Here’s a look at what it cost to bring James Comey to speak at Boyd School of Law last month. [TNI]
The former Wynn hairstylist and whistleblower that helped lead to the downfall of Steve Wynn is suing the company for spying on him. [TNI]
Changes to the HOV lane regulations could happen sooner than originally planned. [RJ]
Defense lawyers for an immigrant accused of four murders in Nevada are trying to continue trial to determine if he has an intellectual disability. [Las Vegas Sun]
Could Virgin Trains be the company to finally make the train to Victorville a real thing? [Nevada Current]
Of course, that is the stick/carrot that has long been constitutionally established, and is not the point. It is the fed requirement that the HOV be operated in a manner inconsistent with a logical efficient local use that is the over reach.
12:30
Goldman Sachs is your example, really? There is a world of difference between a high fee, hugely rich corporation that invites speakers to stroke its ego and promote its point of view and for executive photo ops with the speaker and a publicly funded education institution. The fact that a donor pays does not change the fundamentals.
Sure it does. If a donor wants to front a cost to help a "publicly funded education institution" raise money then that means the institution can raise money without tapping more taxpayer funds. I call that a win-win. If the fee came out of taxpayer funds then I'd like to see a cost-benefit, but it didn't. I think the words you're looking for are thanks donor for helping our publicly funded education institutions raise money without having to ask taxpayers for extra money.
The question I have which I have never seen asked much less answered…
If the purpose of paying these high speaker fees is to assist the school with it's fundraising efforts, how much is raised by the speaker's event vs. how much was spent paying the speaker. It is less an issue of whether the money used to pay the speaker was private donated or taxpayers funds. If the private donor is willing give the school the contribution, they are likely equally willing to just directly contribute it to the school or create a matching fund for other donors' contributions. What are the receipts for ticket sales to the event and other proceeds attributable to the speaker's event?
Guest
Anonymous
October 18, 2019 5:50 pm
State Bar Annual Meeting – OUT OF STATE AGAIN
Gentlepersons, your state bar's next annual meeting in 2020 will be in New Orleans. Is there a purposeful policy to conduct state bar business at locations out of reach, in terms of time and money, for the majority of its members? Is it intended to be a elitist event intended to exclude the riff raff of the average member?
Who pays the costs of the travel (airfare, hotel, restaurants, and maybe sightseeing) for the Bar bigwigs? If it is us, the dues paying members, then of course the bigwigs want their free trips to be to exciting and expensive locales. If the trips are paid for by us, do we also pay for the costs of spouses, significant others, "secretaries," etc. of the bigwigs?
I honestly do not know. I've never been to one of these expensive conventions, and I do not know how extravagant they are. I just know that I am not going to waste my money on them.
Vegas is the convention capital of the world. Why wouldn't the NV Bar schedule its little convention for Vegas? The ballrooms at the Silverton or at Orleans would easily accommodate it!
Some judges get their trip paid for by the Administrative Office of Courts. Others that speak may get it paid for by a section of the bar. Also, some sections of the bar pay for their leadership to go. I don't think it includes spouses/friends/family, but hey, it certainly offsets the price of the vacation.
Years ago, the nsb alternated convention location, one year in state next year out of state. The conventions that were out of state had a significantly higher rate of attendance. The BOG does get travel expenses for the day of their meeting, but not all of them ask for reimbursement. For me, I enjoy the trip and for the most part the agenda that has been offered in recent years.
I would like to go to the NSB convention but I can't afford the time or money. I resent the fact that I have been essentially frozen out. Having the convention out of state every year favors government lawyers, judges and others that don't have the limitations of private practice. I don't mind alternating out of state, but it's ridiculous that there has never been a convention in-state the entire time I've practiced law.
Guest
Jordan Ross, Principal, Ross Legal Search
October 18, 2019 5:54 pm
Every year you people complain about this, every year everyone agrees they need to actually vote in BOG elections for reform candidates and every year nothing happens. Allow me to use my ESP superpowers and predict the future – nothing will happen. Ask the bar for pretty pictures from the French Quarter.
