking across the street. His pants were at least 2 inches above his shoes and he was not wearing socks. Suit was super tight too (not in the "damn, that suit is tight!" kinda way).
Don't think I've ever seen a civil attorney dress like that.
I dou
Criminal defense attorneys are without a doubt the worst dressers. The public defender's office needs to star in an episode of "what not to wear." I believe being out of style is a prerequisite to employment.
Did anyone see the 9th Circuit oral argument yesterday in the Limbwood Trust v. Wells Fargo case? The 9th Circuit absolutely demolished Luis Ayon and called him a "weasel."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3aOf9ordr8
What point in the video is the weasel comment?
I give Ayon credit that he kept his composure.
7:22. Savage. Gotta love Kozinski!
Though I don't know him well, I have always viewed Luis as a well intentioned attorney. I hope that as his colleagues, we can help him with whatever he is going through rather than taking unnecessary shots at his reputation on this blog.
I've had a number of cases with Luis. I think he is a good practitioner and a good guy.
That being said, he absolutely shat the bed with that oral argument. This the Ninth Circuit, not Nancy Allf! You're not going to get very far if you don't answer the judge's questions – especially when they ask you five times in a row.
Ayon did keep even keel. Court seemed biased to me.
"Your problem is the more you talk, the less convincing you are."
Ouch!
I don't hold it against Luis. He's pushing a position that isn't far from the one advanced by homeowners associations in SFR. It's just that, unlike the Nevada Supreme Court, the 9th Circuit judges aren't as willing to condone a really, fucking absurd result.
The panel did not seem to understand the issues at all and just acted unprofessionally, wasting everyone’s time and money.
Kozinski spent almost no time in private practice (about the same as Adam Laxalt, actually) Nearly his entire career has been as a government lawyer or member of the judiciary.
That was brutal to watch. Not sure why Ayon didn't just answer the question, especially when it's clear that the judges are pissed off.
I have been in front of and around Kozinski plenty through clerking and practice, and have always found him to be insufferable. He is always completely sure that he's the smartest and most interesting person in the room. Every human he interacts with is dust beneath his feet.
I have always thought that this superpriority thing is a blatant money grab that should be put to an end. But that doesn't justify the judges' conduct here. First, Luis did answer yes to their price disparity question. And then when they kept beating him on the issue, he tried to explain why the fact didn't matter (i.e., he was an advocate for his client). The professional reputation bit was absolutely uncalled for, but not all that surprising coming from Kozinski (he usually pulls this on prosecutors after trumping up some half-cocked reason for why they acted unprofessionally).
@ 2:43 Luis didn't answer yes until they had asked him 5 times. Pissing off the judges is never a smart oral advocacy strategy, even you're sure the judges are missing the issue.
2:43 here. I just listened again. The yes I was talking about was at 4:40-45. I agree that he was a little evasive before that, but I think it was only once (at about 4:20). I'm coming to your side a little bit, but I still think the judges' response was uncalled for. There must have been something nasty in the briefs, because the judges really came out swinging. I wonder if he even stood back up for rebuttal. At that point I think I would have taken the L and sat down.
2:43 again. Since there was only a few seconds left I turned it off after the appellant's opening. I didn't realize those few seconds included the entirety of the rest of the hearing.
Wells Fargo's attorney was smart to shut up and sit down and no, Luis never got his 2 minutes for Rebuttal.
Well, there was nothing to rebut.
Those of you who are saying the judges were biased are completely missing the point. The Ninth Circuit already ruled that NRS 116 is facially unconstitutional in Bourne Valley. ("116 is GONE!") Cert was denied by SCOTUS. Bourne Valley is now binding law in federal courts. The issues that Ayon was attempting to argue are completely irrelevant at this point. I'm amazed he's still appealing these cases in federal court. He needed this wake up call from the judges. Hope he heeds their advice.
It is until you get a Panel that has the one dissenting judge in Bourne Valley and someone friendly to his argument to set it aside. That is why they keep appealing these. We act like the law is bedrock rather than sandstone.
A panel can’t reverse a panel decision. The case would need to go en banc to do that. So he doesn’t need one more judge. He needs enough to get an en banc call (15 IIRC) and then a majority of the en banc panel (6 IIRC).
My pants are on fire! That was a GREAT youtube clip.
Why did they even set that for oral argument? Just to berate Luis' position? He kept his cool. That was rough.
To stop further petitions? It seems they are a little fed up with the HOA foreclosure cases.
Curious — is this the same super priority issue that the Nevada Supreme Court is on the other side of?
Correct
@2:44 – Sort of. This was a separate distinct issue about splitting the HOA lien, but the court didn't want to hear it because they already decided the statute was unconstitutional.
Luis has a couple of options with his harsh treatment of the court.
What is Nelson Cohen doing now?