Should DA Steve Wolfson reported the theft and replacement of funds by his aide under election laws? [RJ]
Clark County is moving to update its sexual harassment policy–coincidentally, just days after allegations surfaced against employee/public defender Phil Kohn. [TNI]
The Las Vegas City Council may take the Badlands development issue to the Supreme Court. [RJ]
Meanwhile, the Legacy Golf Club settlement means it will remain a golf course through 2038. [RJ]
A student got suspended from school after Congressman Mark Amodei’s office reported the student’s use of vulgar language to the school. [TNI]
REMINDER: You have until 5 pm on Monday, March 26th to submit an original and 8 written copies of written comments regarding ADKT 533 (trust account audits). No electronic submissions will be docketed.
Student gets suspended for being politically active because he used the F-word. Oh my delicate sensibilities! And a Congressman needs to have a high school student silenced.
Precisely how is a telephone call to a Congressman anything that a high school has any right or involvement in? Precisely what part of the Student Code of Conduct at a public high school governs telephone calls to Congressmen?
Agreed. Problematic on several levels, both for Amodei and his staffer and the school. In my non-expert opinion, the school is at greatest risk, for actually punishing the kid. Amodei's office just looks bad, but I don't think reporting the call rises to a constitutional violation. In any case, I hope they all get their heads out of their f***ing asses and make this right before someone sues them and our tax dollars get wasted.
Who f'en cares that the kid used impolite language (other than perhaps his parents). Unless it involves the unauthorized use of school property (e.g. school telephone) or during instructional time (actual class time) it is none of the school's business. Unless there is some nexus between the kid's behavior and the school, it is completely out of line here.
If Amodei (or his staff) had an issue with the kid's choice of language; their remedy would be to either discuss it with the kid's parents or terminate the conversation.
Then the issue should be the participation in the walk-out, not what the kid said during a telephone call he made while truant.
If the school wants to suspend the kid for truancy, that is within their right, however, they need to do the same thing to all of the other kids that were also truant at the same time.
We can safely assume that will never happen since the kid's protest movement is in line with the school's political agenda.
Was the telephone call made from school grounds or during time he was supposed to be in school? Under Morse v. Frederick, that would probably determine whether the regular or school speech regime controls, and if the latter, using profanity is probably not going to be protected. Not as slam dunk a case as most commenters are suggesting.
This walk out is going to generate second-order lawsuits. Kids are going to walk out for other reasons now, and if treated any differently than those who participated in the gun-control walk-out, you have a solid content-based discrimination case.
"Kids are going to walk out for other reasons now"- Where have you been the last 7 years? Immigration spurs walk-outs. Crime spurs walk-outs. Police shootings and riots spur walk-outs. This is just the latest cause de celebre giving kids an excuse to skip school.
12:39, wasn't Morse based on the underlying speech advocating drug use? I don't think it was just student at school has x rights, while student not at school has y rights. Now it's true under Bethel that students do lose some speech rights at school, and I would think especially so if made from a school phone, but I don't see Morse being right on point. Plus, if he made the call during the walkout, wouldn't he have been off premises?
1:12, that was kind of my point. Kids walk out for various reasons, although this current walk-out might make it more common. And they're going to have to be consistent with punishment without regard to speech content.
1:32, yes and no. That the underlying speech concerned drug use was what made it punishable in school. The same is true of profanity in school. Neither would be punishable by the school outside of school. The harder question in Morse and this case is whether the speech has a sufficient connection to school such that the school speech regime controls, where there is less protection. If the call was made when the student was supposed to be in school, and especially if made from school grounds, the answer is probably "yes."
Many of the walk outs were sanctioned or approved by the school. If that is the case here, the student's call would be consistent with the sanctioned political speech. Even if it wasn't sanctioned, it does not appear the punishment is related to truancy, use of a phone during school hours, or for using profanity toward a school official or anyone on school grounds. Regardless, this is an absolutely absurd basis for a suspension – unless the school has consistently suspended students based upon third party reports regarding the use of profanity (not directed at anyone related to the school) in the past, then this is a politically motivated suppression of speech. Amodei, his loser staffer Arturo Garzon, and the principal are seriously pathetic. Not only have they violated the first amendment, they have tarnished this kid's "Google footprint"/reputation, and probably violated FERPA. I'd take the case if I was up North.
