Robert Walsh was selected for appointment to a one-year term in Justice Court Department 1. [RJ]
Recall efforts for two state senators were heard before Judge Jerry Wiese yesterday. [TNI]
Judge Richard Scotti ordered release of Metro records regarding the October 1 shooting. [LasVegasNow]
The City of North Las Vegas, after using the firm of Fisher Phillips to conduct an investigation, decided to terminate the former City Manager “with cause.” [TNI]
Robert Eglet is heading up a stockholder derivative suit against the Wynn board of directors. [PR Newswire]
Can someone explain to me how a state's Lt. Gov. himself can argue for one side or the other on a controversy stemming from a matter of state law without it being a conflict of interest? And WHO retained the Lt. Gov.'s law firm to argue the matter in the first place?
Hutchison is representing a client in his private capacity in a legal matter that is trying to recall three members of the body he presides over in his public capacity. I think it is reasonable to consider it a conflict, unless he got waivers from the three senators, which I doubt.
Hutch is permitted to work in private practice because Lt Gov is recognized by statute as a part-time job. But I am not sure that releases him from conflicts between his role as Lt Gov and his private practice, especially actions against members of the Senate, over which he presides.
I don't see anything in NRS Ch. 224 that says either that the Lt. Gov. is a part-time employee, or that he/she can earn extra money besides his/her statutory salary in a non-governmental capacity. Can someone clarify?
NRS 281A.410(2): "Except as otherwise provided in subsection 3, a State Legislator or a member of a local legislative body, or a public officer or employee whose public service requires less than half of his or her time, may represent or counsel a private person before an agency in which he or she does not serve."
It doesn't explicitly say that the Lt. Gov. counts as part-time, but come on, "part-time" is probably too generous for the amount of work that office involves.
The other potentially applicable statute here is 281A.400(1), which states: "A public officer or employee shall not seek or accept any gift, service, favor, employment, engagement, emolument or economic opportunity which would tend improperly to influence a reasonable person in the public officer’s or employee’s position to depart from the faithful and impartial discharge of the public officer’s or employee’s public duties."
Hutchison representing the "recall Democrats because they don't sufficiently hate brown people" PAC definitely casts doubt on whether he's impartial. But I don't feel like it runs afoul of the statute because he's not going to be exercising any duties with respect to the Senate anymore (he'll be out of office before the next legislative session).
Thanks for the citations. Representing the PACs now IS a problem because until his term expires — or he resigns — he's still the Lt. Gov., and he smells really bad.
Also potentially relevant: NRS 281A.400(10): "A public officer or employee shall not seek other employment or contracts through the use of the public officer’s or employee’s official position."
Guest
Anonymous
February 8, 2018 5:11 pm
Why is it a conflict for the Lt. Gov. in his private capacity to advocate for a particular interpretation of Nevada law and Constitution? Nothing in their oaths prohibit them from having an opinion on how to apply the law. Not trying to be snarky, but a little confused by this and other similar comments I have heard. We clearly have a partisan form of government. It's not like he is a judge.
He is NOT appearing in his private capacity. He is the second highest ranking member of the executive branch, appearing in a judicial proceeding AS AN ADVOCATE FOR A PRIVATE INTEREST NOT HIS OWN, challenging a legislative statute on behalf of that private interest. Whatever happened to the "appearance of a conflict of interest" as the test for lawyers?
Right, he's NOT a judge. He's the Lt. Gov.! Does anyone know who Hutchison's client is in this matter? Can we presume his firm is getting paid for its representation?
Hutchison was retained not just because of his legal expertise, such as it may be, but because of precisely the image generated: the president of the state senate, who belongs to the same political party as the minority of that body, joins in an effort designed to oust by recall members of the majority of that body, with the sole effect of giving the minority the chance to regain the majority in 2018, which is otherwise practically impossible given the electoral map in 2018.
Hutchison's clients are the two recall committees (essentially political action committees), each one comprised of three persons who are qualified electors of the districts in which the recall petitions were circulated and actually voted in the election that elected the person sought to be recalled. The recall committees are registered to back, organize, and generally be legally responsible for the recall petitions.
