Just saw the new AO regarding new policies in the courts. Face coverings required, and only four people to an elevator. I wonder if we can bill for having to show up two hours early for every hearing…
Are you really going to show up for a hearing and hold oral argument with a face mask on? One would think you would get your point across better by telephone. At least it would not be muffled.
What if anything is going on with the May 17 AO? It says it will be reviewed every 30 days but I haven't seen anything. The State of Emergency is still in effect though I think.
Seriously. Let's make remote hearings the new normal. The courthouse was already insufferable before the crisis. Who was responsible for only putting in half the recommended number of elevators?
Most status hearings or even hearings on fully-briefed motions can be done remotely. Everybody's working and arguing off the same pages. The tricky ones are evidentiary hearings where you need to authenticate a document. How can each party fully review and be prepared to address authentication remotely. That's where it gets tricky.
The press conference this week should show what two full weeks of Phase 1 has brought. That will set the stage for whether Phase 2 is viable or not. I think that gaming is going to open on June 1, so I'd expect either Phase 2 on June 1, or a Phase 1.5 (Phase 1 + gaming). The daily numbers seem stable enough so far to keep moving forward. I just hope it holds.
Guest
Anonymous
May 21, 2020 7:34 pm
A psychometrician is someone who practices the science of educational and psychological measurement, or in other words, testing. Psychometricians measure the validity, reliability, and fairness of an exam program, and are an integral part in the process of creating valid and reliable language tests
And I heard it was online too. Take the test with Bar-Bri notes open. Have a coach sitting beside you and helping with the answers.
Might as well just have them mail in a check with a Cracker Jacks box top for admission to the Bar.
1:41–it's easy to make the reflexive statement "Vote All Judges Out!" from a certain court when we become frustrated about some issue, but it is important to reflect, be mature, and consider the reality of what is being suggested. Consider the following:
1. Unlike our District Court, all who will be on the ballot this year, in the State-Wide election of Supreme Court Justices, only part of that court is on the ballot for re-election each election cycle. So, it might be theoretically possible to vote a couple of them out in a given election, but never the entire court.
2. Most of them tend to run unopposed(except for "None Of The Above" option.)
3. The few who draw opposition, tend to draw token, unfunded opposition.
4. To truly defeat one, you would need to run a very strong candidate, who needs to literally raise and spend a million dollars and have some huge issues they can pound the incumbent justice with. Even then, the incumbent justice, who will probably spend more than a million, will still be heavily favored to win.
5. Even though I strongly disagree with them watering down the exam, and making it a lot less difficult and a lot less arduous than when all of us took it, who in their right mind thinks that would be a viable issue that can threaten the justices re-election? Again, it would take like a million bucks state-wide, to effectively advertise such issue. Secondly, the public wouldn't care. That's some huge issue? Attorneys(and the public already hates us and perceives us as grossly over-paid and dishonest)complain that the test is now easier than when we took it?! With all the legitimate problems people have, that's supposed to resonate as a grave injustice?
The post by 1:41, as well as 1:31, may have been written by people who took the test in recent years, and if so I kind of understand the frustration. But once we are a few years removed from something, and have a good career, it is not productive to pout and whine that it is now being made easier for someone else. That type of resentment and envy is unbecoming.
After all, had these changes been made prior to 1:31 and 1:41 sitting for the exam, I bet they would have been delighted that the test is being made a lot shorter and a lot les difficult. I doubt they would have complained "Not fair. It should be as hard for me as it was for earlier applicants."
So, my advice: grow up; stop complaining; enjoy your successful careers; and if you need to reflect on this issue at all, be proud you passed when the exam was a lot more demanding.
4:49, I guess I am immature, too, because, I also support voting out all of tne Nevada Supreme Court Justices. I am the voter. I am a lawyer. And I have a high iq.
I would never hire an attorney who got their license to practice with this joke of an exam. This is beyond ridiculous. If everyone has to put their lives on hold for COVID-19, small businesses going under, etc… then law students can wait a few more months to take their exam. I absolutely agree that anyone who passes the July 2020 bar exam has to have an asterisk by their name.