Guest
Anonymous
October 18, 2019 7:07 pm
Off topic, but a friend of mine, who is not a lawyer says that lawyers, as a group, really suck to hang out with as they do is talk about themselves, other lawyers, judges, specific cases, events in the legal community, etc. In essence, shop talk, and nothing else.
I invited him, and about three other non-layer friends, to a gathering I was hosting, which included nine or ten attorneys.
Whenever the non-layers would introduce a new topic, whether it be current events or politics or anything not directly related to the local legal community and its cast of characters, the lawyers would have none of it, and would immediately steer the topic back to the local legal scene, often putting themselves front and center in the anecdotes.
And I have observed this dynamic elsewhere at other events and gatherings. So, for those of you who tend to have non-lawyers as your friends, very good move.
But as bad as this is, I think police offices are worse and even more insular and closed to outsiders. If you attend a back yard barbecue chiefly composed of cops, and they are gathering together drinking beer and swapping war stories, see how far you get if you announce you are a school teacher, accountant, or whatever, and you try to steer the topic toward something not METRO-related.
There are many police living in the "Lifestyle" and their gatherings are going to be more interesting. I'm not in the "Lifestyle." If I were, I would most certainly NOT be in the "Lifestyle" with any lawyers.
12:07, you need to find better lawyer friends or acquaintances. I'm a lawyer and I love to talk current events and politics. My practice area is sufficiently niche that I've lost the group shortly after I say the name of the principal statute that governs my clients' operations.
This is not unique to lawyers. Have you ever hung out with a group of teachers, doctors, bartenders, or active duty military? I have family in or have personal done all of these jobs. As different as these groups are, when they get together all they talk is shop.
Hey 12:53, lawyers are into the lifestyle. I have been to a lifestyle party with my lawyer significant other. A mix of different people also attended and more than two lawyers present. We didn't talk about law. Maybe your lawyer friends don't want you involved in their lifestyle?
All professions do it when you get a big group together. The reason why it stands out when lawyers do it is other people have no idea what we're talking about. If you're with a group of cops and they're all talking shop you can still follow along with the stories. You think our non-lawyer friends understand the effect of your latest preliminary injunction hearing? They have no context and therefore hate our stories.
1:59 here. I think 2:36 is right. Teachers and bartenders can tell their stories without being too annoying because people get them and they're entertaining. Military stories are impossible to follow if you haven't served because most enlisted lose the ability to talk in anything but jargon and acronyms six months after basic, which makes their stories unintelligible for civilians. Similarly, most lawyer's stories are mind-numbingly boring to anyone but lawyers.
Guest
Anonymous
October 18, 2019 7:15 pm
off topic: gentlemen, never grow a mustache around your entire mouth. Not that any of you probably needed that suggestion but apparently this man did.
I'd just like to point out that, of the 3 Esqs. pictured, the most attractive one is a Boyd Grad. She's smart as hell, too.
Guest
Anonymous
October 18, 2019 7:35 pm
To:12:07. That is certainly true of attorneys, but probably true of most people if they are at a gathering composed chiefly of people from their own profession, and who thus know a lot of the same people and situations and the like.
But yes, police officers tend to be even more like this than people in other professions. And military personnel are even worse, largely because they not only work together, but often even live together, or in close proximity, in base housing, and thus usually all congregate at the same tavern, etc.
Guest
Anonymous
October 18, 2019 8:25 pm
There should be something similar to an HOV Lane in Court so that the ultra intelligent, like myself, can speed past all those who take 5 minutes to respond to my argument then 5 days to truly understand what I was saying. Makes sense.
Guest
Anonymous
October 18, 2019 8:36 pm
1:25: I agree but add there should be extra slow lanes for Family Court Judges trying to understand rules of evidence.
This also applies to most of the RJC. Stop re-electing these thespians who are playing judges.
Guest
Anonymous
October 18, 2019 9:47 pm
1:36. In fairness to Family Court Judges, and by extension Family Court practitioners, it's not that they are completely ignorant of evidence or procedure, it's that a culture has developed over the last few decades that rules can be ignored, or at least are really malleable and can be extended to accommodate any super-late filing, or to justify notice and service problems, or to permit people to argue matters they raise for the first time at the hearing, etc.
