Congrats to David S. Gibson, Jr. who as appointed by Governor Sandoval to the vacant seat on the Family Court bench. [News3LV]
A California man, represented by Adam Breeden, was awarded $524K by a jury in a suit against Mandalay Bay (who had offered to settle for $2.5 million prior to trial). [RJ]
A Henderson woman was sentenced to up to 15 years in prison for selling prescription drugs mixed with fentanyl. [Las Vegas Sun]
Happy Thanksgiving everyone! We are grateful that you read the blog. We are grateful that each of you cares about yourself and others. It’s been a tough week and the holidays always add a little stress, but we hope you are able to enjoy the long weekend!
Thanks for posting about the bar exam results. Passed the California bar when the results were even lower than that. That being said, law grads even from the ABA schools are unprepared for the bar exam. Law school is relatively easy even at the ABA schools and students don't take harder classes needed for the bar exam. Many students can't write. Students don't have a understanding of basic legal concepts in courses like property, for example or evidence. Hence this is part of the reason for a lower pass rate. The bar examiners are now way ahead of the prep courses. What is ironic is that the UBE which is being pushed in Nevada has seen a decline in the pass rate in states that adopted it like New York. I feel bad for the law grads that didn't make it. Now they have to put their nose to the grindstone and study hard to pass the next time.
Do you really believe there is that dramatic a decrease in the legal competence and training, and general intelligence and writing ability, of the law school grads. in recent years?
Could it be something less dramatic, such as certain states(like our own and Cal.) simply wish to control the influx and pass fewer applicants than 10 or 20 years ago?
Guest
Anonymous
November 21, 2018 6:33 pm
That's a big disappointment for his injured client, unless of course it was the client that was the one that rejected the settlement offer against the wishes of the attorney. If the attorney said to go for it……….
We all know that clients expect the moon. Past and future specials of over a million. Lost income of over a $1MM. Clients have the urban legend that pain and suffering is 3x, so they think:
$1MM Medical
$1MM Lost Income
$6MM Pain and Suffering (for getting hit by a sign mind you)
Well then this is an $8MM case. It is not. It never was. Clients fail to appreciate how squishy these numbers are and that juries may not believe getting hit by a sign is a big deal (plus the chance of MB not being negligent because sometimes on windy days signs blow)
Another problem is that it is not just clients. There are still some attorneys who argue the "three times specials" supposed formula.
This is particularly true of older attorneys, who have some distant experience with P.I., but really haven't practiced it for years, but then a decent P.I. case falls into their lap.
Guest
Anonymous
November 21, 2018 7:40 pm
In the lawsuit against Mandalay Bay, per the Joint Pre Trial Memorandum, Plaintiff's asserted special damages were:
Past Medical Specials: $208,112.86
Future Medical Specials: $903,671.00
Lost Income: $1,017,525.00
Lost Household Services: $52,845.00
Plus general damages for pain and suffering and litigation costs.
He should have been happy with the $2.5 million settlement.
Obviously the jury valued the case based on past meds only. Future meds can tough, as is wage loss in that amount. But it sort of depends on the injury. Someone could have a pretty catastrophic injury, such as the loss of a limb or something like that, and yet have relatively low past medical bills. In that circumstance $2.5m might be low.
Guest
Anonymous
November 21, 2018 8:30 pm
Congratulations to Darrin Imlay the new Public Defender.
And by "congrats" you mean: May God have mercy on his soul.
Guest
Anonymous
November 22, 2018 5:16 pm
I miss Susan Scann and John Momot.
Guest
Anonymous
November 26, 2018 12:44 am
The really sad story is that there are a significant number of law school grads who never pass the bar exam, but who still have to repay their law school loans. Talk about a bad situation.
Debtors should be allowed to discharge student loan debt in bankruptcy. This would force lenders, including the federal government, to have some skin in the game. It would force lenders to be a little more judicious and responsible about whom and what programs they lend money to/for.
Except it would destroy the policy narrative that everyone should be able to go to as much schooling in as many different fields as they want, no matter the economic value or practicality because perish the thought that some people are not college material. So we make loans freely available to anyone for any reason.
I disagree. I think the current policy that student loans are not dischargeable is the correct one. Taking out a loan to go to school, especially law school or other post-undergrad, is a business decision. You must weigh the risk and reward, and if you can't get your shit together enough to even pass the bar exam, you have only your own poor judgment to blame.
I have slightly more sympathy for undergrads who are younger, more immature, and less experienced with money, and perhaps whose parents are not financially savvy.
But still, if student loans were dischargeable, I think you'd see a lot less loans available (because presumably they'd no longer be a cash cow for private lenders), and a lot higher rates, making things even harder. But then, you might seen less tuition inflation as well. Although my understanding is that tuition inflation has as much or more to do with the massive cuts to state subsidies, especially during the recession.