No, just because a walk-out is sanctioned doesn't mean profanity is during school hours on school grounds. And if a walk-out is in fact sanctioned at some school, that just makes a case based on punishment for walking out for some other reason on another day that much more of a slam dunk.
Agreed. According to the Washington Post (yes, it's national news now), he called from outside the school and had already been marked tardy from class. Can't see how that's "school speech."
Outside the school walls might still be on school property. And being tardy or truant doesn't necessarily take him out of school for 1st Amendment purposes even if off school grounds. Anyway, the press reports tend to indicate the call was made from the front steps of the school during school hours while surrounded by other students, and while he temporarily left class for 17 minutes. That's going to be close enough to the facts of Morse for a court to have to say the school speech regime applies. And the kid admits he violated school conduct rules by using profanity. There's just no case here. The ALCU can kick and scream all it wants (because it really cares about gun control, not free speech), but it's going to have to convince SCOTUS to overturn Morse.
7:39– In Morse, the school had an anti-drug policy which was arguably violation. Point to the School Conduct Rule in this case at McQueen which indicates that saying F*** to a Congressman is a violation of School Conduct Rules punishable by 2 days' suspension and losing your student office.
I think that Morse is possibly distinguishable from this situation. In Morse (if I recall correctly), the offending speech occurred in an school sponsored event, with the child representing the school, in a public setting with both the speaker and recipient present. In the instant case, the fact that the child received a tardy to class for participating in the event mitigates against a finding that it was a school sanctioned event nor that he was representing the school at the time. While he was present at the location, the recipient of the communication was at a different location. The communication in the Morse situation was a publicly displayed banner advocating a criminal act, whereas, in this instance the communication was by telephone (private, unless either side was broadcasting it or observed by potentially illegal means (intercepting, wiretap, etc.)). The subject of the speech was not the advocacy of an illegal act but rather the use of words that those with delicate ears might find offensive (It's almost hard to legitimately find word choice offensive today in light of the language used by many mainstream entertainers and comedians). Language that may have earned a movie an X rating 60 years ago now frequently results in a PG-13 rating (Compare "Blazing Saddles" which was released with an "R" rating and almost received the "X" rating to modern movies).
It would appear that this situation is more similar to Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), where the Court stated that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." The Tinker court held that the wearing of armbands by students to protest the Vietnam War was constitutionally protected speech because it was political speech. Political speech is at the heart of the First Amendment and, thus, can only be prohibited if it "substantially disrupts" the educational process.
Subsequently, SCOTUS pared back the scope of Tinker. See, Bethel v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 682 (1986) [the constitutional rights of students at public school are not automatically, coextensive with the rights of adults.]; Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260, 266 (1988) [The rights of students are applied "in light of the special characteristics of the school environment].
Notably, the Morse court found that the message Frederick displayed was by his own admission not political in nature, as was the case in Tinker. That point was underscored by Justices Kennedy and Alito in the concurring opinion where they, while concurring with the majority noted that the majority's decision was at the outer parameters of constitutionally protected behavior. These justices were concerned that the majority's decision permitting the suppression of speech promoting illegal drug use could be used to punish those advocating constitutionally permissible, but unpopular, political ideas, e.g., legalizing medicinal marijuana use [or immigration, guns, etc.].
I agree that this isn't a slam dunk either way. Other than the truancy issue (which appears to have been handled in a discriminatory manner), I would however prefer to be on the kid's side of the litigation under these facts.
Guest
Anonymous
March 20, 2018 6:00 pm
If I understand this correctly:
"The Legacy Golf Club settlement means it will remain a golf course through 2038".
AND:
"The Las Vegas City Council may take the Badlands development issue to the (NV) Supreme Court."
So both of these golf course issues will be resolved about the same time . . . in 2038?
Guest
Anonymous
March 20, 2018 7:34 pm
How about the dean of Boyd Law's memo regarding UNLV's placing 59th in the US News law school rankings? Love or hate Boyd, that's impressive progress. Yes, I'm a graduate, and yes, I like that the school I graduated from is ranked higher than most, if not all, of the law schools that most Nevada attorneys graduated from.
I bet your mother is just beaming with pride that her young prodigy graduated from the 59th most amazing, wonderful and incredible law school in all of America. I am sure that as tells her bridge friends about the new ranking this week they will be dripping with envy and saying to themselves, "Oh how I wish my little Johnny had graduated from UNLV Law. It's 59th! Instead, Johnny brought great dishonor to our family by graduating from Texas A&M Law School, which is only ranked the 80th most incredibly stupendous law school in America! THE SHAME!!!!"