And that is not a problem?? Lt. Gov. Hutchinson represents ALL the people of Nevada, not just Republicans. They're always telling us ATTORNEYS are held to a higher ethical standard when it comes to conflicts of interests. Why is this not a bigger story?
Members of the Legislature preside over election contests of their own members. The people of Nevada have a constitutional right to attempt a recall. How is being a Lt. Gov and representing a group exercising a constitutional right a conflict?
Resolving an election challenge over who to seat in a legislative seat is a function textually committed under the Nevada Constitution to each house of the legislature with respect to each house's own members; the Lt. Gov. acting, whether it be as private counsel or not, to oust members of the body he serves is not. He doesn't stop being Lt. Gov. just because he says he's taken his Lt. Gov. hat off.
Guest
Anonymous
February 8, 2018 6:00 pm
USAO files a Motion to Reconsider the Bundy Dismissals and dismisses Phase 3 Defendants.
In an incredible sign of hubris, instead of acknowledging the mistake, the USAO states that it is unwarranted and unjust to dismiss the case for repeated Brady violations. This is exactly the problem with the USAO: Brady violations mean nothing to them. So we violated your rights; so what? All of the judges let us get away with this all of the time– why are you making a big deal about this now?
On the District Court level, incumbents losing is rare. Sobel effectively retired and then died. On the Justice/Muni level it happens rarely. For example Janiece Marshall went back into private practice.
That's terrible. I'm reminded of a guy I was acquainted with who had a bad day in court about 20 years ago and jumped off the dam afterwards. No case, or anything else, is that important. If you ever feel that way, get help. If you know someone who might be feeling that way, get them some help.
I remember him too and enjoyed hanging with him at 777 brew pub at the Friday attorney happy hour we used to have back then. It was a tragic sad awful thing and I don’t think it had anything to do with a bad day in court.
Can someone explain to me how a state's Lt. Gov. himself can argue for one side or the other on a controversy stemming from a matter of state law without it being a conflict of interest? And WHO retained the Lt. Gov.'s law firm to argue the matter in the first place?
Does it conflict with his primary role as Chief Tourist Cheerleader?
Hutchison is representing a client in his private capacity in a legal matter that is trying to recall three members of the body he presides over in his public capacity. I think it is reasonable to consider it a conflict, unless he got waivers from the three senators, which I doubt.
Hutch is permitted to work in private practice because Lt Gov is recognized by statute as a part-time job. But I am not sure that releases him from conflicts between his role as Lt Gov and his private practice, especially actions against members of the Senate, over which he presides.
I don't see anything in NRS Ch. 224 that says either that the Lt. Gov. is a part-time employee, or that he/she can earn extra money besides his/her statutory salary in a non-governmental capacity. Can someone clarify?
NRS 281A.410(2): "Except as otherwise provided in subsection 3, a State Legislator or a member of a local legislative body, or a public officer or employee whose public service requires less than half of his or her time, may represent or counsel a private person before an agency in which he or she does not serve."
It doesn't explicitly say that the Lt. Gov. counts as part-time, but come on, "part-time" is probably too generous for the amount of work that office involves.
The other potentially applicable statute here is 281A.400(1), which states: "A public officer or employee shall not seek or accept any gift, service, favor, employment, engagement, emolument or economic opportunity which would tend improperly to influence a reasonable person in the public officer’s or employee’s position to depart from the faithful and impartial discharge of the public officer’s or employee’s public duties."
Hutchison representing the "recall Democrats because they don't sufficiently hate brown people" PAC definitely casts doubt on whether he's impartial. But I don't feel like it runs afoul of the statute because he's not going to be exercising any duties with respect to the Senate anymore (he'll be out of office before the next legislative session).
Thanks for the citations. Representing the PACs now IS a problem because until his term expires — or he resigns — he's still the Lt. Gov., and he smells really bad.
Also potentially relevant: NRS 281A.400(10): "A public officer or employee shall not seek other employment or contracts through the use of the public officer’s or employee’s official position."
