I watched about 10 minutes of the testimony from yesterday and had to stop because I was cringing myself into a stroke. He was framed for murder by…Compass Realty???!!! I’m half dead over here. It would be more productive for Telles to start walking up to High Desert with his ankles shackled rather than continue this grave digging expedition.
I watched every minute. It was fun for a little then just turned boring and disjointed.
Guest
Anonymous
August 22, 2024 9:51 am
LVAC – saying the health department “forced” you to close the pool sounds a little silly. They’re absolutely permitted to have a pool open if they follow the law. (the merits of the law notwithstanding)
The law is stupid. It’s a 3 and a half foot pool. This accident was a one-off tragedy. You don’t need lifeguards. The Southern Nevada Health District is overreacting.
Right on, 10:36! Never let ignorance of the facts dilute your certainty
Guest
Anonymous
August 22, 2024 10:12 am
You guys got it so wrong. The jury is on the edges of their seats. Just a dutiful Public Administrator trying to help the little guy and he gets framed for murder for it by the big, bad Compass Realty! He is NOT GUILTY!
Remember all the time and money spent chasing what was on German’s computer, phones and devices? Not a single witness has testified about any of that. Not a single exhibit has referenced any of that.
They played the threatening messages, at the very least.
Guest
Anonymous
August 22, 2024 10:34 am
I don’t do 1A stuff and been a while since law school, but almost positive an apartment manager (private party) telling you to take down political signs is legally permissible.
Also, who takes their 9 year old to a political rally. Kinda weird.
The article referenced an apartment complex. The ACLU dude sent statutes that cover common interest communities (condos and HOAs). They are not the same. Maybe there is a 1A issue here, and maybe the apartment complex is overstepping, but NRS 116 isn’t the way to prove it.
The appropriate statute is NRS 118B.145 Prohibited practices by landlord: Right of tenant to exhibit political signs in certain areas; conditions and limitations on exercise of right.
1. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, a landlord or an agent or employee of a landlord shall not prohibit a tenant from exhibiting a political sign not larger than 24 inches by 36 inches within the boundary of the lot of the tenant. The restriction placed on a landlord or an agent or an employee of a landlord relative to a political sign is applicable only until 7 days after the general or special election for the office or ballot question to which the sign relates.
Its been nearly 30 years since I lived in an apartment but is pretty much Guaranteed they signed an acknowledgment of community rules that says you cant hang anything in your windows whatsoever. Their only hope is that the complex did not enforce the rules against other tenants.
Although it specifically applies to trailer parks, it’s a better argument that the landlord in an apartment complex can’t prohibit signs in a window, an area within the exclusive control of the tenant.
Why read an article when you can rely on your recollection of your conlaw lectures from 20 years ago? To be certain, even absent the statute there are a lot of other jurisdictions that have held that the right to political signage in a window during an election cycle is behavior which an HOA cannot prohibit.
None of that shit is a rational basis for electing a Chief Executive / Commander in Chief. I am embarrassed for you, unless you are a parody . . . then disregard this comment. I am not finna be dragged.
I did not accuse you of that. What I said was that all of your reasons were bullshit. I I am usually very hesitant to speak in absolutes. But, everything you said was horseshit.
As for your “long list” I am waiting . . . . . She cant get out a coherent sentence, let alone lead this country anywhere but into the arms of the elite communists. So call the names. We will see.
Is there a 1A problem with a statute guaranteeing tenants the right to put up political signs? It’s content-based discrimination, though maybe it passes strict scrutiny.
Why? The landlord isn’t being compelled or prohibited from engaging in speech activities of their own; they’re merely being prohibited from prohibiting their tenants from enjoying the full use and enjoyment of the tenant’s premises. The tenant gets the choice, not the landlord.
Crying when shown pictures of a messy house when you are on trial for murder is something. “Its a bold strategy Cotton, lets see if it pays off.”
Guest
Anonymous
August 22, 2024 10:56 am
Just a reminder: do NOT allow your client to bring their notes to deposition and certainly not to trial. Just don’t. I know they want a crutch. But stop them.
Guest
Anonymous
August 22, 2024 10:57 am
Appears Hamner is arguing all of the objections for Telles and will be the one crossing him.
I disagree to this extent. In a case about a conspiracy and alleged overzealous prosecution (admittedly without any evidence), Pam has been much more measured which in this case would eliminate any chance of coming on too strong in front of the jury.
Guest
Anonymous
August 22, 2024 11:00 am
The first time he cries is when he sees pictures of his house messed up?
Guest
Former Attorney
August 22, 2024 11:08 am
The zoom in on Draskovich is chef’s kiss camera work.
Guest
Anonymous
August 22, 2024 11:12 am
This is a picture perfect view of what narcissism looks like. No real thoughts of anyone but him. No real discussion of anyone other than himself. After seeing photos of a man brutally murdered, the greatest sympathy should be for him.
We should feel bad for him because he was cold in the paper suit.
Guest
Anonymous
August 22, 2024 11:30 am
This lift in the shoe evidence is a game changer. Well done Telles. You can’t fit a lift in the Nikes, and Telles wouldn’t be caught dead without lifts in his shoes…you must acquit!!