I'm also guessing you graduated before UNLV had gamed the stupid rankings system – so unless you graduated in 2017, you probably graduated from a shittier ranked school. GULC FTW!
I just read that their writing program is ranked #1 in the country. Did your head explode? Next time you read a brief from a Boyd alum, keep in mind that it is actually great and you are crazy if you think it sucks.
#1 out of like 29, and for the life of me, I've never been able to uncover USnooze's methodology for ranking legal writing programs. And I say that as a Boyd grad.
This is stunning to me. The one thing I have noticed consistently about Boyd grads are their abysmal research and writing skills. Tell me more about this gaming of the ranking system.
Guest
Anonymous
March 20, 2018 7:57 pm
Try not to puke. Boyd went up three notches better? Give me a break. Then why are they asking to dumb down the bar exam more. The only thing Boyd has done is flooded the town with lawyers that never leave and can not leave.
I'm waiting for #metoo stories to come out of Boyd. I know of at least three but they are not my stories to tell. It started out well but it really declined after Dean Morgan left.
9:58. So true about dumbing down the bar exam. However, there is a bigger agenda. The Dean is not only applying pressure to make the bar exam easier he is also pushing for Nevada to adopt the UBE. The UBE=reciprocity. Reciprocity will be a one way street. Don't care what the Dean says, Boyd grads are local. They are not going anywhere. The conveyor belt will be one way–lawyers from UBE states waiving into the bar in Nevada. Does anyone want to go to Kansas, Iowa, New York and Michigan, etc. Hell no. Do they want to come here. Hell yes. Nevada has a state sponsored school. Terrific. They just don't need to completely take over the profession. It is tough enough to deal with California lawyers who have an outpost office here and pass Nevada's exam. If we have to deal with lawyers in another time zone who "waived in" it will make the practice awful.
Guest
anonymous
March 20, 2018 8:05 pm
An original and eight (8) copies; no online submissions permitted. Wow, it is almost like they really don't want any comments. But that couldn't possibly be it, could it?
Have you ever testified at an ADKT Hearing? They TRULY do not want any comments. The Court is chummy with the State Bar and has no idea how to handle private comments. They really look lost and disconcerted that anyone would slow down the rubber stamping process.
Has anyone given any thought as to whether change is more likely to be made by a new board of governors or through legal action to have the bar separate from the court as a trade association?
5:28 is exactly right. People need to speak up. On audits, for example, is it the audits per se that are bad or the fact the person randomly picked has to pay? Seems like the latter and that given how much $$ the bar collects and spends on other stuff they should pay if they want to do this. Same thing mandatory malpractice. Seems ok to require disclosure but to mandate coverage? But if no one speaks up all that's presented is the bar governors position and they are all in for more regulation as long as they don't have to pay for it.
@7:29 – I agree with you on several points, but do have to dissent with respect to the mandatory E & O insurance issue. With respect to that issue, it is much like the operation of a motor vehicle. It is not only the attorney that is at risk of harm by the attorney's negligence but also third parties as well (client/beneficiaries of attorney services and other users of the road in the motor vehicle scenario). In both the motor vehicle and attorney situation, there is no constitutional right to engage in that activity, rather it is a privileged license situation upon which the government may regulate and attach reasonably related conditions. Providing for some measure of financial responsibility for errors and omissions (intentional acts would be excluded under the insurance terms) is reasonably related to the activity and minimally burdensome to the licensee (no more burdensome than requiring payment of a licensing fee or taxes).
In terms of the random audits, I agree with you. That, while serving some public protection function is more akin to a fishing expedition if the audits are truly random (no reasonable suspicion of misconduct). I don't have a problem with the generic concept of audits, my disagreement is with the cost being borne by the person being audited in the absence of misconduct. If an audit program were to be instituted, the costs should initially be borne by the State Bar (or delegated governmental entity) subject to recovery from the person being audited if misconduct is found.
After thoroughly reviewing ADKT 0533 and the views of our surveyed colleagues, I submitted my written comments to the Nevada Supreme Court. I advised the Court that I agree with amending SCR 78.5 to clarify that SCR 78.5 authorizes bar counsel to audit the trust accounts of attorneys under investigation but that I oppose imposing random audits on all Nevada attorneys if they are not under investigation.
