Will or should the Sitton opinion affect Judge Doug Smith’s ability to serve as a senior judge? Chief Judge Linda Bell declined to comment. What do you think? [RJ]
Robert Eglet says the state is hiring him on the opioid case because “I’m the best to pursue this case.” Not because of croneyism involving AG Aaron Ford. Do you agree with his statement? [Las Vegas Sun]
The month long voting period for the Board of Governors elections starts Saturday. It looks like 5 current board members (Gene Leverty is one of those, but will get automatically elected without a challenger) and 1 former board member are running for reelection. You can view the candidates and their statements here.
Since the NSC approves Senior Judge status, it seems clear Hardesty has paved the way for a no vote on Smith's ability to sit senior. Perhaps that was the point of the concurring opinion which otherwise seemed ill-timed given Smith's 36 year history on the Justice and District court benches.
Perhaps rather than prohibiting him from serving at all, they may instead prohibit I'm from presiding over criminal calendar in either District or Justice.
Perhaps they instead will put him somewhere they perceive as quiet and low level, where whatever harm he does is not magnified–such as Family Court.
But if they do they will soon discover that the Family Law Bar in our county has grown considerably in number and influence. A lot of the more prominent and vocal members of the Family Law Bar have proven that they can raise a hue and cry as loud as lawyers in any discipline or specialty.(And no, I don't practice in Family Court).
But, since a lot of people still don't acknowledge that(the emergency force of The Family Law Bar) as being true, there in fact may be a perception that rather than rejecting him altogether as a Senior Judge, that they will be safe if they instead assign him to Family Court.
But they will soon discover that is no longer a safe, innocuous, low level and quiet place to bury incompetent or unpopular judges. The eventual push back, if he is assigned to Family Court, will be that he will eventually not receive any assignments.
But I still firmly believe that, at least initially, rather than denying him any assignments, they will avoid assigning him to Criminal Court, or Business Court, or non-domestic Civil Calendar, and will instead give him a shot in Family Court.
But that is unlikely to succeed, and eventually they may not be able to place him anywhere.
Guest
Anonymous
April 25, 2019 3:59 pm
Is it possible to simultaneously believe (1) that Eglet's firm is well-qualified to pursue the opioid litigation and (2) that Ford took Eglet's considerable campaign support knowing full well he'd give the job to Eglet once elected?
There are very few places outside Las Vegas where Eglet would be able to do some of the things that he's able to do here. But that is part of his genius. Don't hate the player who plays the game in the place where the game is played. If you're so high-minded that you must criticize a successful guy like Eglet for how he conducts his business, perhaps you need to re-think whether Vegas is a place for you.
Let me get this straight:
Mediocre attorney gets fired from Snell and Wilmer because he spends all of his time being a politician rather than billing his time as a lawyer.
The man is the majority leader of the state senate.
The man goes to Eglet and gets a job as an associate but is soon elevated to partner even though he does very little work as an attorney. Eglet even pays his tax liens which might cloud his qualifications for Attorney General.
Meanwhile, the Republican Attorney General refuses to contract with Eglet to handle the opioid cases.
The man supports an amendment to a bill removing the cap on attorneys fees which can be paid by the State of Nevada to contracted attorneys. Eglet then finances the campaign of his "partner" for Attorney General, even though the man clearly demonstrates no knowledge of criminal law. (Remember when he could not give a definition of larceny?) The man becomes Attorney General and within months, the opioid cases are given to Eglet. Brilliant strategist or highly unethical? You decide.
I can think of at least 6 firms off the too of my head who could handle it. Claggett, Naqvhi, Dallas, Powell, Black and Lobello, Ballard @ Spahr, Akerman
10:12 – One man's 'highly unethical' can be another man's 'brilliant strategist'.
8:29 doesn't say that Ford isn't a political hack, a tax cheat, and a poor excuse for a lawyer. Rather, 8:29 merely points out that in the context of the options available to him in Nevada, Eglet is masterful at using the system to his advantage.
The subject of whether or not the Nevada way of operating is in itself good or bad is a different conversation.
Dear 11:28. I am an attorney at one of the firms you mentioned. First, I disagree that some of these firms would have any ability to handle this litigation at all. As for the few that could theoretically do it, like ours, I can honestly say that it would be out of their "comfort zone." I am perfectly happy with Eglet running these cases. He'll get a good result and I won't have to deal with it.
Aaron Ford = Mediocre attorney is dead on. But 11:28's assessment that firms like Naqvi, Dallas Horton, Paul Powell or Black & LoBello (that last one killed me) could handle the case is a joke. Unfortunately for all the conspiracy theorists out there, Eglet is hands down the best for the job.
Agree with 1:01 PM. I don't like the circumstances but EP is the correct choice for the case. I write this as a taxpayer and a lawyer. The other firms have no business handling a case like this. They're all good lawyers but the case is in the deep end of the pool.