Sull took a flat fee and put it in her general account. When the client bailed in the middle of the case, Sull balked at a refund but ultimately granted a partial refund. NSC stated even with a flat fee until the entirety of the fee has been earned, the flat fee has to sit in Trust Account. “Although the rules allow a lawyer to charge a fixed or “flat” rate for legal services, the lawyer must still account for the work performed to demonstrate that the fee has been earned. See RPC 1.5(a)(8) (permitting a lawyer to charge a fixed fee for services)
Then it’s not fixed fee it’s just a lower price all at once where client gets the benefit of the deal. What if lawyer works 100 extra hours. I’ve had cases I won in settlement and did well on FF and lost my ass on FF. It’s usually the ONLY way the very poor can get services in Family Law. Also, this is incongruent with almost every other state and the USSC. No I don’t have citations with me but I did a research memo as a consultant and clearly remember the results. Part of the cabal. I hate Nevada. They have a 100 year history of fucking over the poor.
They think they are doing a favor for the poor by preventing flat fees from being taken as earned but in reality my firm will simply never cap our fees with the flat fee.
It would be prudent for the Bar to tell us this. Nothing in the text of rule 1.15 explains that a flat fee is just an advance – and mostly flat fees are charged because we don’t know what the full scope of the work will entail. Sometimes I only need to do a very little bit of work on a flat fee matter, and sometimes the same type of matter will require more work for the same fee. If the Bar wants us to only pay ourselves the fee after the service is completed, that’s fine (not really fine, but whatever), but they have to tell us this.
Uck. The ABA opinion on which the Court relied was published in 2023. Here the fee was take in 2021. Retroactive punishment?
So let’s walk through this.
If you take a $2000 fee for a will and trust, and the services and fee are paid an performed in the same month, it has to be a trust account.
If you take a fee for consultation on Monday, but the client does not come in until Tuesday, its a violation if the payment has not gone into a trust account.
And, someone else correctly points out that if the case takes longer than expected, the lawyer has to absorb the loss. The flat fee often works to client’s advantage.
So the moral of the story is that you don’t take flat fees. Give an estimate of the cost of services to the client, take an appropriate advance. This decision works against clients and the availability of legal services for known fixed amount.
Maybe I will change professions, become a fireman.
Re: Is the Flat Fee now only a retainer?
As I read the decision the flat fee and the traditional retainer are treated as if they were the same. A retainer has to go into a trust account and it’s worked off on hourly billing.
The idea of a flat fee is one of shared or apportioned risk. The client pays a sum certain at the outset. The attorney assumes the risk that the work will require more effort that is compensated. But it is a contract with terms to which the client agrees.
Now under the decision, you must track your billing. How do you determine what portion of the flat fee is earned? Hypothetical: Attorney is experienced and estimates that the work can be completed in 10 hours. This time, things go really well and the task is completed in 1 hour. Can the client now sue for overcharging? Will Hoogie and the stooges now want to reapportion the risk and seek to discipline the attorney for over charging?
Every flat fee agreement is going to have to have an hourly rate for burning off the “flat fee.” To put it in construction contract terms, flat fees are now “Maximum Not to Exceed” contracts.
Not true. A flat fee is paid for the completion of a task, not the time spent performing the task. By way of example, you pay your electrician an agreed sum to put in a 230v outlet for your EV. You don’t care about how long it takes the electrician to perform the task.
Incorrect because the issue here is segregation of funds. To use your analogy, I pay my electrician and he/she deposits my check, buys the materials and hires the worker. But this decision would mean every electrician is going to have to create their own construction control account and go through the accounting of segregating construction funds and then justifying what they spent subject to losing their license. When my electrician gets out there and that 230v outlet cannot be installed, he gets to send me a change order for unforeseen conditions; the flat fee lawyer does not get to do that.
Electrician to attorney isn’t the same given the RPC’s and what our supremes are saying. Not according to this decision. You charge a flat fee for a service to be rendered (I,e. Representation in a criminal case). That representation isn’t completed until the criminal case is. You charge a flat fee of $3000. That has to go to your trust account. You can withdraw from that amount in the trust account as work is performed or expenses incurred but not beforehand. You can’t just take the $3000 and put it into your operating account and get away saying it’s a flat fee. And if there’s a fee dispute or your fired you better document how much of that fee is actually earned or you run this risk of trouble with OBC. Same DUI example of $3000 flat fee but you’re fired after the arraignment. No way you can justify keeping the $3000.
“Same DUI example of $3000 flat fee but you’re fired after the arraignment. No way you can justify keeping the $3000.”
Sure but under this decision you cannot justify taking ANYTHING out of your Trust Account for fear that you say 50% of the work is completed and the client (and their new lawyer who wants to shake as much of that $3000 free as possible for themselves) says that it was only 20% complete and thus you only earned $600. If take more out of your Trust Account than fee dispute determines you were entitled to, you just violated the RPCs.
6:25 here. Fair point. Even if tracking time are you able to document sufficiently that 50% of case has been completed in the event of a dispute or termination.
And who determines that arraignment or preliminary hearing or NRCP 16.1 Conference or the Discovery Cutoff represents 40% or 60% completion of the work?
The problem is the analogy of the installment of a 230v outlet is a one time thing (minus any RPC’s for an electrician) versus say a flat fee for a criminal case. The above posters are talking about a situation involving a flat fee for a case. Let’s use a DUI criminal case for example. Say you charge $3000.00 for representation in a DUI case. Based off this ruling the flat fee isn’t fully earned until the representation in the DUI case is completed (plea or trial). That can take months with how many pre trials or status checks in between. So now you better have benchmarks in your fee agreement to substantiate how much of said flat fee is earned at what point of the case. (I.e. $500.00 for arraignment, $500 for pre trial etc.). Worse still is if you are fired or terminated (or any sort of fee dispute) you better have an hourly rate for work actually done in your flat fee agreement and tracked. So in the $3000 example above if your hourly rate is $300 and you’ve only done $600 of work to date (i.e. two hours of work) you better refund that client $2,400 or else the bar comes a knocking.