I appreciate that some people may disagree with my position insofar as I did not oppose the entire Petition submitted by the SBN. Although my opposition is limited, it does not detract from my unhappiness (as shared by the majority of the survey responders) with the current BOG for submitting the Petition against the clear will of our members. I agree with 1:14 and 3:26 that the SBN's position will likely prevail and that the best remedy to prevent against future petitions of this ilk and kind is through the upcoming BOG election.
Andrew, I am extremely disappointed in that position. If a client files a Complaint that you have not returned their telephone call fast enough, you believe that attorney should have to go through an audit of their Trust Account? Merely because an attorney is "under investigation" should not be an automatic trigger to tear apart their Trust Accounts.
Andrew, I was disappointed to see you smiling with Stan on the Bar's website this week. Yes the widespread audit concept has been an abject failure in a number of states. Furthermore you put martial powers in the hands of people who can handle it; the current OBC has shown nothing but the desire to abuse their powers.
@11:00 am- Your proposal of random audits paid for by the State Bar– you do realize who will end up paying for all of those random audits right? You will and I will. We will have Bar Dues that exceed $800 as the OBC goes audit crazy because they will just jack up the already overinflated dues.
Dear BoG Candidates– tell me what you are going to have the State Bar do for me with my dues instead of repeatedly pushing new ideas of what you can dream up for the State Bar to do to me with my dues.
Is mandatory malpractice insurance before the court also? I thought it was the random audits proposal. For those who have been following this, please clarify. Thanks
5:36 PM raises a valid concern about the reasonable scope of audits if the Nevada Supreme Court agrees to adopt my compromise proposal. Please be assured that I considered whether to urge the Court to modify proposed SCR 78.5(1)(c) so as to limit audits solely to attorney investigations implicating trust account issues (as 5:36 proposes, and which I would also like to see. However, I was concerned that the Court would view such a proposal as unduly tying bar counsel's hands and that it would be seen as a big step backward from the recent renewed efforts by both the BOG and the Court itself in actively investigating and prosecuting unscrupulous attorneys. In short: I believe 5:36 PM is absolutely correct, but that our view would not prevail at the Court.
@5:43, Your concern about the upward creep in bar dues is certainly valid, however, there is a fairly easy fix to that problem. Follow the lead of sister states that have split the regulatory and trade group functions of the bar (along with the bar dues related to each part). With respect the the regulatory function, have the bar dues remitted to the state general fund and the bar having to obtain it's operating budget from the legislature lack any other aspect of the government. Having to justify their budget request should serve as a natural check on wasteful spending.
Andrew– "unduly tying bar counsel's hands"? Bar Counsel's hands should be tied from unfettered power to conduct audits. The fact that OBC would be given free rein to conduct audits whenever it chooses is exactly the power which we as members of the Bar should seek to define and restrain.
It is not a step backward to suggest that attorneys whose Trust Accounts are the subject of verified Complaints may be audited. The OBC/BoG/NSC focus is on those people who have trust account violations; the problem is that there is a shotgun approach which is striking everyone.
I believe you were at the CCBA Luncheon where Stan spoke and said that every Complaint that he receives arises out of the fact that "lawyers are greedy." Not only is his perspective unduly and unfortunately tarring; it is actually factually incorrect. But this is the voice that your proposal would allow to unilaterally decide to audit. I am disheartened to hear the position "It doesn't matter what we say because the BoG/NSC is going to do what they want to do." It is exactly that mindset that has refused to stand up and stop the madness.
@8:36, I think your "verified complaint" standard is too restrictive. As we have learned from recent history, a great number of people have been victims of financial misconduct by attorneys without all receiving the "verified complaint" status (e.g. Rob Graham, Geraldine Kirk-Hughes, guardianship victims, etc.)
I understand the concern about unfettered auditing without cause but disagree with the standard that you propose. Perhaps a page from law enforcement would be appropriate (the regulatory reason is similar to the law enforcement purpose of a criminal investigation [whether to bring charges]). Using that model, perhaps the standard should be reasonable suspicion that misconduct has occurred. Using that standard, a complaint by a client or lien-holder, bank notification of insufficient funds, etc. would be sufficient to trigger an audit but without a reason to suspect misconduct fishing expeditions would be prevented.
@8:36 "The fact that OBC would be given free rein to conduct audits whenever it chooses is exactly the power which we as members of the Bar should seek to define and restrain."
OBC free rein = infinitely more opportunities for F*** ups!