The Bar Exam: The choice was postponing the exam, granting limited license privileges with exam later and diploma privileges. Diploma privileges has been a goal of Boyd since its inception. Under the current rules, law professors can get admitted on motion. Those who do get admitted do so on motion. No profession not accounting (CPA etc) and medicine allow diploma privileges. This is nuts. The MBE was the wild card. The NCBE did not want the integrity of their exam compromised. It was not certain there would be a July MBE.
6:08, I'm doubt 4:49 would view you as immature merely for wanting to vote out the justices. You're not, of course, and many share your view.
But I do agree(to an extent) with 4:49 that it is ineffective to simply say we are going to vote out all members of an entire court, without considering any of the dynamics 4:49 mentions.
The most important dynamic is that you will never get a chance to vote them out as either they run unopposed(and they will never lose to "none of the above"), or they have really weak opposition.
If a justice is bad enough and almost universally despised, attorneys would in mass need to team up, recruit an opponent and support them financially to a heavy extent.
4:49 suggests it would cost over a million, and may still not be successful. I can't directly speak to that, but it is state-wide and these elections do tend to be shockingly expensive.
8:27–but clients, whether lay people, corporate or business clients or whatever, would not know how difficult the exam was in a given year.
Clients are often referred to attorneys, or in these days clients may search the internet, etc.
But seldom is an attorney hired based on what law school an attorney attended or what GPA they had(these things are of no concern to most clients, and most never think to ask). For example, when clients choose Bob Eglet, it is presumably based on reputation and news reports of his grand victories, or referrals form delighted clients, and other sources as well.
I doubt any of those clients know or care where he attended law school(BTW, I think it was McGeorge) or what his GPA was. And of the scant few who actually may make inquiry as to where he attended law school, or be concerned about it, none of them would know or care how difficult the Bar Exam was purported to be the year he passed.
Now, 8:27, you would apparently factor that into your decision because you are an attorney and know of the watered down bar exam. Most prospective clients are not attorneys and know none of this.
BTW, the watered down exam doesn't concern me. It might make me resentful if I had just passed during the last few years(particularly if I failed it once or twice while it was still much more difficult.
But I am so many years removed form it.
My view is we should try to be happy with the careers we have and work hard to be as successful as possible, and not worry that those who came after have it easier. But that's just me.
Guest
Anonymous
May 21, 2020 8:33 pm
Or pay someone to login and write the essays for you. Would anyone do that? Naah.
Guest
Anonymous
May 21, 2020 9:31 pm
As far as those judicial election complaints, I think they are generally ineffective and counterproductive because…
1. They will not be resolved prior to the election. If they were to be resolved prior to the election the rationale of filing could be justified based on the fact the complainant may get lucky, and if the opponent is sanctioned by the commission, the complainant can use that as an issue–my opponent was sanctioned for violating judicial election rules. But as it stands now, it remains a mere complaint, and will remain so through election day.
2. The coverage of it discusses a lot of purported rule violations that seem arcane and confusing to the average voter or, if reasonably understood, the voter will not be able to detect any dishonest or immoral behavior that could influence the voter. For example, if someone were sanctioned for financial dishonesty, that is something voters could get a grip on. But rules surrounding who can be listed for paying for which mailers, which republican or democrat entities can, or can't slate candidates, in what instances can someone who makes their living wearing a robe(like a full-time hearing master) be photographed wearing a robe and when they cannot, are matters which puzzle or bore the average voter.
3. And most concerning of all, this has resulted in coverage, and most glaringly in the Family Court races, whereby the tone is clearly that the complaining parties are seriously trailing in polling an finances, while the candidates being complained about are the ones receiving all the support, endorsements, etc. It just tends(at least as reported so far) makes the challengers look like sore loser sour grape types. Like in the RJ article, it links to supposedly offending advertising by a candidate, which simply results in such ad now being viewed by many thousands with such candidates name being reinforced, while the name of the complaining parties is not taking root with the voters.