Furthermore is that the Court implies that it is a percentage of work done. So using the analogy of $3000.00 flat fee for representation in a DUI case. The client is a nattering nabob of negativity and emails and calls 40 times before the preliminary hearing and takes up 10 hours of your time. You cover the prelim and then are fired immediately afterwards. Your client demands their money back (or at least the percentage to which they believe they are entitled).
-Is the fee 100% earned based on 10 hours at $300 an hour?
-Is that fee 50% earned because you believe that the case is half over even though the client believes that there is far more work ahead?
-Who says what percentage of an ongoing case has been fulfilled at what point in time?
Are you therefore not allowed to take ANY money out of your IOLTA Account until the case is over (and even then only with your client agreeing to what percentage of the fee is owed)?
6:26 here. Exactly my concerns as well. I will have to have billing statement tracking time just as I would a regular retainer and hourly rate case. No other way around it. And it may still be an issue in a fee dispute. I can see it now. “It is not fair you billed this client for each call despite him calling you 50 times before prelim and taking up 20 minutes of your time each call.”
Earned on receipt is dead. True retainer is dead. Distribution from your Client Trust Account without express client permission appears to be dead. The Partners in my firm had a meeting and discussed this decision and here is what we decided: (1) 100% non-depleting fee advances. We are taking fee advances and holding them as security deposits for cases and making clients pay monthly. Your fee advance will sit in our IOLTA Account until the end of the case unless we have to withdraw in which case we will ask the Court on lien for permission to draw it. (2) No flat fees except work that is performed immediately (demand letter, will, trust, etc.)
I read through the opinion, and to me, it looks like the adjustment on the practitioner end is simple. Write reasonable milestones into the retainer agreement, provide notice to the client when those milestones are met, and take the money agreed upon with each milestone. What am I missing?
The problem is not necessarily the concept that flat fees get initially deposited into IOLTA (although true retainer is dead). The problem is who gets to determine the reasonableness of milestones. The Opinion implies that if you get it wrong or the Client has not approved that you have met the milestones then you are subject to discipline.
Frankly, I’m surprised this is what they got Sull on. The dates on this reprimand are interesting too. I believe she was under contract with the dental board and had agreed that she would no longer be practicing.
Guest
Former Attorney
August 22, 2024 12:21 pm
Okay so imagine you are Draskovich. On the break, Telles inevitably asks about his performance. What do you do? Do you go full tilt I-told-you-so mode and tell him it was a dumpster fire and Hamner is about to give the death blow? Do you lie and say he did GREAT? Do you try to stay more neutral and say it wasn’t great but we’ll focus on other evidence and try to hype him up for the cross?
Constructive but honest assessment. You did awful. You came across as a narcissist and turned the jury off. But lets get ready for cross and hopefully prep in the next 45 minutes to see if we can get Hamner to look like a bully. Can’t get worse than it is right now Rob.
He said he was framed and doesn’t accept it was even there, let alone how it got there
Guest
Former Attorney
August 22, 2024 12:35 pm
So Hamner just confirmed, outside the presence of the jury in an evidentiary dispute, that there WERE messages confirming a romantic relationship between Telles and Lee-Kennett.
A public administrator not used to seeing death, lol, okay, just spend much of the trial talking about how they find dead bodies in recliners and try to preserve value for the family.
I’ve done both prosecution and defense and I would be tempted not to cross Rob and let the jury sit with his ridiculous story. I’m afraid cross will only let Rob give a better version of the story.
Okay, prosecutor is finally bringing in some focus
Guest
Anonymous
August 22, 2024 1:58 pm
Hamner is getting too heated. The jury will like some of it, but he’s doing too much and giving Telles too much leeway. He doesn’t need to overcomplicate this.
Most people aren’t great at cross even experienced defense attorneys
he is getting a little off track and probably should have focused on just getting him to agree with all the evidence that points him to being the murderer.
Guest
Anonymous
August 22, 2024 2:21 pm
Why did someone on the Court TV feed chat reference Rob making a smacking sound every time he speaks?? I can’t unhear it now and it is driving me nuts.
Hamner is coming across like a punk-kid who thinks this is in the bag. The cross was too long. Rob had some good points, but his goose is likely cooked by this point. The female attorney would have been better on cross. Certainly more likeable.
Hamner is much better when he lets the evidence speak for itself instead of asking Telles to connect the dots. He is doing better after the break with the text messages. The dots connect themselves when the evidence is this strong.
Guest
Anonymous
August 22, 2024 2:43 pm
how many of us are now cringing at every “You’d agree with me…”. Makes me want to deny immediately. Mix it up a little, Chris, and now just with “it’s fair to say”.
Guest
Anonymous
August 22, 2024 2:45 pm
Hamner showed all those photos of the Yukon and the killer getting in and out in front of German’s house–why not focus on the height of the killer next to the Yukon. And why not show video of Telles walking in another video compared with killer.
Guest
Anonymous
August 22, 2024 2:51 pm
This line of questions about campaign contributions is a mess, mistake by Hamner.