So, I think the problem is explained by those dynamics, and other factors which evolve over time. But I don't think it's simply a matter of these people not knowing the rules.
But it is true that we long ago reached the point where many of the rules are not applied, or if applied, only weakly or partially enforced.
And what's the justification for all this? The justification, for throwing the rule book at the window, would seem to be: "These cases involve families and children, which are the most important things in society, so we must not be hyper-technical. We must not extol form over substance."
But I personally don't agree with that view. My view is that if children and families are in fact what we most hold dear, that the constitutional protections and safeguards, as codified within rules of evidence and procedure, must be adhered to.
But the way it is now is that someone will argue for an a change of custody, ignoring all rules of evidence and procedure, by merely alleging some supposed emergency. And the judges will often "err on the side of caution" make the temporary change of custody, only to find out later that the reason why there was no evidence to support the change in the first place was not because the emergency precluded the attorney or client form having the time to gather such evidence, but that there was no evidence in the first place because the situation never occurred.
Now, of course there are situations where children are abused and there is not yet evidence of it. But the Family Court judges should do a better job about detecting the frequent flyers–the attorneys who constantly seek emergency relief, and there is almost NEVER any proof. We instead, apparently, should just take their word for it because their client paid them to say this stuff.
And these aare some of the reaons wwhy soe attoreys who have dabbled in the area say "never agin."
Yet virtually every time someone who understands the constitutional and procedural issues defies the odds and becomes a judge in that court with the intention of changing the culture, the cabal that currently controls (and profits for the existing conditions) work together to force that judge out.
Guest
Anonymous
October 18, 2019 9:51 pm
Seems like 2:47 inadvertently chopped off the last part of their comment, and forgot to proof read the last sentence of two.
But I agree with the comments and I also know attorneys who say "never again"
after testing the Family Court waters.
HOV lanes are a good idea. In theory.
HOV
the 7 day 24 hour enforcement is a good example of federal overreach in matters better determined by the state and local governments.
As I read it the state had a choice: retain local control over HOV enforcement timing, but forgo federal funding.
Of course, that is the stick/carrot that has long been constitutionally established, and is not the point. It is the fed requirement that the HOV be operated in a manner inconsistent with a logical efficient local use that is the over reach.
Why should the law school be paying for speakers?
If Boyd was a good and prestigious as it thinks it is, speakers would consider it at honor to be asked to speak.
Wrong. So wrong. If that's the case then why does Goldman Sachs have to pay people to speak?
People who can command fees to speak like to get paid for the fundraising impact they bring to an organization.
12:30
Goldman Sachs is your example, really? There is a world of difference between a high fee, hugely rich corporation that invites speakers to stroke its ego and promote its point of view and for executive photo ops with the speaker and a publicly funded education institution. The fact that a donor pays does not change the fundamentals.
Sure it does. If a donor wants to front a cost to help a "publicly funded education institution" raise money then that means the institution can raise money without tapping more taxpayer funds. I call that a win-win. If the fee came out of taxpayer funds then I'd like to see a cost-benefit, but it didn't. I think the words you're looking for are thanks donor for helping our publicly funded education institutions raise money without having to ask taxpayers for extra money.
Honest question. Is Boyd even publicly funded? What percentage?
The question I have which I have never seen asked much less answered…
If the purpose of paying these high speaker fees is to assist the school with it's fundraising efforts, how much is raised by the speaker's event vs. how much was spent paying the speaker. It is less an issue of whether the money used to pay the speaker was private donated or taxpayers funds. If the private donor is willing give the school the contribution, they are likely equally willing to just directly contribute it to the school or create a matching fund for other donors' contributions. What are the receipts for ticket sales to the event and other proceeds attributable to the speaker's event?
State Bar Annual Meeting – OUT OF STATE AGAIN
Gentlepersons, your state bar's next annual meeting in 2020 will be in New Orleans. Is there a purposeful policy to conduct state bar business at locations out of reach, in terms of time and money, for the majority of its members? Is it intended to be a elitist event intended to exclude the riff raff of the average member?