Regent, Trevor Hayes is getting push back from big donors at UNLV to get rid of Jessup.
Was the #metoo problem at the public defender's office well known for a long time?
Yes. Yes. Yes.
Thank you to the people who recommend I work there. Aholes.
Amodei and his staff must be so proud. Getting a child suspended from school. Ballsy.
So a government official contacts another government official, and has a citizen punished for exercising his First Amendment rights. Got it.
Not just any ol' First Amendment right. Political speech.
Student gets suspended for being politically active because he used the F-word. Oh my delicate sensibilities! And a Congressman needs to have a high school student silenced.
Precisely how is a telephone call to a Congressman anything that a high school has any right or involvement in? Precisely what part of the Student Code of Conduct at a public high school governs telephone calls to Congressmen?
Agreed. Problematic on several levels, both for Amodei and his staffer and the school. In my non-expert opinion, the school is at greatest risk, for actually punishing the kid. Amodei's office just looks bad, but I don't think reporting the call rises to a constitutional violation. In any case, I hope they all get their heads out of their f***ing asses and make this right before someone sues them and our tax dollars get wasted.
Who f'en cares that the kid used impolite language (other than perhaps his parents). Unless it involves the unauthorized use of school property (e.g. school telephone) or during instructional time (actual class time) it is none of the school's business. Unless there is some nexus between the kid's behavior and the school, it is completely out of line here.
If Amodei (or his staff) had an issue with the kid's choice of language; their remedy would be to either discuss it with the kid's parents or terminate the conversation.
Makes you wonder who the adult in the room is..
Members of Congress should get the F bomb.
It was during instruction time. The call was placed during the idiotic 17 minute walkout.
Then the issue should be the participation in the walk-out, not what the kid said during a telephone call he made while truant.
If the school wants to suspend the kid for truancy, that is within their right, however, they need to do the same thing to all of the other kids that were also truant at the same time.
We can safely assume that will never happen since the kid's protest movement is in line with the school's political agenda.
Was the telephone call made from school grounds or during time he was supposed to be in school? Under Morse v. Frederick, that would probably determine whether the regular or school speech regime controls, and if the latter, using profanity is probably not going to be protected. Not as slam dunk a case as most commenters are suggesting.
This walk out is going to generate second-order lawsuits. Kids are going to walk out for other reasons now, and if treated any differently than those who participated in the gun-control walk-out, you have a solid content-based discrimination case.
"Kids are going to walk out for other reasons now"- Where have you been the last 7 years? Immigration spurs walk-outs. Crime spurs walk-outs. Police shootings and riots spur walk-outs. This is just the latest cause de celebre giving kids an excuse to skip school.
12:31, you had me up until your last paragraph.
12:39, wasn't Morse based on the underlying speech advocating drug use? I don't think it was just student at school has x rights, while student not at school has y rights. Now it's true under Bethel that students do lose some speech rights at school, and I would think especially so if made from a school phone, but I don't see Morse being right on point. Plus, if he made the call during the walkout, wouldn't he have been off premises?
1:12, that was kind of my point. Kids walk out for various reasons, although this current walk-out might make it more common. And they're going to have to be consistent with punishment without regard to speech content.
1:32, yes and no. That the underlying speech concerned drug use was what made it punishable in school. The same is true of profanity in school. Neither would be punishable by the school outside of school. The harder question in Morse and this case is whether the speech has a sufficient connection to school such that the school speech regime controls, where there is less protection. If the call was made when the student was supposed to be in school, and especially if made from school grounds, the answer is probably "yes."
Many of the walk outs were sanctioned or approved by the school. If that is the case here, the student's call would be consistent with the sanctioned political speech. Even if it wasn't sanctioned, it does not appear the punishment is related to truancy, use of a phone during school hours, or for using profanity toward a school official or anyone on school grounds. Regardless, this is an absolutely absurd basis for a suspension – unless the school has consistently suspended students based upon third party reports regarding the use of profanity (not directed at anyone related to the school) in the past, then this is a politically motivated suppression of speech. Amodei, his loser staffer Arturo Garzon, and the principal are seriously pathetic. Not only have they violated the first amendment, they have tarnished this kid's "Google footprint"/reputation, and probably violated FERPA. I'd take the case if I was up North.
No, just because a walk-out is sanctioned doesn't mean profanity is during school hours on school grounds. And if a walk-out is in fact sanctioned at some school, that just makes a case based on punishment for walking out for some other reason on another day that much more of a slam dunk.