Guest
Anonymous
August 22, 2024 3:20 pm
Anybody get a screenshot of what was on Telles’ doodle pad when he flipped the page at break?
The dogs were barking as the cars were parking
The loan sharks were sharking, the narcs were narcing
Practically everyone was there
In the parking lot by the forest preserve
The police had found two bodies in the woods
Nay, naked bodies
Their faces had been horribly disfigured by some sharp object
Saw it on the news, the TV news
In a black and white video
You know what blood looks like in a black and white video?
Shadows, shadows
That’s what it looks like
Guest
Anonymous
August 22, 2024 3:50 pm
Not even the Wolfman himself could sit through this boring ineffective cross
Guest
Anonymous
August 22, 2024 4:10 pm
OK the “Where are you” on the Apple Watch is pretty good
Hamner really wanted to say ala Steve Jobs—Oh, and one more thing….
Guest
Anonymous
August 22, 2024 4:57 pm
Telles is finished after the admission that he deleted the “where are text” from Mae. What kind of sentence you all think is coming down? Does he ask jury to sentence him? Or the judge? What’s the move?
It would be nice to hear who the Hooge supporter is on NV Supreme Court. As far as I can tell, he’s blowing deadlines and, basically, doing everything he’s trying to discipline people for. And obviously trying to discipline people for doing things the bar’s website actually endorses. Good luck DUI bar on keeping your billable hours!
Guest
Anonymous
August 22, 2024 8:23 pm
I am surprised no one has discussed Telles’s constant Glamour Shots posing with his knuckles under his chin.
It being a Friday in late summer, just a friendly PSA for all colleagues who plan on doing a little murdering in the morning. (1) Check into the Planet Fitness FIRST. (2) Don’t forget to delete the “where are you?” text messages off ALL your spouses devices. (3) Don’t forget your lucky stabbin’ hat!
Guest
Anonymous
August 23, 2024 10:57 am
Who is the person dark hair typing over Telles shoulder? Is she a judicial clerk, what?
I watched about 10 minutes of the testimony from yesterday and had to stop because I was cringing myself into a stroke. He was framed for murder by…Compass Realty???!!! I’m half dead over here. It would be more productive for Telles to start walking up to High Desert with his ankles shackled rather than continue this grave digging expedition.
I watched every minute. It was fun for a little then just turned boring and disjointed.
LVAC – saying the health department “forced” you to close the pool sounds a little silly. They’re absolutely permitted to have a pool open if they follow the law. (the merits of the law notwithstanding)
The law is stupid. It’s a 3 and a half foot pool. This accident was a one-off tragedy. You don’t need lifeguards. The Southern Nevada Health District is overreacting.
Right on, 10:36! Never let ignorance of the facts dilute your certainty
You guys got it so wrong. The jury is on the edges of their seats. Just a dutiful Public Administrator trying to help the little guy and he gets framed for murder for it by the big, bad Compass Realty! He is NOT GUILTY!
Title should be “Telles Tells Us His Tale.”
Good call. Fixed it!
Should just be “Telles a Tale” for funsies.
He should’ve retained Bob Loblaw.
Remember all the time and money spent chasing what was on German’s computer, phones and devices? Not a single witness has testified about any of that. Not a single exhibit has referenced any of that.
They played the threatening messages, at the very least.
I don’t do 1A stuff and been a while since law school, but almost positive an apartment manager (private party) telling you to take down political signs is legally permissible.
Also, who takes their 9 year old to a political rally. Kinda weird.
yes but they get headlines and self-indignation.
You clearly did not read the article or the statute referenced…
The article referenced an apartment complex. The ACLU dude sent statutes that cover common interest communities (condos and HOAs). They are not the same. Maybe there is a 1A issue here, and maybe the apartment complex is overstepping, but NRS 116 isn’t the way to prove it.
The appropriate statute is NRS 118B.145 Prohibited practices by landlord: Right of tenant to exhibit political signs in certain areas; conditions and limitations on exercise of right.
1. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, a landlord or an agent or employee of a landlord shall not prohibit a tenant from exhibiting a political sign not larger than 24 inches by 36 inches within the boundary of the lot of the tenant. The restriction placed on a landlord or an agent or an employee of a landlord relative to a political sign is applicable only until 7 days after the general or special election for the office or ballot question to which the sign relates.
Its been nearly 30 years since I lived in an apartment but is pretty much Guaranteed they signed an acknowledgment of community rules that says you cant hang anything in your windows whatsoever. Their only hope is that the complex did not enforce the rules against other tenants.
Although it specifically applies to trailer parks, it’s a better argument that the landlord in an apartment complex can’t prohibit signs in a window, an area within the exclusive control of the tenant.
An apartment complex ABSOLUTELY has the right to govern community standards and what can be viewed from the common areas.
118B are not the statutes that you are looking for. Look next door to those statutes.
Why read an article when you can rely on your recollection of your conlaw lectures from 20 years ago? To be certain, even absent the statute there are a lot of other jurisdictions that have held that the right to political signage in a window during an election cycle is behavior which an HOA cannot prohibit.
10:37 here
My friend I read the article.
The statute says “Right of units’ owners”. Owners being the operating word.
Generally, one does not own an apartment rather they lease it.
Notice I used the word “apartment manager” to indicate the OWNER of the property.
Again, the focus of my post was clearly that the OWNER of the property can tell their tenets what they can and can’t display.
GTFOH.
