- Quickdraw McLaw
- 11 Comments
- 224 Views
- Darin Imlay will lead the Public Defender’s office starting in January. [RJ]
- Judge Michelle Leavitt gave a woman the maximum sentence for the DUI death of an 8-year old. [Fox5Vegas]
- President Trump criticized 9th Circuit judges; Chief Justice Roberts responded. [The Guardian]
- Big Law is taking on President Trump on immigration. [Las Vegas Sun]
The Sun article does a good job, maybe even an unintentional job, of showing how the different sides of this White House's immigration policy view the current situation.
"The first family he found lived in Cobán, a city in the central highlands. The family had not heard anything about their 7-year-old son in three months, he said." This is a family whose child had been taken away, sent to New York, and the parents deported back to Guatemala, and they hadn't heard anything about him in 3 months. As part of the pro bono work, lawyers had been working with search firms in these countries.
But, of course, there are "good people on both sides."
“They view the influx of asylum-seekers as some kind of humanitarian project,” Jessica M. Vaughan, the director of policy studies for the Center for Immigration Studies, said of the lawyers. “Whereas a regular American sees it as an affront to our legal system.”
Reuniting kids with their parents. An affront to the legal system.
I'm a republican. I've been one for many years. I approve of sensible immigration, and meaningful reform. I'm also a lawyer, which means I believe the laws in place are important. They can be changed, but they are important. The laws regarding asylum, in particular, should be improved to allow more folks in, not less. Be that as it may, the laws regarding an alien's right to request asylum are absolutely clear – they can, whether or not they use a port of entry. As it is, CBP and the administration are flagrantly violating the laws in place that allow aliens to present themselves on US soil and request asylum by trying to stop the aliens from reaching US soil in the first place.
If a country is so bad that we are regularly getting thousands of asylum seekers from it in a way that it has a measurable effect on our own resources, there's a case to be made for military intervention to fix that nation so people don't need to flee it. Asylum is not immigration. It's not for job seekers. It's for people fleeing inhumane treatment by their own governments.
Off topic: I have a client, a Nevada corporation, in litigation, that simply cannot afford to continue defending the case. The company is a one-man show and it has little in assets. The client wants to just walk away. I haven't actually seen the books, etc., but he insists that the business funds were kept separate, all the corporate formalities observed, etc.
I intend to withdraw as counsel (with the client's consent), and presumably the plaintiff will get a default against the company for its failure to participate in the litigation. Any tips or advice on making sure the company president's personal assets stay protected, and reduce the risk of the plaintiff trying to pierce the veil, and so on? I'm also worried about the company's president being personally sanctioned for refusing to respond to discovery, etc.
Tell them to meet with a BK attorney. I used to deal with dischargeability cases and even the words in the details in one of my cases made all the difference so I would have them settle and stip to what they can and then take the entity under. Any attorney on the other side should insist on a confession of judgment, though, hence the need for the BK consult.
Also, the president of the company should not be concerned about being sanctioned for refusing to respond to discovery if the only defendant is the corporation. A business entity cannot have a "pro se" attorney – it must be represented by counsel anyway.
The Court can still compel the company to respond to discovery requests if the company is not represented – the company just cannot oppose the motion to compel without counsel. Also, the Court can absolutely sanction the president of a company individually if that president is directing a company to violate a court order, such as by refusing to comply with discovery orders. I have successfully obtained contempt sanctions against more than one individual because that individual's company did not produce documents after being compelled to do so.
All those posts, responding to 9:34, are good advice.
Also, when withdrawing as attorney, the letter should recommend strongly that he engage new counsel(even if he insists he can't afford it), and that if he does not respond to the discovery, and abandons the desire to defend the case, that the other side may obtain a default type judgement in a significant amount, and it may very well be that Defendant will be personally liable, and that he must consult an attorney to discuss and guard against such a grievous result.
Reason that attorney should emphasize the real risk that Defendant may be found personally liable is that if he does not, Defendant will put the focus on prior attorney, if Defendant is found personally liable. Defendant will claim that attorney told him that since the business and personal finances are kept separately, that Plaintiff will not be able to pierce the corporate veil.
And it's critical that attorney guard against that, particularly since the attorney is far too trusting and is stating critical issues as fact merely because client told him so. For example, even though attorney never reviewed the corporate records and accounts(which attorney should have) attorney seems to accept it as gospel that all is in order. But most of these small, personally held corporations(that primarily exist to create a job for the person who incorporated it)are seriously underfunded, and there is a lot of comingling, and loss of identity, between personal and corporate expenses and income. For example, a majority of the time a person pays their mortgage, car payments, utilities, credit cards, and other personal expenses from the corporation, and when the corporation is struggling infuses it with personal money, as well as a gazillion other examples of how people fail to keep personal separate from corporate in these small family business situations.