Agreed. According to the Washington Post (yes, it's national news now), he called from outside the school and had already been marked tardy from class. Can't see how that's "school speech."
Outside the school walls might still be on school property. And being tardy or truant doesn't necessarily take him out of school for 1st Amendment purposes even if off school grounds. Anyway, the press reports tend to indicate the call was made from the front steps of the school during school hours while surrounded by other students, and while he temporarily left class for 17 minutes. That's going to be close enough to the facts of Morse for a court to have to say the school speech regime applies. And the kid admits he violated school conduct rules by using profanity. There's just no case here. The ALCU can kick and scream all it wants (because it really cares about gun control, not free speech), but it's going to have to convince SCOTUS to overturn Morse.
7:39– In Morse, the school had an anti-drug policy which was arguably violation. Point to the School Conduct Rule in this case at McQueen which indicates that saying F*** to a Congressman is a violation of School Conduct Rules punishable by 2 days' suspension and losing your student office.
I think that Morse is possibly distinguishable from this situation. In Morse (if I recall correctly), the offending speech occurred in an school sponsored event, with the child representing the school, in a public setting with both the speaker and recipient present. In the instant case, the fact that the child received a tardy to class for participating in the event mitigates against a finding that it was a school sanctioned event nor that he was representing the school at the time. While he was present at the location, the recipient of the communication was at a different location. The communication in the Morse situation was a publicly displayed banner advocating a criminal act, whereas, in this instance the communication was by telephone (private, unless either side was broadcasting it or observed by potentially illegal means (intercepting, wiretap, etc.)). The subject of the speech was not the advocacy of an illegal act but rather the use of words that those with delicate ears might find offensive (It's almost hard to legitimately find word choice offensive today in light of the language used by many mainstream entertainers and comedians). Language that may have earned a movie an X rating 60 years ago now frequently results in a PG-13 rating (Compare "Blazing Saddles" which was released with an "R" rating and almost received the "X" rating to modern movies).
It would appear that this situation is more similar to Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), where the Court stated that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." The Tinker court held that the wearing of armbands by students to protest the Vietnam War was constitutionally protected speech because it was political speech. Political speech is at the heart of the First Amendment and, thus, can only be prohibited if it "substantially disrupts" the educational process.
Subsequently, SCOTUS pared back the scope of Tinker. See, Bethel v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 682 (1986) [the constitutional rights of students at public school are not automatically, coextensive with the rights of adults.]; Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260, 266 (1988) [The rights of students are applied "in light of the special characteristics of the school environment].
Notably, the Morse court found that the message Frederick displayed was by his own admission not political in nature, as was the case in Tinker. That point was underscored by Justices Kennedy and Alito in the concurring opinion where they, while concurring with the majority noted that the majority's decision was at the outer parameters of constitutionally protected behavior. These justices were concerned that the majority's decision permitting the suppression of speech promoting illegal drug use could be used to punish those advocating constitutionally permissible, but unpopular, political ideas, e.g., legalizing medicinal marijuana use [or immigration, guns, etc.].
I agree that this isn't a slam dunk either way. Other than the truancy issue (which appears to have been handled in a discriminatory manner), I would however prefer to be on the kid's side of the litigation under these facts.
If I understand this correctly:
"The Legacy Golf Club settlement means it will remain a golf course through 2038".
AND:
"The Las Vegas City Council may take the Badlands development issue to the (NV) Supreme Court."
So both of these golf course issues will be resolved about the same time . . . in 2038?
How about the dean of Boyd Law's memo regarding UNLV's placing 59th in the US News law school rankings? Love or hate Boyd, that's impressive progress. Yes, I'm a graduate, and yes, I like that the school I graduated from is ranked higher than most, if not all, of the law schools that most Nevada attorneys graduated from.
I bet your mother is just beaming with pride that her young prodigy graduated from the 59th most amazing, wonderful and incredible law school in all of America. I am sure that as tells her bridge friends about the new ranking this week they will be dripping with envy and saying to themselves, "Oh how I wish my little Johnny had graduated from UNLV Law. It's 59th! Instead, Johnny brought great dishonor to our family by graduating from Texas A&M Law School, which is only ranked the 80th most incredibly stupendous law school in America! THE SHAME!!!!"
It's not my mother that's beaming with pride at my graduation from Boyd.