Perhaps the solution should be some form of a compromise. something along the lines of partial dischargability with a modified Chapter 13 type vehicle.
The payment plan requires payment of 20-25% of AGI towards the loan for a period of 7-10 years. Any balance thereafter remaining, assuming the borrower fully complied, is discharged.
Such a solution prevents the borrower from gaming the system as they have serious consequences for a significant period of time. The lender/investors also have risks related to bad investment decisions and thus have skin in the game.
I think that something like that could be workable, especially perhaps for undergrads. That's not all that dissimilar to the public service loan forgiveness thing.
As for "bad investment decisions," I don't know that we want to encourage lenders to risk-assess applicants for student loans the same way you would for, say, a small business loan. One of the benefits of non-dischargeability, and thus shifting the risk to the borrower, is that loans are available to just about everyone.
I don't think I'd like to see a system where only kids with rich, college-educated parents, and/or super high grades, or over-achieving extracurricular activities are the only ones who can get loans at decent rates, or perhaps at all. They're the ones who probably need it the least.
It's the kid from a poor, uneducated family who has just average grades and little or no extracurricular activities (perhaps because there's little opportunity in his/her area) who needs a reasonable loan the most. But that kid is going to look like a much higher "risk" on paper.
Maybe I'm missing the big picture, but it seems to me that the only "skin" a lender would ever have in the game is simply money. They are never going to do anything to help a struggling kid succeed. If they're losing money, they simply refuse to lend to anyone except the "best" kids.
I do, however, see the problem of taxpayers perhaps being on the hook for a "bailout" of the government lenders for "bad loans" when students default at high rates. But I'm not sure screening applicants for risk is the best answer.
I think we are on the cusp of a revolution in education. I'd bet dollars to donuts that within the next decade, private institutions with laser-focus on specific industry skills are going to be neck-and-neck, if not surpassing universities, in terms of enrollment and acceptability to employers. We're already seeing it in the technology sector.
I expect the non-tech equivalent of "coding bootcamps" are going to become the norm in most industries soon.
8:17 here. 10:43, that is a very reasonable solution. I share 2:43's concerns about maintaining accessibility. We certainly want loans to serve the egalitarian/meritocratic purpose of providing access and upward mobility to all students regardless of their background.
That said, the institutions who take this money are very sophisticated. They know that many of their programs and degrees have little to no economic value. In fact, what these institutions do is quite immoral. They knowingly induce young, inexperienced and often naive students to take out huge loans to purchase a degree or series of courses whose tuition cannot be justified by their economic value. When a student defaults on a loan, in addition to what 10:43 suggests, the institution should be on the hook for a portion of the default. When a threshold percentage of graduates in a program default, that program should be cut off from federal loans. These institutions have a responsibility to be honest with prospective students about the value of their programs. Right now, they are completely shirking that responsibility.
10:43 here again. I agree that the schools should also have skin in the game and also share some of the risk along with the borrowers and the lenders, and perhaps even to some degree the taxpayers.
I guess because of the competing agendas and policy goals is partially a reason that this problem is unsolved. It is also a problem with multiple causes. Is it limited to defaults only or also includes low income resulting from overextending debt to pursue education in traditionally low paying fields (social work, philosophy, anthropology, art, culinary, etc.). Is the problem that the schools are misrepresenting the employment prospects and average income (IT&T, etc.)?
While I would like to see the door of education opened for all students, including those less privileged by economic, social or intellectual factors, I do think it is not only appropriate but responsible for lenders to factor into their formulas the probability of repayment prior to granting a loan. Granting $200K in nondischargable loans to pursue a career that average pay is $30K per year is irresponsible and in my opinion an unfair lending practice. It may be a different tactic but in reality not much different in effect than the payday loan abuses of old.
I suppose if the pre-borrowing disclosures regarding graduation rates, employment prospects and income levels are inaccurate, then the school should be absorbing a large share of the loss under a fraud type analysis as their inaccurate information prevented the student and lender from correctly conducting a cost-benefit analysis.
If the school's pre-borrowing disclosures were accurate, they shouldn't carry a portion of the risk as the student obtained what the school promised to provide. Either the student and/or the lender miscalculated or incorrectly valued the program cost-benefit analysis. This is along the lines of the proposal I was considering in my earlier post. If the student complies with the terms of the proposed work out, then the lender eats the discharged balance (not the taxpayers as guarantors of the loan) as the cause of the problem was the lender allowing the student to borrow more than was reasonable in light of the proposed educational purpose.