Now if the complaining parties truly and sincerely are motivated out of wishing to be ethical gate keepers regardless of potential harm to themselves, I guess that is some justification for this approach. But it is far more likely this is being done in the naïve and misguided view that it helps them.
Don't believe me? Let's test it. Show these articles to someone not involved in the legal community, whose view points, analysis and opinions you tend to trust. Then follow up by asking them some questions as to their reactions to the info. You will see.
2:31–I think it's important to try to make judicial candidates accountable when there are serious violations.
But I agree that some of these gripes seem to be over relatively minor matters, and it does affect the credibility of these complaints when they are only made by the opposing candidates.
Voters tend to not attach much validity to these matters, and view them the same way they view lawsuits filed by one candidate against another during an election..
Guest
Anonymous
May 21, 2020 9:47 pm
I would love to stay in one of the casinos this weekend, hit the pool, get drunk and support them a little bit, but alas we're not there yet.
Guest
Anonymous
May 21, 2020 10:43 pm
A Las Vegas attorney making the national enquirer for DV!!! Knew him from Snell & Wilmer.
How does his DV arrest have anything to do with the Tegan – oh….can't get clicks without her because nobody cares publicly about the woman that was abused if it can't be tied to someone famous.
Corey Eschwiler does read the blog. I'm hoping that he is the only male who would give himself kudos and post #IstandwithCorey after he chokes, assaults and threatens to kill his girlfriend.
Just saw the new AO regarding new policies in the courts. Face coverings required, and only four people to an elevator. I wonder if we can bill for having to show up two hours early for every hearing…
Or climb up the stairs…
Are you really going to show up for a hearing and hold oral argument with a face mask on? One would think you would get your point across better by telephone. At least it would not be muffled.
What if anything is going on with the May 17 AO? It says it will be reviewed every 30 days but I haven't seen anything. The State of Emergency is still in effect though I think.
Jesus. Time to retire.
Seriously. Let's make remote hearings the new normal. The courthouse was already insufferable before the crisis. Who was responsible for only putting in half the recommended number of elevators?
Most status hearings or even hearings on fully-briefed motions can be done remotely. Everybody's working and arguing off the same pages. The tricky ones are evidentiary hearings where you need to authenticate a document. How can each party fully review and be prepared to address authentication remotely. That's where it gets tricky.
I've often felt the need for a face mask when in the RJC elevators.
All Hearings will be held at The Heights of Summerlin going forward.
More like the Disease-Ridden Shithole of Summerlin…
Reupping this oldie but goodie: "Just use the stairs, you fat bastards!"
I am a fat bastard. I may start using the stairs. It will be good for me.
It's been two weeks since the Phase 1 reopening was announced. Any ideas when we'll get to move to Phase 2?
I saw something yesterday (Wed.) – maybe an RJ article or blurb – that said that it might happen as early as this Saturday.
Well, since it allegedly takes two weeks for symptoms to be present, I assumed they would reassess every two weeks. Maybe I'm oversimplifying.
The press conference this week should show what two full weeks of Phase 1 has brought. That will set the stage for whether Phase 2 is viable or not. I think that gaming is going to open on June 1, so I'd expect either Phase 2 on June 1, or a Phase 1.5 (Phase 1 + gaming). The daily numbers seem stable enough so far to keep moving forward. I just hope it holds.
A psychometrician is someone who practices the science of educational and psychological measurement, or in other words, testing. Psychometricians measure the validity, reliability, and fairness of an exam program, and are an integral part in the process of creating valid and reliable language tests
No MBE for July 2020 bar exam. What a joke.
And I heard it was online too. Take the test with Bar-Bri notes open. Have a coach sitting beside you and helping with the answers.
Might as well just have them mail in a check with a Cracker Jacks box top for admission to the Bar.
Vote all Nevada Supreme Court Justices out. This is insanity.
Every July 2020 exam bar number should come with an asterisk.