I'm also guessing you graduated before UNLV had gamed the stupid rankings system – so unless you graduated in 2017, you probably graduated from a shittier ranked school. GULC FTW!
I just read that their writing program is ranked #1 in the country. Did your head explode? Next time you read a brief from a Boyd alum, keep in mind that it is actually great and you are crazy if you think it sucks.
"so unless you graduated in [2013], you probably graduated from a shittier ranked school."
FIFY!
#1 out of like 29, and for the life of me, I've never been able to uncover USnooze's methodology for ranking legal writing programs. And I say that as a Boyd grad.
This is stunning to me. The one thing I have noticed consistently about Boyd grads are their abysmal research and writing skills. Tell me more about this gaming of the ranking system.
Try not to puke. Boyd went up three notches better? Give me a break. Then why are they asking to dumb down the bar exam more. The only thing Boyd has done is flooded the town with lawyers that never leave and can not leave.
I'm waiting for #metoo stories to come out of Boyd. I know of at least three but they are not my stories to tell. It started out well but it really declined after Dean Morgan left.
Dumbing down the bar exam is part of the gaming. Get higher bar passage rate, move up in the rankings.
9:58. So true about dumbing down the bar exam. However, there is a bigger agenda. The Dean is not only applying pressure to make the bar exam easier he is also pushing for Nevada to adopt the UBE. The UBE=reciprocity. Reciprocity will be a one way street. Don't care what the Dean says, Boyd grads are local. They are not going anywhere. The conveyor belt will be one way–lawyers from UBE states waiving into the bar in Nevada. Does anyone want to go to Kansas, Iowa, New York and Michigan, etc. Hell no. Do they want to come here. Hell yes. Nevada has a state sponsored school. Terrific. They just don't need to completely take over the profession. It is tough enough to deal with California lawyers who have an outpost office here and pass Nevada's exam. If we have to deal with lawyers in another time zone who "waived in" it will make the practice awful.
An original and eight (8) copies; no online submissions permitted. Wow, it is almost like they really don't want any comments. But that couldn't possibly be it, could it?
Have you ever testified at an ADKT Hearing? They TRULY do not want any comments. The Court is chummy with the State Bar and has no idea how to handle private comments. They really look lost and disconcerted that anyone would slow down the rubber stamping process.
Has anyone given any thought as to whether change is more likely to be made by a new board of governors or through legal action to have the bar separate from the court as a trade association?
Audits are coming. Get over it or actually do something, like show up at hearing.
5:28 is exactly right. People need to speak up. On audits, for example, is it the audits per se that are bad or the fact the person randomly picked has to pay? Seems like the latter and that given how much $$ the bar collects and spends on other stuff they should pay if they want to do this. Same thing mandatory malpractice. Seems ok to require disclosure but to mandate coverage? But if no one speaks up all that's presented is the bar governors position and they are all in for more regulation as long as they don't have to pay for it.
@7:29 – I agree with you on several points, but do have to dissent with respect to the mandatory E & O insurance issue. With respect to that issue, it is much like the operation of a motor vehicle. It is not only the attorney that is at risk of harm by the attorney's negligence but also third parties as well (client/beneficiaries of attorney services and other users of the road in the motor vehicle scenario). In both the motor vehicle and attorney situation, there is no constitutional right to engage in that activity, rather it is a privileged license situation upon which the government may regulate and attach reasonably related conditions. Providing for some measure of financial responsibility for errors and omissions (intentional acts would be excluded under the insurance terms) is reasonably related to the activity and minimally burdensome to the licensee (no more burdensome than requiring payment of a licensing fee or taxes).
In terms of the random audits, I agree with you. That, while serving some public protection function is more akin to a fishing expedition if the audits are truly random (no reasonable suspicion of misconduct). I don't have a problem with the generic concept of audits, my disagreement is with the cost being borne by the person being audited in the absence of misconduct. If an audit program were to be instituted, the costs should initially be borne by the State Bar (or delegated governmental entity) subject to recovery from the person being audited if misconduct is found.
After thoroughly reviewing ADKT 0533 and the views of our surveyed colleagues, I submitted my written comments to the Nevada Supreme Court. I advised the Court that I agree with amending SCR 78.5 to clarify that SCR 78.5 authorizes bar counsel to audit the trust accounts of attorneys under investigation but that I oppose imposing random audits on all Nevada attorneys if they are not under investigation.