If the school disclosures were accurate and the student fails to comply with the terms of the plan, then the debt remains fully nondischargable with no loss to the school or the lender. I suppose a student failing to complete the education prior to obtaining the degree would also fall into this category.
An additional category to be resolved would be that of the student that obtains the degree but fails to pass a licensing requirement that is a condition precedent to obtaining employment in the field. The easier issues would have to be resolved before attacking this category but my initial feeling is to approach it along the same fault based allocation of loss.
How about the California bar pass rate at only 40.7%? http://www.calbar.ca.gov/About-Us/News-Events/News-Releases/state-bar-releases-july-2018-bar-exam-results
Thanks for posting about the bar exam results. Passed the California bar when the results were even lower than that. That being said, law grads even from the ABA schools are unprepared for the bar exam. Law school is relatively easy even at the ABA schools and students don't take harder classes needed for the bar exam. Many students can't write. Students don't have a understanding of basic legal concepts in courses like property, for example or evidence. Hence this is part of the reason for a lower pass rate. The bar examiners are now way ahead of the prep courses. What is ironic is that the UBE which is being pushed in Nevada has seen a decline in the pass rate in states that adopted it like New York. I feel bad for the law grads that didn't make it. Now they have to put their nose to the grindstone and study hard to pass the next time.
Do you really believe there is that dramatic a decrease in the legal competence and training, and general intelligence and writing ability, of the law school grads. in recent years?
Could it be something less dramatic, such as certain states(like our own and Cal.) simply wish to control the influx and pass fewer applicants than 10 or 20 years ago?
That's a big disappointment for his injured client, unless of course it was the client that was the one that rejected the settlement offer against the wishes of the attorney. If the attorney said to go for it……….
We all know that clients expect the moon. Past and future specials of over a million. Lost income of over a $1MM. Clients have the urban legend that pain and suffering is 3x, so they think:
$1MM Medical
$1MM Lost Income
$6MM Pain and Suffering (for getting hit by a sign mind you)
Well then this is an $8MM case. It is not. It never was. Clients fail to appreciate how squishy these numbers are and that juries may not believe getting hit by a sign is a big deal (plus the chance of MB not being negligent because sometimes on windy days signs blow)
Another problem is that it is not just clients. There are still some attorneys who argue the "three times specials" supposed formula.
This is particularly true of older attorneys, who have some distant experience with P.I., but really haven't practiced it for years, but then a decent P.I. case falls into their lap.
In the lawsuit against Mandalay Bay, per the Joint Pre Trial Memorandum, Plaintiff's asserted special damages were:
Past Medical Specials: $208,112.86
Future Medical Specials: $903,671.00
Lost Income: $1,017,525.00
Lost Household Services: $52,845.00
Plus general damages for pain and suffering and litigation costs.
He should have been happy with the $2.5 million settlement.
Obviously the jury valued the case based on past meds only. Future meds can tough, as is wage loss in that amount. But it sort of depends on the injury. Someone could have a pretty catastrophic injury, such as the loss of a limb or something like that, and yet have relatively low past medical bills. In that circumstance $2.5m might be low.
Congratulations to Darrin Imlay the new Public Defender.
And by "congrats" you mean: May God have mercy on his soul.
I miss Susan Scann and John Momot.
The really sad story is that there are a significant number of law school grads who never pass the bar exam, but who still have to repay their law school loans. Talk about a bad situation.
Debtors should be allowed to discharge student loan debt in bankruptcy. This would force lenders, including the federal government, to have some skin in the game. It would force lenders to be a little more judicious and responsible about whom and what programs they lend money to/for.
Except it would destroy the policy narrative that everyone should be able to go to as much schooling in as many different fields as they want, no matter the economic value or practicality because perish the thought that some people are not college material. So we make loans freely available to anyone for any reason.
I disagree. I think the current policy that student loans are not dischargeable is the correct one. Taking out a loan to go to school, especially law school or other post-undergrad, is a business decision. You must weigh the risk and reward, and if you can't get your shit together enough to even pass the bar exam, you have only your own poor judgment to blame.
I have slightly more sympathy for undergrads who are younger, more immature, and less experienced with money, and perhaps whose parents are not financially savvy.
But still, if student loans were dischargeable, I think you'd see a lot less loans available (because presumably they'd no longer be a cash cow for private lenders), and a lot higher rates, making things even harder. But then, you might seen less tuition inflation as well. Although my understanding is that tuition inflation has as much or more to do with the massive cuts to state subsidies, especially during the recession.
Perhaps the solution should be some form of a compromise. something along the lines of partial dischargability with a modified Chapter 13 type vehicle.
The payment plan requires payment of 20-25% of AGI towards the loan for a period of 7-10 years. Any balance thereafter remaining, assuming the borrower fully complied, is discharged.