1:41–it's easy to make the reflexive statement "Vote All Judges Out!" from a certain court when we become frustrated about some issue, but it is important to reflect, be mature, and consider the reality of what is being suggested. Consider the following:
1. Unlike our District Court, all who will be on the ballot this year, in the State-Wide election of Supreme Court Justices, only part of that court is on the ballot for re-election each election cycle. So, it might be theoretically possible to vote a couple of them out in a given election, but never the entire court.
2. Most of them tend to run unopposed(except for "None Of The Above" option.)
3. The few who draw opposition, tend to draw token, unfunded opposition.
4. To truly defeat one, you would need to run a very strong candidate, who needs to literally raise and spend a million dollars and have some huge issues they can pound the incumbent justice with. Even then, the incumbent justice, who will probably spend more than a million, will still be heavily favored to win.
5. Even though I strongly disagree with them watering down the exam, and making it a lot less difficult and a lot less arduous than when all of us took it, who in their right mind thinks that would be a viable issue that can threaten the justices re-election? Again, it would take like a million bucks state-wide, to effectively advertise such issue. Secondly, the public wouldn't care. That's some huge issue? Attorneys(and the public already hates us and perceives us as grossly over-paid and dishonest)complain that the test is now easier than when we took it?! With all the legitimate problems people have, that's supposed to resonate as a grave injustice?
The post by 1:41, as well as 1:31, may have been written by people who took the test in recent years, and if so I kind of understand the frustration. But once we are a few years removed from something, and have a good career, it is not productive to pout and whine that it is now being made easier for someone else. That type of resentment and envy is unbecoming.
After all, had these changes been made prior to 1:31 and 1:41 sitting for the exam, I bet they would have been delighted that the test is being made a lot shorter and a lot les difficult. I doubt they would have complained "Not fair. It should be as hard for me as it was for earlier applicants."
So, my advice: grow up; stop complaining; enjoy your successful careers; and if you need to reflect on this issue at all, be proud you passed when the exam was a lot more demanding.
4:49, I guess I am immature, too, because, I also support voting out all of tne Nevada Supreme Court Justices. I am the voter. I am a lawyer. And I have a high iq.
I would never hire an attorney who got their license to practice with this joke of an exam. This is beyond ridiculous. If everyone has to put their lives on hold for COVID-19, small businesses going under, etc… then law students can wait a few more months to take their exam. I absolutely agree that anyone who passes the July 2020 bar exam has to have an asterisk by their name.
Well, then, how about a brown star by any Boyd Grad? If the star fits…
The Bar Exam: The choice was postponing the exam, granting limited license privileges with exam later and diploma privileges. Diploma privileges has been a goal of Boyd since its inception. Under the current rules, law professors can get admitted on motion. Those who do get admitted do so on motion. No profession not accounting (CPA etc) and medicine allow diploma privileges. This is nuts. The MBE was the wild card. The NCBE did not want the integrity of their exam compromised. It was not certain there would be a July MBE.
6:08, I'm doubt 4:49 would view you as immature merely for wanting to vote out the justices. You're not, of course, and many share your view.
But I do agree(to an extent) with 4:49 that it is ineffective to simply say we are going to vote out all members of an entire court, without considering any of the dynamics 4:49 mentions.
The most important dynamic is that you will never get a chance to vote them out as either they run unopposed(and they will never lose to "none of the above"), or they have really weak opposition.
If a justice is bad enough and almost universally despised, attorneys would in mass need to team up, recruit an opponent and support them financially to a heavy extent.
4:49 suggests it would cost over a million, and may still not be successful. I can't directly speak to that, but it is state-wide and these elections do tend to be shockingly expensive.
8:27–but clients, whether lay people, corporate or business clients or whatever, would not know how difficult the exam was in a given year.
Clients are often referred to attorneys, or in these days clients may search the internet, etc.
But seldom is an attorney hired based on what law school an attorney attended or what GPA they had(these things are of no concern to most clients, and most never think to ask). For example, when clients choose Bob Eglet, it is presumably based on reputation and news reports of his grand victories, or referrals form delighted clients, and other sources as well.