None of that shit is a rational basis for electing a Chief Executive / Commander in Chief. I am embarrassed for you, unless you are a parody . . . then disregard this comment. I am not finna be dragged.
10:43 and 11:47 is cringe
I did not accuse you of that. What I said was that all of your reasons were bullshit. I I am usually very hesitant to speak in absolutes. But, everything you said was horseshit.
As for your “long list” I am waiting . . . . . She cant get out a coherent sentence, let alone lead this country anywhere but into the arms of the elite communists. So call the names. We will see.
Is there a 1A problem with a statute guaranteeing tenants the right to put up political signs? It’s content-based discrimination, though maybe it passes strict scrutiny.
Why? The landlord isn’t being compelled or prohibited from engaging in speech activities of their own; they’re merely being prohibited from prohibiting their tenants from enjoying the full use and enjoyment of the tenant’s premises. The tenant gets the choice, not the landlord.
Wrong.
Oh FFS give it a rest already (not the original poster)
If you think Rob’s narrative testimony is bad for his case, wait until cross examination.
If the jeans don’t fit you must acquit!
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, please observe these tiny jeans, there’s no way any adult man fits in these tiny jeans.
(Cue the “I Got My Tight Pants On” song).
If the jeans do not match, a guilty verdict cannot attach!
two f’in years sitting in custody fantasizing about The Grand Conspiracy and this is what Rob comes up with?
“I was FREEZING in that paper suit!!!” Oh my.
Followed by LITERAL TEARS while looking at photos of how overturned his house was after the police search.
My stuff! My precious stuff!
I was HOWLING during that part!!!
Crying when shown pictures of a messy house when you are on trial for murder is something. “Its a bold strategy Cotton, lets see if it pays off.”
Just a reminder: do NOT allow your client to bring their notes to deposition and certainly not to trial. Just don’t. I know they want a crutch. But stop them.
Appears Hamner is arguing all of the objections for Telles and will be the one crossing him.
Frankly he’s the better of the two at cross.
I disagree to this extent. In a case about a conspiracy and alleged overzealous prosecution (admittedly without any evidence), Pam has been much more measured which in this case would eliminate any chance of coming on too strong in front of the jury.
The first time he cries is when he sees pictures of his house messed up?
The zoom in on Draskovich is chef’s kiss camera work.
This is a picture perfect view of what narcissism looks like. No real thoughts of anyone but him. No real discussion of anyone other than himself. After seeing photos of a man brutally murdered, the greatest sympathy should be for him.
Testimony about your lifts in your shoe out of vanity while trying to elicit sympathy? You cannot be serious.
“I CANT PUT A LIFT IN A NAME BRAND SHOE” I am deceased. Now Telles has committed a second murder.
He’s going to get convicted solely off of that at this point lmao
Solely
Mostly this is just boring, the jury is asleep
We should feel bad for him because he was cold in the paper suit.
This lift in the shoe evidence is a game changer. Well done Telles. You can’t fit a lift in the Nikes, and Telles wouldn’t be caught dead without lifts in his shoes…you must acquit!!
IF THERE AINT NO LIFT, YOU MUST ACQUIT
I am not the kind of person who would stab someone???
Such conviction.
Spoken entirely in the first person without any reference to, consideration of or sympathy for the direct object of the sentence.
Objection.
HAHAHA! The Judge has to let the jurors know to not submit their questions now which means that the jurors have tons of questions for him.
Narration is over, cross examination is up after a recess of approximately 15 minutes. Unless they decide to break for lunch instead.
How boring has the trial become? People are back to arguing politics in the middle of it.
There’s discussion going on, please deal?
Plea deal … damn the auto correct
No way. He’s sunk. No reason to deal.
Is he really 6′ 5 1/2″
AND he wears fucking shoe lifts? EFF it, he’s guilty. Lock him up.
He is 5’6″. He bungles even his own height.
Rob is a short dude. I tower over him and I am 6 foot tall. Napoleon complex with the shoe lifts ???
nothing wrong with shoe lifts, builds confidence for those of us under 6 foot. does not mean that one has a Napoleon complex in and of itself.
Okay Monsieur Bonaparte.
So he is “a little bit nervous.” I get it. Or he is a fkg idiot.
My first question on cross–Are you 6′ 5″ with or without the lifts.
He transposed the numbers. Also a murderer and a lying, unfaithful spouse.
Cautionary published case out of the Supremes this morning. In re Dee Sull. Richard Harris represented Sull along with David Clark over the issue of flat fees. https://nvcourts.gov/supreme/decisions/advance_opinions
Sull took a flat fee and put it in her general account. When the client bailed in the middle of the case, Sull balked at a refund but ultimately granted a partial refund. NSC stated even with a flat fee until the entirety of the fee has been earned, the flat fee has to sit in Trust Account. “Although the rules allow a lawyer to charge a fixed or “flat” rate for legal services, the lawyer must still account for the work performed to demonstrate that the fee has been earned. See RPC 1.5(a)(8) (permitting a lawyer to charge a fixed fee for services)
Then it’s not fixed fee it’s just a lower price all at once where client gets the benefit of the deal. What if lawyer works 100 extra hours. I’ve had cases I won in settlement and did well on FF and lost my ass on FF. It’s usually the ONLY way the very poor can get services in Family Law. Also, this is incongruent with almost every other state and the USSC. No I don’t have citations with me but I did a research memo as a consultant and clearly remember the results. Part of the cabal. I hate Nevada. They have a 100 year history of fucking over the poor.