What other options do you have, 2:21? Akerman does one very narrow type of work, and it's a type of work that I wouldn't find too fulfilling. I've never heard anything good about the work-life balance at the firm. And if you compare the lawyers there to the lawyers at the other local "big" firms, I think you'll conclude that Akerman lawyers are on balance less impressive. So if you have an offer from Snell, L&R, GT, or Brownstein, take that. But if your best option is to hang a shingle, obviously take the paycheck.
Akerman (in Vegas) is built on HOA superpriority litigation. As someone who works at another big shop that has a large stake in that litigation, it is coming to an end soon. Lawyers at my firm, even partners, are concerned about replacing that huge chunk of work. And we are much more diverse in clients than Akerman, which is something like 90% Bank of America work.
I don't know anything about the work-life balance or pay at either but I would take Kamer Zucker over Akerman in a heartbeat if those were my choices. Employment work is way more fun than HOA superpriority lien litigation, it has better exit options, and in my opinion Kamer Zucker is more highly regarded in its niche than Akerman. I would put Kamer Zucker on par with Littler or Ogletree. I would not put Akerman on par with Snell, Brownstein, H&H, or even a lot of the Nevada firms.
3:29 p.m., why is the HOA superpriority litigation "coming to an end soon?" Please do tell.
I'm a lawyer in town looking for escapist alternatives to make money on the side, and was always thinking of buying some HOA properties (a few, not a lot, over the next few years). And yes, I am extremely well-studied on the case law that goes with it, so I believe my chances are realistic.
Guest
Anonymous
April 25, 2019 4:43 pm
Eglet's firm has the right expertise for the job. Period. And he donates substantial sums to many politicians, likely because of his own faithfully held political beliefs and because it benefits him and his business. Nothing really that problematic here, in the grand scheme of things.
Guest
Anonymous
April 25, 2019 4:57 pm
Says which judge who keeps taking Eglet money each election cycle at 5-10 k a cycle. Who does that?
Guest
Anonymous
April 25, 2019 5:06 pm
Eglet is the main firm that has gone after other drug companies here in vegas. they know what they are looking for, how to implement the proper litigation strategy and know the type of opponent they are facing. Name one other firm that has gone after drug companies all the way through trial in the last 10 years in vegas…ill wait
You'll wait for your next election to buy. Let me get my Huddle House bow tie on. How would you like your eggs cooked? How about a nice side of white toast?
Kind of hard, in my mind, to attribute this delayed moral courage to having balls. Hardesty waited until after Smith announced his retirement to pounce.
Hardesty does not like a lot of judges. NSC needs to protect the public from people's rights being violated.
Guest
anonymous
April 25, 2019 10:08 pm
I don't know any of these BOG candidates. I think I dealt with Dreitzer once about 10-15 years ago but I barely remember it. Someone give me a compelling reason why I should vote for any of them, as opposed to just round-filing my ballot. I'd rather do that than unknowingly vote for a jackass.
If it helps at all (and I don't know whether it does or not), the incumbents are Jeffrey Albregts, Richard Dreitzer, and Catherine Mazzeo. Stephens was previously on the BOG but lost in the last election.
Since the NSC approves Senior Judge status, it seems clear Hardesty has paved the way for a no vote on Smith's ability to sit senior. Perhaps that was the point of the concurring opinion which otherwise seemed ill-timed given Smith's 36 year history on the Justice and District court benches.
Perhaps rather than prohibiting him from serving at all, they may instead prohibit I'm from presiding over criminal calendar in either District or Justice.
Perhaps they instead will put him somewhere they perceive as quiet and low level, where whatever harm he does is not magnified–such as Family Court.
But if they do they will soon discover that the Family Law Bar in our county has grown considerably in number and influence. A lot of the more prominent and vocal members of the Family Law Bar have proven that they can raise a hue and cry as loud as lawyers in any discipline or specialty.(And no, I don't practice in Family Court).
But, since a lot of people still don't acknowledge that(the emergency force of The Family Law Bar) as being true, there in fact may be a perception that rather than rejecting him altogether as a Senior Judge, that they will be safe if they instead assign him to Family Court.
But they will soon discover that is no longer a safe, innocuous, low level and quiet place to bury incompetent or unpopular judges. The eventual push back, if he is assigned to Family Court, will be that he will eventually not receive any assignments.
But I still firmly believe that, at least initially, rather than denying him any assignments, they will avoid assigning him to Criminal Court, or Business Court, or non-domestic Civil Calendar, and will instead give him a shot in Family Court.
But that is unlikely to succeed, and eventually they may not be able to place him anywhere.
Is it possible to simultaneously believe (1) that Eglet's firm is well-qualified to pursue the opioid litigation and (2) that Ford took Eglet's considerable campaign support knowing full well he'd give the job to Eglet once elected?
There are very few places outside Las Vegas where Eglet would be able to do some of the things that he's able to do here. But that is part of his genius. Don't hate the player who plays the game in the place where the game is played. If you're so high-minded that you must criticize a successful guy like Eglet for how he conducts his business, perhaps you need to re-think whether Vegas is a place for you.