Such a solution prevents the borrower from gaming the system as they have serious consequences for a significant period of time. The lender/investors also have risks related to bad investment decisions and thus have skin in the game.
I think that something like that could be workable, especially perhaps for undergrads. That's not all that dissimilar to the public service loan forgiveness thing.
As for "bad investment decisions," I don't know that we want to encourage lenders to risk-assess applicants for student loans the same way you would for, say, a small business loan. One of the benefits of non-dischargeability, and thus shifting the risk to the borrower, is that loans are available to just about everyone.
I don't think I'd like to see a system where only kids with rich, college-educated parents, and/or super high grades, or over-achieving extracurricular activities are the only ones who can get loans at decent rates, or perhaps at all. They're the ones who probably need it the least.
It's the kid from a poor, uneducated family who has just average grades and little or no extracurricular activities (perhaps because there's little opportunity in his/her area) who needs a reasonable loan the most. But that kid is going to look like a much higher "risk" on paper.
Maybe I'm missing the big picture, but it seems to me that the only "skin" a lender would ever have in the game is simply money. They are never going to do anything to help a struggling kid succeed. If they're losing money, they simply refuse to lend to anyone except the "best" kids.
I do, however, see the problem of taxpayers perhaps being on the hook for a "bailout" of the government lenders for "bad loans" when students default at high rates. But I'm not sure screening applicants for risk is the best answer.
I think we are on the cusp of a revolution in education. I'd bet dollars to donuts that within the next decade, private institutions with laser-focus on specific industry skills are going to be neck-and-neck, if not surpassing universities, in terms of enrollment and acceptability to employers. We're already seeing it in the technology sector.
I expect the non-tech equivalent of "coding bootcamps" are going to become the norm in most industries soon.
8:17 here. 10:43, that is a very reasonable solution. I share 2:43's concerns about maintaining accessibility. We certainly want loans to serve the egalitarian/meritocratic purpose of providing access and upward mobility to all students regardless of their background.
That said, the institutions who take this money are very sophisticated. They know that many of their programs and degrees have little to no economic value. In fact, what these institutions do is quite immoral. They knowingly induce young, inexperienced and often naive students to take out huge loans to purchase a degree or series of courses whose tuition cannot be justified by their economic value. When a student defaults on a loan, in addition to what 10:43 suggests, the institution should be on the hook for a portion of the default. When a threshold percentage of graduates in a program default, that program should be cut off from federal loans. These institutions have a responsibility to be honest with prospective students about the value of their programs. Right now, they are completely shirking that responsibility.
10:43 here again. I agree that the schools should also have skin in the game and also share some of the risk along with the borrowers and the lenders, and perhaps even to some degree the taxpayers.
I guess because of the competing agendas and policy goals is partially a reason that this problem is unsolved. It is also a problem with multiple causes. Is it limited to defaults only or also includes low income resulting from overextending debt to pursue education in traditionally low paying fields (social work, philosophy, anthropology, art, culinary, etc.). Is the problem that the schools are misrepresenting the employment prospects and average income (IT&T, etc.)?
While I would like to see the door of education opened for all students, including those less privileged by economic, social or intellectual factors, I do think it is not only appropriate but responsible for lenders to factor into their formulas the probability of repayment prior to granting a loan. Granting $200K in nondischargable loans to pursue a career that average pay is $30K per year is irresponsible and in my opinion an unfair lending practice. It may be a different tactic but in reality not much different in effect than the payday loan abuses of old.
I suppose if the pre-borrowing disclosures regarding graduation rates, employment prospects and income levels are inaccurate, then the school should be absorbing a large share of the loss under a fraud type analysis as their inaccurate information prevented the student and lender from correctly conducting a cost-benefit analysis.
If the school's pre-borrowing disclosures were accurate, they shouldn't carry a portion of the risk as the student obtained what the school promised to provide. Either the student and/or the lender miscalculated or incorrectly valued the program cost-benefit analysis. This is along the lines of the proposal I was considering in my earlier post. If the student complies with the terms of the proposed work out, then the lender eats the discharged balance (not the taxpayers as guarantors of the loan) as the cause of the problem was the lender allowing the student to borrow more than was reasonable in light of the proposed educational purpose.
If the school disclosures were accurate and the student fails to comply with the terms of the plan, then the debt remains fully nondischargable with no loss to the school or the lender. I suppose a student failing to complete the education prior to obtaining the degree would also fall into this category.
An additional category to be resolved would be that of the student that obtains the degree but fails to pass a licensing requirement that is a condition precedent to obtaining employment in the field. The easier issues would have to be resolved before attacking this category but my initial feeling is to approach it along the same fault based allocation of loss.
Brevity.