They think they are doing a favor for the poor by preventing flat fees from being taken as earned but in reality my firm will simply never cap our fees with the flat fee.
I don’t want it to feel this way, but it does. Is this a personal thing against Sull?
It would be prudent for the Bar to tell us this. Nothing in the text of rule 1.15 explains that a flat fee is just an advance – and mostly flat fees are charged because we don’t know what the full scope of the work will entail. Sometimes I only need to do a very little bit of work on a flat fee matter, and sometimes the same type of matter will require more work for the same fee. If the Bar wants us to only pay ourselves the fee after the service is completed, that’s fine (not really fine, but whatever), but they have to tell us this.
Uck. The ABA opinion on which the Court relied was published in 2023. Here the fee was take in 2021. Retroactive punishment?
So let’s walk through this.
If you take a $2000 fee for a will and trust, and the services and fee are paid an performed in the same month, it has to be a trust account.
If you take a fee for consultation on Monday, but the client does not come in until Tuesday, its a violation if the payment has not gone into a trust account.
And, someone else correctly points out that if the case takes longer than expected, the lawyer has to absorb the loss. The flat fee often works to client’s advantage.
So the moral of the story is that you don’t take flat fees. Give an estimate of the cost of services to the client, take an appropriate advance. This decision works against clients and the availability of legal services for known fixed amount.
Maybe I will change professions, become a fireman.
Re: Is the Flat Fee now only a retainer?
As I read the decision the flat fee and the traditional retainer are treated as if they were the same. A retainer has to go into a trust account and it’s worked off on hourly billing.
The idea of a flat fee is one of shared or apportioned risk. The client pays a sum certain at the outset. The attorney assumes the risk that the work will require more effort that is compensated. But it is a contract with terms to which the client agrees.
Now under the decision, you must track your billing. How do you determine what portion of the flat fee is earned? Hypothetical: Attorney is experienced and estimates that the work can be completed in 10 hours. This time, things go really well and the task is completed in 1 hour. Can the client now sue for overcharging? Will Hoogie and the stooges now want to reapportion the risk and seek to discipline the attorney for over charging?
Every flat fee agreement is going to have to have an hourly rate for burning off the “flat fee.” To put it in construction contract terms, flat fees are now “Maximum Not to Exceed” contracts.
Not true. A flat fee is paid for the completion of a task, not the time spent performing the task. By way of example, you pay your electrician an agreed sum to put in a 230v outlet for your EV. You don’t care about how long it takes the electrician to perform the task.
Incorrect because the issue here is segregation of funds. To use your analogy, I pay my electrician and he/she deposits my check, buys the materials and hires the worker. But this decision would mean every electrician is going to have to create their own construction control account and go through the accounting of segregating construction funds and then justifying what they spent subject to losing their license. When my electrician gets out there and that 230v outlet cannot be installed, he gets to send me a change order for unforeseen conditions; the flat fee lawyer does not get to do that.
Electrician to attorney isn’t the same given the RPC’s and what our supremes are saying. Not according to this decision. You charge a flat fee for a service to be rendered (I,e. Representation in a criminal case). That representation isn’t completed until the criminal case is. You charge a flat fee of $3000. That has to go to your trust account. You can withdraw from that amount in the trust account as work is performed or expenses incurred but not beforehand. You can’t just take the $3000 and put it into your operating account and get away saying it’s a flat fee. And if there’s a fee dispute or your fired you better document how much of that fee is actually earned or you run this risk of trouble with OBC. Same DUI example of $3000 flat fee but you’re fired after the arraignment. No way you can justify keeping the $3000.
“Same DUI example of $3000 flat fee but you’re fired after the arraignment. No way you can justify keeping the $3000.”
Sure but under this decision you cannot justify taking ANYTHING out of your Trust Account for fear that you say 50% of the work is completed and the client (and their new lawyer who wants to shake as much of that $3000 free as possible for themselves) says that it was only 20% complete and thus you only earned $600. If take more out of your Trust Account than fee dispute determines you were entitled to, you just violated the RPCs.
6:25 here. Fair point. Even if tracking time are you able to document sufficiently that 50% of case has been completed in the event of a dispute or termination.
And who determines that arraignment or preliminary hearing or NRCP 16.1 Conference or the Discovery Cutoff represents 40% or 60% completion of the work?
OBC, of course. With their vast civil experience.
This is not entirely wrong. The new standard is that your fee is earned when OBC says that your fee is earned.
That’s called a retainer.
The problem is the analogy of the installment of a 230v outlet is a one time thing (minus any RPC’s for an electrician) versus say a flat fee for a criminal case. The above posters are talking about a situation involving a flat fee for a case. Let’s use a DUI criminal case for example. Say you charge $3000.00 for representation in a DUI case. Based off this ruling the flat fee isn’t fully earned until the representation in the DUI case is completed (plea or trial). That can take months with how many pre trials or status checks in between. So now you better have benchmarks in your fee agreement to substantiate how much of said flat fee is earned at what point of the case. (I.e. $500.00 for arraignment, $500 for pre trial etc.). Worse still is if you are fired or terminated (or any sort of fee dispute) you better have an hourly rate for work actually done in your flat fee agreement and tracked. So in the $3000 example above if your hourly rate is $300 and you’ve only done $600 of work to date (i.e. two hours of work) you better refund that client $2,400 or else the bar comes a knocking.