Why is it a conflict for the Lt. Gov. in his private capacity to advocate for a particular interpretation of Nevada law and Constitution? Nothing in their oaths prohibit them from having an opinion on how to apply the law. Not trying to be snarky, but a little confused by this and other similar comments I have heard. We clearly have a partisan form of government. It's not like he is a judge.
He is NOT appearing in his private capacity. He is the second highest ranking member of the executive branch, appearing in a judicial proceeding AS AN ADVOCATE FOR A PRIVATE INTEREST NOT HIS OWN, challenging a legislative statute on behalf of that private interest. Whatever happened to the "appearance of a conflict of interest" as the test for lawyers?
Right, he's NOT a judge. He's the Lt. Gov.! Does anyone know who Hutchison's client is in this matter? Can we presume his firm is getting paid for its representation?
I also can't figure out how H&S can still use his name without violating NRPC 7.5(c).
Somebody is getting sensitive.
Tell that to Stan Hunterdon.
Hutchison was retained not just because of his legal expertise, such as it may be, but because of precisely the image generated: the president of the state senate, who belongs to the same political party as the minority of that body, joins in an effort designed to oust by recall members of the majority of that body, with the sole effect of giving the minority the chance to regain the majority in 2018, which is otherwise practically impossible given the electoral map in 2018.
Hutchison's clients are the two recall committees (essentially political action committees), each one comprised of three persons who are qualified electors of the districts in which the recall petitions were circulated and actually voted in the election that elected the person sought to be recalled. The recall committees are registered to back, organize, and generally be legally responsible for the recall petitions.
And that is not a problem?? Lt. Gov. Hutchinson represents ALL the people of Nevada, not just Republicans. They're always telling us ATTORNEYS are held to a higher ethical standard when it comes to conflicts of interests. Why is this not a bigger story?
3:03, 2:36 here. That is precisely the problem.
Members of the Legislature preside over election contests of their own members. The people of Nevada have a constitutional right to attempt a recall. How is being a Lt. Gov and representing a group exercising a constitutional right a conflict?
Resolving an election challenge over who to seat in a legislative seat is a function textually committed under the Nevada Constitution to each house of the legislature with respect to each house's own members; the Lt. Gov. acting, whether it be as private counsel or not, to oust members of the body he serves is not. He doesn't stop being Lt. Gov. just because he says he's taken his Lt. Gov. hat off.
USAO files a Motion to Reconsider the Bundy Dismissals and dismisses Phase 3 Defendants.
In an incredible sign of hubris, instead of acknowledging the mistake, the USAO states that it is unwarranted and unjust to dismiss the case for repeated Brady violations. This is exactly the problem with the USAO: Brady violations mean nothing to them. So we violated your rights; so what? All of the judges let us get away with this all of the time– why are you making a big deal about this now?
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2018/02/federal_prosecutors_urge_judge.html
Is Hutchinson still endorsing Elissa Cadish?
I do not think he is anymore now that two Republicans are running against her.
Wolfson was campaigning at her event.
I haven't been practicing in NV all that long, but what have former judge's who lost reelection do? Who are they, and where do they work now?
On the District Court level, incumbents losing is rare. Sobel effectively retired and then died. On the Justice/Muni level it happens rarely. For example Janiece Marshall went back into private practice.
Ken Pollock was defeated in election. not sure where he is at now.
Jumper near the RJC, apparently.
Hope they are okay.
Definitely not ok. Sad.
Heard that it was an attorney who jumped.
That's terrible. I'm reminded of a guy I was acquainted with who had a bad day in court about 20 years ago and jumped off the dam afterwards. No case, or anything else, is that important. If you ever feel that way, get help. If you know someone who might be feeling that way, get them some help.
It didn't look like an attorney. t-shirt and shorts and walking boot.
I was a friend of that attorney from 20 years ago and knew him well. It was not due to a bad day in court. Certainly not.
I remember him too and enjoyed hanging with him at 777 brew pub at the Friday attorney happy hour we used to have back then. It was a tragic sad awful thing and I don’t think it had anything to do with a bad day in court.
I presume we are talking about the same attorney who jumped off of the Dam (was it really 20 years ago?)