- Quickdraw McLaw
- 25 Comments
- 182 Views
- Not enough of you responded to the RJ’s Judging the Judges survey yet, so the deadline has been extended to August 30. [RJ]
- The man who sold ammo to the October 1 shooter will face a Las Vegas jury, not a northern Nevada jury as he asked. [RJ]
- Here’s more on Judge Michelle Leavitt. [Baltimore Post-Examiner]
- Here’s an interview with the president of litigation support company, First Legal. [Vegas Inc.]
- The Nevada Independent sued the State for access drug pricing transparency records. [TNI]
- Today is the first day of school and CCSD is short 700 teachers. [Fox5Vegas]
Perhaps not too many people have responded to the judicial survey because they feel it makes no earthly difference, and that it in no way even remotely encourages or creates any accountability–which is a purported main purpose for the survey's existence.
There is simply no connection between survey results and political viability. In fact, the exact opposite appears to be the case. Over the last decade or so, the 4 or 5 most abysmally performing judges at the RJC, who traditionally rate very low in the survey, have been very politically strong, and have had the name recognition, political juice, and fund raising ability to discourage almost all political opposition, and either run unopposed or attract mere token opposition.
On the other side of the coin, some well-rated judges don't nearly have the political strength and support of some of those judges who perform dreadfully on the survey.
So, the survey serves no meaningful purpose, and most lawyers are very aware of that. So, it does not provide for any real accountability. Another supposed purpose, beyond this invalid accountability argument, is that judges will use it as a teaching tool. A few might, but they will be the ones who are already performing pretty well. Those who are performing dreadfully will never benefit from it as they doggedly refuse to take any of the criticism and suggestions to heart, as evidenced by the fact that their ratings never seem to improve. The worst judges tend to be the most obstinate and arrogant, and defensive.
And that is pretty true of any discipline. The better ones are usually open to suggestions and improvement(which helps explain how they became one of the better ones)while the poorly performing ones listen to nothing except praise.
Counterpoint: There was a certainly family court judge, Pollock I think, who had among the lowest ratings in the RJ's survey and then was voted out and defeated by Rena Hughes. It may not help you or I very much, but it does help some of the public decide. While it's possible that Pollock lost because of some other reason, it seems likely this was a big part of it.
The general public still gets to vote and though most of them don't know who they are voting for, they do turn to sources like the survey because it's all they really have. If attorneys are giving honest ratings to judges, then the survey does have a meaningful purpose for some people.
I have (as have others) been blasting Pomeranze for years on these surveys. They make absolutely ZERO earthly difference. I clicked on the link this very morning and then thought: "EFF it. There is no point and I have 100 other thing to do."
I agree with 9:47 that there was a case or two where the survey may have helped focus on a couple poorly performing Family Court Judges, and aid in their ouster during the subsequent election.
But 9:17 is right that at the RJC the very worst four or five judges, who are rated very lowly, have solid name recognition and significant political strength, and tend to attract no meaningful opposition. But,thankfully, at least a couple of those judges have retired since the last survey
How soon until we can get rid of Ellsworth and Pomrenze? They both get lousy scores but have not been defeated at the polls.
Ellsworth's husband, Craig Delk, has gone to "of counsel" status over at Thorndal Armstrong…perhaps that means that maybe she'll retire also?
I heard both were retiring.
I've been told by someone in a good position to know that there will be five or six retirements, which is good in some ways (depending on who it is), but bad in others (more outstretched palms).
My understanding is that Craig has been mostly retired since January, and is just winding things down this year. Hopefully she follows soon.
Carolyn could certainly get work as a body double for Elizabeth Warren.
She's got the "common scold" mannerisms down cold.
2020 judicial elections will be a shit show.
At least 4 open seats plus the new 4 in family court.
Hope it is Gonzalez.
Sometimes I think about leaving the law and becoming a teacher. I know the pay would be A LOT less, but it seems like it would be nice — long vacations with my spouse (also a teacher) and kids, being a big part of it.
As long as you've saved up enough I agree. If you haven't, you'd probably regret it. It's really hard to go backward in lifestyle.
To: 12:46. Ultimately, what really matters is the quality of live and whether someone is happy.
So, if your family lives within its means, and you have some saved up, and can therefore live decently on two teacher salaries, and you would be a lot happier doing so, then it seems clear that's what you should do.
But if you don't have a decent amount saved up, and you live a lifestyle that requires the income of a reasonably successful attorney to maintain such lifestyle, and you would not be happy scaling back significantly as to such material life style, then you pretty much need to keep practicing law.
So, it kind of depends on those additional details, which you didn't necessarily address in your post.
Why does a Baltimore newspaper care about our judges?
Agree. Why does that paper keep doing stories on Las Vegas judges, police, etc.? It is bizarre.
Author used to live in Las Vegas. I believe he was a security guard at some casinos.
TIL there's no requirement to serve a 3 Day Notice of Intent to Default before defaulting a party. Only requirement is RPC 3.5A.
I'm just happy to see that someone else knows this. I was beginning to think I was the only one who actually read the rule. Not that any judge will ever make a default stick.
I had a few judges kick back an application for default judgment when I didn't serve a 3 day notice to a non-represented party. Ever since then (~7-8 years ago), I now serve a 3-day notice of intent to take default regardless of whether I have any inkling that they are represented, to avoid that issue in the future. Add ~6 days, avoid having to re-do things later.
10:43 is spot on. 3:56 is correct, but in practice it is just easier to do what 10:43 says. 10:43 is so smart. I want to be like 10:43. As I type this I fall more in love with 10:43.
Lindblom v. Prime Hospitality Corp., 120 Nev. 372 (2004) (judgment void if 3-day notice is not served.)
@10:04, Lindolm is about default judgment, not default. There's no official "3 day notice of intent to default" requirement.
However, 10:43 (whom I also love) is correct that serving a 3 day notice is best practices and avoids potential problems down the road.