Welcome to the BOG easy.
Welcome to Bog swamp, Andrew Craner. Keep up the good work!
Does the SBN pay the airfare and lodging and event fees for the BOG?
Who pays the costs of the travel (airfare, hotel, restaurants, and maybe sightseeing) for the Bar bigwigs? If it is us, the dues paying members, then of course the bigwigs want their free trips to be to exciting and expensive locales. If the trips are paid for by us, do we also pay for the costs of spouses, significant others, "secretaries," etc. of the bigwigs?
I honestly do not know. I've never been to one of these expensive conventions, and I do not know how extravagant they are. I just know that I am not going to waste my money on them.
Vegas is the convention capital of the world. Why wouldn't the NV Bar schedule its little convention for Vegas? The ballrooms at the Silverton or at Orleans would easily accommodate it!
Who pays for the judges to go?
Some judges get their trip paid for by the Administrative Office of Courts. Others that speak may get it paid for by a section of the bar. Also, some sections of the bar pay for their leadership to go. I don't think it includes spouses/friends/family, but hey, it certainly offsets the price of the vacation.
Years ago, the nsb alternated convention location, one year in state next year out of state. The conventions that were out of state had a significantly higher rate of attendance. The BOG does get travel expenses for the day of their meeting, but not all of them ask for reimbursement. For me, I enjoy the trip and for the most part the agenda that has been offered in recent years.
I would like to go to the NSB convention but I can't afford the time or money. I resent the fact that I have been essentially frozen out. Having the convention out of state every year favors government lawyers, judges and others that don't have the limitations of private practice. I don't mind alternating out of state, but it's ridiculous that there has never been a convention in-state the entire time I've practiced law.
Every year you people complain about this, every year everyone agrees they need to actually vote in BOG elections for reform candidates and every year nothing happens. Allow me to use my ESP superpowers and predict the future – nothing will happen. Ask the bar for pretty pictures from the French Quarter.
Off topic, but a friend of mine, who is not a lawyer says that lawyers, as a group, really suck to hang out with as they do is talk about themselves, other lawyers, judges, specific cases, events in the legal community, etc. In essence, shop talk, and nothing else.
I invited him, and about three other non-layer friends, to a gathering I was hosting, which included nine or ten attorneys.
Whenever the non-layers would introduce a new topic, whether it be current events or politics or anything not directly related to the local legal community and its cast of characters, the lawyers would have none of it, and would immediately steer the topic back to the local legal scene, often putting themselves front and center in the anecdotes.
And I have observed this dynamic elsewhere at other events and gatherings. So, for those of you who tend to have non-lawyers as your friends, very good move.
But as bad as this is, I think police offices are worse and even more insular and closed to outsiders. If you attend a back yard barbecue chiefly composed of cops, and they are gathering together drinking beer and swapping war stories, see how far you get if you announce you are a school teacher, accountant, or whatever, and you try to steer the topic toward something not METRO-related.
There are many police living in the "Lifestyle" and their gatherings are going to be more interesting. I'm not in the "Lifestyle." If I were, I would most certainly NOT be in the "Lifestyle" with any lawyers.
12:07, you need to find better lawyer friends or acquaintances. I'm a lawyer and I love to talk current events and politics. My practice area is sufficiently niche that I've lost the group shortly after I say the name of the principal statute that governs my clients' operations.
This is not unique to lawyers. Have you ever hung out with a group of teachers, doctors, bartenders, or active duty military? I have family in or have personal done all of these jobs. As different as these groups are, when they get together all they talk is shop.
Hey 12:53, lawyers are into the lifestyle. I have been to a lifestyle party with my lawyer significant other. A mix of different people also attended and more than two lawyers present. We didn't talk about law. Maybe your lawyer friends don't want you involved in their lifestyle?
