- Quickdraw McLaw
- 33 Comments
- 923 Views
- Judge Miranda Du denied an emergency injunction to block lithium mine at Thacker Pass. [ABC News]
- Nevada joins lawsuit against FDA abortion pill restrictions. [Nevada Current]
- The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a case on the constitutionality of funding the CFPB. [SCOTUSblog]
- What else is going on this week?
The family law convention is in Tahoe later this week. There is a winter storm warning until Wednesday. When will the State Bar realize it probably is not best to have a major convention when it is still winter out whether it is in Tahoe, Ely, or somewhere in California for the family law convention.
The family law section makes the decisions.
Same question though. If it is the family law section that makes the decision when the section convention is, then it would be imperative to see better times of the year for the safety of all attendees. Moreover, traffic will be a nightmare on the 95 as it is also Nascar week too. Good grief. If they want this convention in Nevada, do it during the summer so we can spend some time with our families in Tahoe with no threat of the white flakey stuff.
The Family Law Section tries not to have their annual meeting during a time which competes with the State Bar's Annual Meeting. The Family Law Section meeting is bigger and attracts more attendees than the Annual Meeting. Will they also offer a remote participation? Have not heard.
No skiers in the Family Law section?
All the skiers lost their gear in their divorces.
"The Family Law Section meeting is bigger and attracts more attendees"
Because it is held in NEVADA, not NYC.
No online or virtual option for the family law convention.
1:33 — Amen.
1:33. Good guess, but wrong. The fact that the Family Law section usually meets in Nevada Bishop, California is not the reason at all. First, bar conventions held outside Nevada, and Hawaii in particular, are the best-attended state bar conventions. Second, the Family Law section meeting has two things going for it that keeps attendance high. The CLE is focused on the family law practitioners. And you can socialize with the judges in front of whom you will always find yourself. And you can socialize with them in an isolated setting where everyone is together. You cannot replicate those conditions with a general-interest convention of attorneys. Maybe the ethics hour, or the substance abuse hour, has sufficient general appeal. But even seminars on rule changes will be of zero interest to either the criminal or civil bar.
@2:28
I understand you comment. But putting the NEVADA annual meeting OUTISDE of our state every year is goldbricking by the BOG at the member's expense.
On the FDA abortion pill article, how does requiring a patient to sign a form lead to potential violence? It's one thing to not place unnecessary burdens but I'm not seeing the connection there.
As someone who has defended physicians in malpractice actions, NOT having a form and NOT having the patient signing the form will lead to a patient later claiming in a law suit that the patient did not know or consent to the drug induced abortion.
Good point. Another fabulous (joking) job by our NV AG.
You don't have to sign a special form to get viagra or antibiotics or medicated eye drops. Why should women have to sign special forms to get health care? And 11:28, you're missing the point. The issue with the form is not that it is between the doctor and patient. The issue is that it is another form that has to be signed, in a retail environment, between the patient and some random person working in a pharmacy. A person should not have to identify themselves or their health issue beyond normal prescription pick-up procedures. There have been instances of pharmacy workers refusing to give women prescriptions based on their alleged religious beliefs. Making a woman sign a form clearly identifies her and her health issues to the people in the store and anyone in the pharmacy area. It does expose women to threats and potential violence.
That's a total stretch of the imagination.
I am surprised that no one mentioned the Nevada Bar Exam took place last week, which was done under a new format: Six one-hour essays (1st day), the MBE (2nd day), and two 2-hour NPT's (3rd day). They ditched the MPT and are now using a Nevada Performance Test.
This exam more closely resembles California's old format when they had two 3-hour PT's unique to the state.
I hope Nevada holds out against efforts to eliminate barriers to entry that deal with competence. Law schools have already abandoned that responsibility. State bars need to be more vigilant.
I took the Nevada Bar Exam in 2021 and we had two performance tests specific to Nevada. For the record, the questions were absolute garbage compared to the multistate performance test questions I had prepped with (I passed so this isn't sour grapes about failing).
That format is nearly, if not, identical to the July 2021 Bar. They keep messing with the MBE between administrations, testing it only sometimes since covid. July 2021 did test the MBE, whereas July 2022 did not test the MBE.
Why would Nevada not test the MBE? What a boneheaded decision! That was the worst part of the bar exam for me.
@4:37
The reason is keep the Boyd admission rate high. By eliminating the difficult questions, you make it easier to pass, while superficially keeping the statistical modeling used for scoring the cut point.
@9:11 — I don't agree with removal of the MBE, but I don't see how this helps the Boyd grad pass rate or makes the exam easier to pass? As we have seen, the bar exam is essentially graded on a curve — if everyone scores better, the "cut off" raw score is just moved up and approx. the same percentage of testers pass. So even "eliminating the difficult questions" would not help or hurt an applicant, other than it would increase the total raw score needed to fall within the "pass range". As anecdotal evidence of this, I believe when there was no MBE (twice, I think?) the pass rate was the same or within 2-3 percentage points of the MBE-inclusive bar exams…
The MBE was, by far, the easiest part of the exam for me. Just my opinion.
Filed a Complaint in LV Justice Court on Saturday 2/18. Just came back on 2/27. 9 days from submitting a Complaint for the Clerk of the Court to return it filed. In the 90s, you could walk into the Clerk's Office, hand your Complaint to the Clerk with the filing fee, they would stamp it and hand it back. 5-7 minutes tops. How is this progress?
Depends on your point of view. I am sure that the clerks think its just peachy.
Customer service is a private sector concept. In the public sector it's all about hosing the public every which way, and then cashing out with sweet sweet sweet PERS.
As a gubment attorney, I can confirm the sweet sweet PERS is why we do it. I can also tell you that every single government legal office I know is understaffed and their clients are even more understaffed. Low tax state = low customer service.
Sorry. This is horseshit.
I remember a time, not that long ago, when the DMV, Court Clerks and County Recorders office were "in and out" propositions.
These offices are not understaffed, they are under-giveashit. Tax dollars DO NOT equal competence and service.
in and out propositions?
At certain establishments in certain rural counties only.
3:07,
2 out of the 3 offices mentioned offer electronic filing/recording. I can transfer property in my underwear. I wouldn't go back the days of sending a runner if you paid me.
307 here
For the most part, I agree I am set up for electronic Recording with the Clark County Recorder (and Nationwide) as well. Of course, I NEVER have hiccups with that.
AND, except that the point of the OP was that LVJCT taking 9 days to "e-file" a Complaint.
My comment was relative to the "Understaffed" opinion of 303pm and the proposition that because we are a "low tax state" we deserve "low customer service". Which opinion, I maintain, is horseshit.