I doubt any of those clients know or care where he attended law school(BTW, I think it was McGeorge) or what his GPA was. And of the scant few who actually may make inquiry as to where he attended law school, or be concerned about it, none of them would know or care how difficult the Bar Exam was purported to be the year he passed.
Now, 8:27, you would apparently factor that into your decision because you are an attorney and know of the watered down bar exam. Most prospective clients are not attorneys and know none of this.
BTW, the watered down exam doesn't concern me. It might make me resentful if I had just passed during the last few years(particularly if I failed it once or twice while it was still much more difficult.
But I am so many years removed form it.
My view is we should try to be happy with the careers we have and work hard to be as successful as possible, and not worry that those who came after have it easier. But that's just me.
Or pay someone to login and write the essays for you. Would anyone do that? Naah.
As far as those judicial election complaints, I think they are generally ineffective and counterproductive because…
1. They will not be resolved prior to the election. If they were to be resolved prior to the election the rationale of filing could be justified based on the fact the complainant may get lucky, and if the opponent is sanctioned by the commission, the complainant can use that as an issue–my opponent was sanctioned for violating judicial election rules. But as it stands now, it remains a mere complaint, and will remain so through election day.
2. The coverage of it discusses a lot of purported rule violations that seem arcane and confusing to the average voter or, if reasonably understood, the voter will not be able to detect any dishonest or immoral behavior that could influence the voter. For example, if someone were sanctioned for financial dishonesty, that is something voters could get a grip on. But rules surrounding who can be listed for paying for which mailers, which republican or democrat entities can, or can't slate candidates, in what instances can someone who makes their living wearing a robe(like a full-time hearing master) be photographed wearing a robe and when they cannot, are matters which puzzle or bore the average voter.
3. And most concerning of all, this has resulted in coverage, and most glaringly in the Family Court races, whereby the tone is clearly that the complaining parties are seriously trailing in polling an finances, while the candidates being complained about are the ones receiving all the support, endorsements, etc. It just tends(at least as reported so far) makes the challengers look like sore loser sour grape types. Like in the RJ article, it links to supposedly offending advertising by a candidate, which simply results in such ad now being viewed by many thousands with such candidates name being reinforced, while the name of the complaining parties is not taking root with the voters.
Now if the complaining parties truly and sincerely are motivated out of wishing to be ethical gate keepers regardless of potential harm to themselves, I guess that is some justification for this approach. But it is far more likely this is being done in the naïve and misguided view that it helps them.
Don't believe me? Let's test it. Show these articles to someone not involved in the legal community, whose view points, analysis and opinions you tend to trust. Then follow up by asking them some questions as to their reactions to the info. You will see.
2:31–I think it's important to try to make judicial candidates accountable when there are serious violations.
But I agree that some of these gripes seem to be over relatively minor matters, and it does affect the credibility of these complaints when they are only made by the opposing candidates.
Voters tend to not attach much validity to these matters, and view them the same way they view lawsuits filed by one candidate against another during an election..
I would love to stay in one of the casinos this weekend, hit the pool, get drunk and support them a little bit, but alas we're not there yet.
A Las Vegas attorney making the national enquirer for DV!!! Knew him from Snell & Wilmer.
https://www.pressreader.com/usa/national-enquirer/20200302/281526523063624
Who? Can't access webpage.
Wow! Corey is only slightly better looking than me. Kudos to him for marrying like that.
How does his DV arrest have anything to do with the Tegan – oh….can't get clicks without her because nobody cares publicly about the woman that was abused if it can't be tied to someone famous.
#IstandwithCorey
Corey Eschwiler does read the blog. I'm hoping that he is the only male who would give himself kudos and post #IstandwithCorey after he chokes, assaults and threatens to kill his girlfriend.
Wow! He needs help. I hope this article and the press it receives, opens his eyes.
Isn't this the guy that has a babysitter from his firm with him at all times to make sure he behaves?
Had to look him up. Nobody sees the irony of him working for the Heavy Hitter. Looks like Lerner needed more than a babysitter for him.
Question – with the current court clerk issue, how does one post a bond for a preliminary injunction now?
Going to the lake.