All professions do it when you get a big group together. The reason why it stands out when lawyers do it is other people have no idea what we're talking about. If you're with a group of cops and they're all talking shop you can still follow along with the stories. You think our non-lawyer friends understand the effect of your latest preliminary injunction hearing? They have no context and therefore hate our stories.
1:59 here. I think 2:36 is right. Teachers and bartenders can tell their stories without being too annoying because people get them and they're entertaining. Military stories are impossible to follow if you haven't served because most enlisted lose the ability to talk in anything but jargon and acronyms six months after basic, which makes their stories unintelligible for civilians. Similarly, most lawyer's stories are mind-numbingly boring to anyone but lawyers.
off topic: gentlemen, never grow a mustache around your entire mouth. Not that any of you probably needed that suggestion but apparently this man did.
https://www.reviewjournal.com/business/can-can-room-owner-accused-of-operating-brothel-appears-in-court-1872669/
What da…
Is that a 'stache or lipstick?
If you told me I had to pick out the guy who runs a brothel out of a crowd, it would be this guy
Dad? Is that you dad?
LipStache
Lipstache's son is an attorney, right?
Gobsmacked, folks. Is this the new COA building? I want to see some thunder down under tonight.
I'd just like to point out that, of the 3 Esqs. pictured, the most attractive one is a Boyd Grad. She's smart as hell, too.
To:12:07. That is certainly true of attorneys, but probably true of most people if they are at a gathering composed chiefly of people from their own profession, and who thus know a lot of the same people and situations and the like.
But yes, police officers tend to be even more like this than people in other professions. And military personnel are even worse, largely because they not only work together, but often even live together, or in close proximity, in base housing, and thus usually all congregate at the same tavern, etc.
There should be something similar to an HOV Lane in Court so that the ultra intelligent, like myself, can speed past all those who take 5 minutes to respond to my argument then 5 days to truly understand what I was saying. Makes sense.
1:25: I agree but add there should be extra slow lanes for Family Court Judges trying to understand rules of evidence.
This also applies to most of the RJC. Stop re-electing these thespians who are playing judges.
1:36. In fairness to Family Court Judges, and by extension Family Court practitioners, it's not that they are completely ignorant of evidence or procedure, it's that a culture has developed over the last few decades that rules can be ignored, or at least are really malleable and can be extended to accommodate any super-late filing, or to justify notice and service problems, or to permit people to argue matters they raise for the first time at the hearing, etc.
So, I think the problem is explained by those dynamics, and other factors which evolve over time. But I don't think it's simply a matter of these people not knowing the rules.
But it is true that we long ago reached the point where many of the rules are not applied, or if applied, only weakly or partially enforced.
And what's the justification for all this? The justification, for throwing the rule book at the window, would seem to be: "These cases involve families and children, which are the most important things in society, so we must not be hyper-technical. We must not extol form over substance."
But I personally don't agree with that view. My view is that if children and families are in fact what we most hold dear, that the constitutional protections and safeguards, as codified within rules of evidence and procedure, must be adhered to.
But the way it is now is that someone will argue for an a change of custody, ignoring all rules of evidence and procedure, by merely alleging some supposed emergency. And the judges will often "err on the side of caution" make the temporary change of custody, only to find out later that the reason why there was no evidence to support the change in the first place was not because the emergency precluded the attorney or client form having the time to gather such evidence, but that there was no evidence in the first place because the situation never occurred.
Now, of course there are situations where children are abused and there is not yet evidence of it. But the Family Court judges should do a better job about detecting the frequent flyers–the attorneys who constantly seek emergency relief, and there is almost NEVER any proof. We instead, apparently, should just take their word for it because their client paid them to say this stuff.
And these aare some of the reaons wwhy soe attoreys who have dabbled in the area say "never agin."
That said, th
Yet virtually every time someone who understands the constitutional and procedural issues defies the odds and becomes a judge in that court with the intention of changing the culture, the cabal that currently controls (and profits for the existing conditions) work together to force that judge out.
Seems like 2:47 inadvertently chopped off the last part of their comment, and forgot to proof read the last sentence of two.
But I agree with the comments and I also know attorneys who say "never again"
after testing the Family Court waters.