Furthermore is that the Court implies that it is a percentage of work done. So using the analogy of $3000.00 flat fee for representation in a DUI case. The client is a nattering nabob of negativity and emails and calls 40 times before the preliminary hearing and takes up 10 hours of your time. You cover the prelim and then are fired immediately afterwards. Your client demands their money back (or at least the percentage to which they believe they are entitled).
-Is the fee 100% earned based on 10 hours at $300 an hour?
-Is that fee 50% earned because you believe that the case is half over even though the client believes that there is far more work ahead?
-Who says what percentage of an ongoing case has been fulfilled at what point in time?
Are you therefore not allowed to take ANY money out of your IOLTA Account until the case is over (and even then only with your client agreeing to what percentage of the fee is owed)?
6:26 here. Exactly my concerns as well. I will have to have billing statement tracking time just as I would a regular retainer and hourly rate case. No other way around it. And it may still be an issue in a fee dispute. I can see it now. “It is not fair you billed this client for each call despite him calling you 50 times before prelim and taking up 20 minutes of your time each call.”
Hopefully he puts in a 240v outlet.
It’s worse than that. Apparently you’re not entitled to take any of the flat fee until the entire representation is concluded.
Just saying … ironic
https://nvbar.org/wp-content/uploads/Sample%20Miscellaneous%20Fee%20Agreement%20Provisions.pdf
Earned on receipt is dead. True retainer is dead. Distribution from your Client Trust Account without express client permission appears to be dead. The Partners in my firm had a meeting and discussed this decision and here is what we decided: (1) 100% non-depleting fee advances. We are taking fee advances and holding them as security deposits for cases and making clients pay monthly. Your fee advance will sit in our IOLTA Account until the end of the case unless we have to withdraw in which case we will ask the Court on lien for permission to draw it. (2) No flat fees except work that is performed immediately (demand letter, will, trust, etc.)
I read through the opinion, and to me, it looks like the adjustment on the practitioner end is simple. Write reasonable milestones into the retainer agreement, provide notice to the client when those milestones are met, and take the money agreed upon with each milestone. What am I missing?
And no I am not OBC.
The problem is not necessarily the concept that flat fees get initially deposited into IOLTA (although true retainer is dead). The problem is who gets to determine the reasonableness of milestones. The Opinion implies that if you get it wrong or the Client has not approved that you have met the milestones then you are subject to discipline.
The more interesting thing is that while the Client was ringing Sull up with the SBN, the client remained a client who continued to use Sull.
Frankly, I’m surprised this is what they got Sull on. The dates on this reprimand are interesting too. I believe she was under contract with the dental board and had agreed that she would no longer be practicing.
Okay so imagine you are Draskovich. On the break, Telles inevitably asks about his performance. What do you do? Do you go full tilt I-told-you-so mode and tell him it was a dumpster fire and Hamner is about to give the death blow? Do you lie and say he did GREAT? Do you try to stay more neutral and say it wasn’t great but we’ll focus on other evidence and try to hype him up for the cross?
Constructive but honest assessment. You did awful. You came across as a narcissist and turned the jury off. But lets get ready for cross and hopefully prep in the next 45 minutes to see if we can get Hamner to look like a bully. Can’t get worse than it is right now Rob.
I would spend the lunch hour coaching him how to handle cross. Whether he can accept the advice is another matter
Missed morning testimony, did Telles ever come up with an excuse or theory about his DNA at the scene of the murder?
Didn’t mention it at all
He said he was framed and doesn’t accept it was even there, let alone how it got there
So Hamner just confirmed, outside the presence of the jury in an evidentiary dispute, that there WERE messages confirming a romantic relationship between Telles and Lee-Kennett.
Telles wife is there.
On what side of the gallery is she sitting? Behind the defense table I assume? What is she wearing? I was looking for her but didn’t see her.
There is a non zero chance Telles feigns a medical emergency this afternoon.
Time for cross. breaking out the popcorn!
How often do you get the chance to chew someone up like this on cross-examination?
Every time a defendant testifies
A public administrator not used to seeing death, lol, okay, just spend much of the trial talking about how they find dead bodies in recliners and try to preserve value for the family.
Prosecutor walked head first into “yes a killer trying to frame someone would try to attract attention.” First good thing Rob has done so far
I’ve done both prosecution and defense and I would be tempted not to cross Rob and let the jury sit with his ridiculous story. I’m afraid cross will only let Rob give a better version of the story.
Big D needs to drop a speculation objection instead of letting Rob keep answering
OMG Rob just had an OJ Simpson “If I Did It” moment
Except OJ was smart enough to wait until decades later….
Its definitely not an OJ moment.
Its several Shaggy moments.
“Wadn’t me.”
It’s going to be hard to best this comment today.
Prosecutor is giving Rob far too many openings to argue
Completely agree. This is the problem with cross’s like this. It turns into an argument. Stick to the facts and stop thinking he is going to admit.
Far too much fluster and bluster and I understand he’s acting exasperated but he’s also taking focus off the facts.
This is why Pam would have been much better at this. More calm. More focused. The righteous indignation and pacing is distracting from the facts.
Okay, prosecutor is finally bringing in some focus
Hamner is getting too heated. The jury will like some of it, but he’s doing too much and giving Telles too much leeway. He doesn’t need to overcomplicate this.
Juries don’t like witnesses getting beat on. When the facts are so heavily on your side, don’t distract by engaging with the lies so strenuously.