This is 9:34. Thanks for all the suggestions, everyone. Please keep them coming.
I appreciate 1:43's thorough answer. I have not seen the books (because the client doesn't want to pay to have them reviewed), but I am actually quite skeptical that all the formalities have been observed, for exactly the reasons you state.
If he has commingled funds in the past, while the events relevant to the suit were going on, is there even anything he can do now to "fix" it? I've discussed the risk of personal liability with the client before, but I guess the only thing I can do now is warn him, again, in writing, and try to protect myself.
God, this case makes me angry because I think the client has a pretty good defense, but the litigation cost is just too high. I guess the lesson is that he should have got liability insurance.
1:43 hit the nail on the head. If this is a corporation intended for the purpose of creating a job for Defendant, and there are no other employees, there is even a greater risk of what 1:43 suggests. . And this risk increases even more if Defendant is a tradesman as opposed to someone who may be bringing in a lot more money, like a financial consultant, realtor, etc.
For example, successful realtors or financial advisers, may be far more likely to keep personal and business separate. But, for example,
the self-employed air-condition guy or self-employed auto repair guy, is virtually guaranteed to be comingling personal and corporate funds, and paying personal expenses out of his business account, etc. At least that is what my experience suggests.
With that dynamic(of paying personal expenses out of the business account), in addition to the corporation, which is now being sued, being seriously underfunded at times necessitating the infusion of personal funds, makes it even more likely the corporate veil is pierced.
Obituary for JUDGE LAUREL BABERO from Review Journal. Private Funeral Services will be in Hawaii.
Laurel Elizabeth Davis Babero left us November 19, 2018. Laurel grew up in the small town of Milford, Utah, surrounded by a loving family and friends. She was always at the top of her class, and graduated high school at the age of 17. She began her college career at SUU in Cedar City, Utah as a sophomore. Laurel moved to Las Vegas ready to soar and to do her best whether it was great achievement or great adventure! Laurel worked to put herself through college and law school, receiving her B.S. in Hotel Administration from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas in 1983, and her JD, magna cum laude, from the University Of San Diego School Of Law in 1987. After externing for Bankruptcy Judge Louise DeCarl (Malugen) Adler, Laurel was a highly successful bankruptcy attorney, serving as a partner at the law firm of Lionel, Sawyer and Collins, where she practiced from 1994 to 2007, and a partner and director at Fennemore Craig until her promotion to the bench. She has served as a highly respected and admired United States Bankruptcy Judge since 2013. Laurel was preceded in death by her beloved parents, Jack and Betty Davis; and brother, Courtney John Davis. She is survived by her loving husband, Andras F. Babero; stepchildren, Alejandro Z. Babero, Raquel Gabriela Babero, and Anthony Michael Carleo; her devoted sister, Ruth Ann Smith (her husband, Russell, and their children Haily, Kara, Annie and MaCall); brother, Curtis J. Davis (his wife, Shirley, and their children Marjorie, Holly, Joseph, Ryan, Christen and Jennifer); as well as her adored grandnieces and nephews. Her extended family included not only relatives, but her court family and many, many friends. She was also a devoted and doting mother to her four-legged children, who brought her a great deal of happiness. Laurel was dedicated to her community. During her years of private practice, she volunteered countless hours to the community, including her work with Legal Aid of Southern Nevada, the American Diabetes Association, AFAN (Aid for Aids of Nevada), Habitat for Humanity, and the American Heart Association. Laurel loved to travel and was an avid photographer, chronicling her many trips to Africa, Asia, Australia, and Europe, but especially her treasured Hawaii. She attended many plays, concerts (especially Bon Jovi) and dinners with friends and family. She particularly enjoyed officiating at weddings and new citizen ceremonies. Laurel left an imprint on everyone she met and was loved by all who knew her. She will be most remembered for her beautiful smile, infectious laugh, kindness, generosity, and keen intellect. She was a beautiful soul who left us much too soon and will be greatly missed by those fortunate enough to have had her in their lives. Private funeral services will be held in Hawaii. To learn about her favorite charity, Best Friends Animal Sanctuary, visit bestfriends.org.
Thank god Righthaven isn't around any more.