I appreciate that some people may disagree with my position insofar as I did not oppose the entire Petition submitted by the SBN. Although my opposition is limited, it does not detract from my unhappiness (as shared by the majority of the survey responders) with the current BOG for submitting the Petition against the clear will of our members. I agree with 1:14 and 3:26 that the SBN's position will likely prevail and that the best remedy to prevent against future petitions of this ilk and kind is through the upcoming BOG election.
Andrew, I am extremely disappointed in that position. If a client files a Complaint that you have not returned their telephone call fast enough, you believe that attorney should have to go through an audit of their Trust Account? Merely because an attorney is "under investigation" should not be an automatic trigger to tear apart their Trust Accounts.
Andrew, I was disappointed to see you smiling with Stan on the Bar's website this week. Yes the widespread audit concept has been an abject failure in a number of states. Furthermore you put martial powers in the hands of people who can handle it; the current OBC has shown nothing but the desire to abuse their powers.
@11:00 am- Your proposal of random audits paid for by the State Bar– you do realize who will end up paying for all of those random audits right? You will and I will. We will have Bar Dues that exceed $800 as the OBC goes audit crazy because they will just jack up the already overinflated dues.
Dear BoG Candidates– tell me what you are going to have the State Bar do for me with my dues instead of repeatedly pushing new ideas of what you can dream up for the State Bar to do to me with my dues.
Is mandatory malpractice insurance before the court also? I thought it was the random audits proposal. For those who have been following this, please clarify. Thanks
5:36 PM raises a valid concern about the reasonable scope of audits if the Nevada Supreme Court agrees to adopt my compromise proposal. Please be assured that I considered whether to urge the Court to modify proposed SCR 78.5(1)(c) so as to limit audits solely to attorney investigations implicating trust account issues (as 5:36 proposes, and which I would also like to see. However, I was concerned that the Court would view such a proposal as unduly tying bar counsel's hands and that it would be seen as a big step backward from the recent renewed efforts by both the BOG and the Court itself in actively investigating and prosecuting unscrupulous attorneys. In short: I believe 5:36 PM is absolutely correct, but that our view would not prevail at the Court.
@5:43, Your concern about the upward creep in bar dues is certainly valid, however, there is a fairly easy fix to that problem. Follow the lead of sister states that have split the regulatory and trade group functions of the bar (along with the bar dues related to each part). With respect the the regulatory function, have the bar dues remitted to the state general fund and the bar having to obtain it's operating budget from the legislature lack any other aspect of the government. Having to justify their budget request should serve as a natural check on wasteful spending.
Andrew– "unduly tying bar counsel's hands"? Bar Counsel's hands should be tied from unfettered power to conduct audits. The fact that OBC would be given free rein to conduct audits whenever it chooses is exactly the power which we as members of the Bar should seek to define and restrain.
It is not a step backward to suggest that attorneys whose Trust Accounts are the subject of verified Complaints may be audited. The OBC/BoG/NSC focus is on those people who have trust account violations; the problem is that there is a shotgun approach which is striking everyone.
I believe you were at the CCBA Luncheon where Stan spoke and said that every Complaint that he receives arises out of the fact that "lawyers are greedy." Not only is his perspective unduly and unfortunately tarring; it is actually factually incorrect. But this is the voice that your proposal would allow to unilaterally decide to audit. I am disheartened to hear the position "It doesn't matter what we say because the BoG/NSC is going to do what they want to do." It is exactly that mindset that has refused to stand up and stop the madness.
@8:36, I think your "verified complaint" standard is too restrictive. As we have learned from recent history, a great number of people have been victims of financial misconduct by attorneys without all receiving the "verified complaint" status (e.g. Rob Graham, Geraldine Kirk-Hughes, guardianship victims, etc.)
I understand the concern about unfettered auditing without cause but disagree with the standard that you propose. Perhaps a page from law enforcement would be appropriate (the regulatory reason is similar to the law enforcement purpose of a criminal investigation [whether to bring charges]). Using that model, perhaps the standard should be reasonable suspicion that misconduct has occurred. Using that standard, a complaint by a client or lien-holder, bank notification of insufficient funds, etc. would be sufficient to trigger an audit but without a reason to suspect misconduct fishing expeditions would be prevented.
@8:36 here– I would be fine with reasonable suspicion.
@8:36 "The fact that OBC would be given free rein to conduct audits whenever it chooses is exactly the power which we as members of the Bar should seek to define and restrain."
OBC free rein = infinitely more opportunities for F*** ups!