Agree. Also, why is Telles’ attorney not objecting? The last 5 minutes have all been questions that call for speculation.
Hamner is becoming annoying also. It went from Rob being the only unlikeable whiny one to both of them being whiny.
Prosecutor: “Oh, so did you give your shoes to compass realty?”
Telles: “That would be weird.”
Prosecutor: “Yeah. It would.”
We just witnessed a second murder in this case.
this is why the female DA should’ve done cross. More methodical, surgical, and well-tempered.
Hamner is lucky Telles isn’t that bright, with all the rhetorical openings he’s living for him.
It’s easy cross, actually. Telles makes ZERO allowance or admission that any fact presented (no matter how broad) is true.
Prosecutors aren’t great at cross because they spend their entire careers asking friendly witnesses “what happened next?”
Hamner seems to think that he is going to get a “Code Red” moment. Not going to happen.
No, he doesn’t think that. He’s boxing Rob into contorted ridiculous positions, and he’s doing a great job.
I also agree with this and disagree with the comments above. I think Hamner is doing a fantastic job of making Telles look fantastical in his theories
It is not that Telles is not looking ridiculous. It is that Hamner has the wrong tone in front of the jury.
Most people aren’t great at cross even experienced defense attorneys
he is getting a little off track and probably should have focused on just getting him to agree with all the evidence that points him to being the murderer.
Why did someone on the Court TV feed chat reference Rob making a smacking sound every time he speaks?? I can’t unhear it now and it is driving me nuts.
Why did you just do that to us?!
I noticed it hours ago.
[smack]
Telles is a liar and a murderer but Hamner is too aggressive, is being a dick.
Hamner is coming across like a punk-kid who thinks this is in the bag. The cross was too long. Rob had some good points, but his goose is likely cooked by this point. The female attorney would have been better on cross. Certainly more likeable.
I am willing to bet 95% of the people commenting about the cross have never tried a case to a jury.
And how about the other 3% who haven’t either.
Telles is nuts
hilarious that Wolfson can’t be bothered to wear a tie to court.
I’ve never been in court without a tie. Maybe vegas is different
I have been without a tie in the gallery. He is in the gallery, not at counsel table
Was this much cross necessary? Seems like Telles had already cooked his goose. Now, it’s Hamner that is holding the jury hostage
I concur. This could and should have been much more calmly surgical.
Really? too much cross? Have you ever had a difficult, lying witness? You need to stack the lies, b/c one juror gets him off.
Yes really. Redundant. Argumentative. Too open-ended.
Hamner is much better when he lets the evidence speak for itself instead of asking Telles to connect the dots. He is doing better after the break with the text messages. The dots connect themselves when the evidence is this strong.
how many of us are now cringing at every “You’d agree with me…”. Makes me want to deny immediately. Mix it up a little, Chris, and now just with “it’s fair to say”.
Hamner showed all those photos of the Yukon and the killer getting in and out in front of German’s house–why not focus on the height of the killer next to the Yukon. And why not show video of Telles walking in another video compared with killer.
This line of questions about campaign contributions is a mess, mistake by Hamner.
Anybody get a screenshot of what was on Telles’ doodle pad when he flipped the page at break?
Blood stains
The dogs were barking as the cars were parking
The loan sharks were sharking, the narcs were narcing
Practically everyone was there
In the parking lot by the forest preserve
The police had found two bodies in the woods
Nay, naked bodies
Their faces had been horribly disfigured by some sharp object
Saw it on the news, the TV news
In a black and white video
You know what blood looks like in a black and white video?
Shadows, shadows
That’s what it looks like
Not even the Wolfman himself could sit through this boring ineffective cross
OK the “Where are you” on the Apple Watch is pretty good
Great ending. Was it just me or did Telles look surprised by that? Would that not have been turned over in discovery?
Hamner really wanted to say ala Steve Jobs—Oh, and one more thing….
Telles is finished after the admission that he deleted the “where are text” from Mae. What kind of sentence you all think is coming down? Does he ask jury to sentence him? Or the judge? What’s the move?
Life without. Had he not testified he could have played the remorseful card at sentencing. His performance has destroyed that possibility.
I saw Telles speaking with the prosecutor asking for a plea deal after jury left at end of day. Can he cut a deal still?
Someone said the other day that Telles is going to ride this bomb all of the way into the ground. That is a fait d’accompli at this point.
100% he’s getting life without.
It would be nice to hear who the Hooge supporter is on NV Supreme Court. As far as I can tell, he’s blowing deadlines and, basically, doing everything he’s trying to discipline people for. And obviously trying to discipline people for doing things the bar’s website actually endorses. Good luck DUI bar on keeping your billable hours!
I am surprised no one has discussed Telles’s constant Glamour Shots posing with his knuckles under his chin.
Looks like nervous fidgeting
Court TV had an apparent body language/lie detection expert who analyzed Telles’ body language on the stand. She zeroed in on him touching his face.
No expert needed on this one. Haha.
It being a Friday in late summer, just a friendly PSA for all colleagues who plan on doing a little murdering in the morning. (1) Check into the Planet Fitness FIRST. (2) Don’t forget to delete the “where are you?” text messages off ALL your spouses devices. (3) Don’t forget your lucky stabbin’ hat!
Who is the person dark hair typing over Telles shoulder? Is she a judicial clerk, what?
Law clerk
Judicial law clerk, most likely.