Like it or not, Vegas Baby!
Let me get this straight:
Mediocre attorney gets fired from Snell and Wilmer because he spends all of his time being a politician rather than billing his time as a lawyer.
The man is the majority leader of the state senate.
The man goes to Eglet and gets a job as an associate but is soon elevated to partner even though he does very little work as an attorney. Eglet even pays his tax liens which might cloud his qualifications for Attorney General.
Meanwhile, the Republican Attorney General refuses to contract with Eglet to handle the opioid cases.
The man supports an amendment to a bill removing the cap on attorneys fees which can be paid by the State of Nevada to contracted attorneys. Eglet then finances the campaign of his "partner" for Attorney General, even though the man clearly demonstrates no knowledge of criminal law. (Remember when he could not give a definition of larceny?) The man becomes Attorney General and within months, the opioid cases are given to Eglet. Brilliant strategist or highly unethical? You decide.
Eglet was previously hired by other jurisdictions to pursue these claims. Name a Nevada-based plaintiff's firm that is better qualified for the job.
I can think of at least 6 firms off the too of my head who could handle it. Claggett, Naqvhi, Dallas, Powell, Black and Lobello, Ballard @ Spahr, Akerman
Top
Is this a joke? B & O cannot even control their associates.
10:12 – One man's 'highly unethical' can be another man's 'brilliant strategist'.
8:29 doesn't say that Ford isn't a political hack, a tax cheat, and a poor excuse for a lawyer. Rather, 8:29 merely points out that in the context of the options available to him in Nevada, Eglet is masterful at using the system to his advantage.
The subject of whether or not the Nevada way of operating is in itself good or bad is a different conversation.
Dear 11:28. I am an attorney at one of the firms you mentioned. First, I disagree that some of these firms would have any ability to handle this litigation at all. As for the few that could theoretically do it, like ours, I can honestly say that it would be out of their "comfort zone." I am perfectly happy with Eglet running these cases. He'll get a good result and I won't have to deal with it.
I like Naqvhi for the job. He has nice club wear for his bill boards.
Aaron Ford = Mediocre attorney is dead on. But 11:28's assessment that firms like Naqvi, Dallas Horton, Paul Powell or Black & LoBello (that last one killed me) could handle the case is a joke. Unfortunately for all the conspiracy theorists out there, Eglet is hands down the best for the job.
Agree with 1:01 PM. I don't like the circumstances but EP is the correct choice for the case. I write this as a taxpayer and a lawyer. The other firms have no business handling a case like this. They're all good lawyers but the case is in the deep end of the pool.
Akerman, that is good.
My judge is trying to get me in with Akerman. Should I go?
What other options do you have, 2:21? Akerman does one very narrow type of work, and it's a type of work that I wouldn't find too fulfilling. I've never heard anything good about the work-life balance at the firm. And if you compare the lawyers there to the lawyers at the other local "big" firms, I think you'll conclude that Akerman lawyers are on balance less impressive. So if you have an offer from Snell, L&R, GT, or Brownstein, take that. But if your best option is to hang a shingle, obviously take the paycheck.
I could never do bank defense. I have not heard good things about them or Claggetts.
I used to work at Akerman, and I was fired. Totally treated me like shit. Don't work there.
Akerman or she recommended Kamer Zucker
Akerman (in Vegas) is built on HOA superpriority litigation. As someone who works at another big shop that has a large stake in that litigation, it is coming to an end soon. Lawyers at my firm, even partners, are concerned about replacing that huge chunk of work. And we are much more diverse in clients than Akerman, which is something like 90% Bank of America work.
On the plus side, they do pay a lot.
Akerman treats the help like crap, especially the partners. You do not want to know some of the games they play on cases. I better not say anymore.
I don't know anything about the work-life balance or pay at either but I would take Kamer Zucker over Akerman in a heartbeat if those were my choices. Employment work is way more fun than HOA superpriority lien litigation, it has better exit options, and in my opinion Kamer Zucker is more highly regarded in its niche than Akerman. I would put Kamer Zucker on par with Littler or Ogletree. I would not put Akerman on par with Snell, Brownstein, H&H, or even a lot of the Nevada firms.
3:29 p.m., why is the HOA superpriority litigation "coming to an end soon?" Please do tell.
I'm a lawyer in town looking for escapist alternatives to make money on the side, and was always thinking of buying some HOA properties (a few, not a lot, over the next few years). And yes, I am extremely well-studied on the case law that goes with it, so I believe my chances are realistic.
Eglet's firm has the right expertise for the job. Period. And he donates substantial sums to many politicians, likely because of his own faithfully held political beliefs and because it benefits him and his business. Nothing really that problematic here, in the grand scheme of things.
Says which judge who keeps taking Eglet money each election cycle at 5-10 k a cycle. Who does that?
Eglet is the main firm that has gone after other drug companies here in vegas. they know what they are looking for, how to implement the proper litigation strategy and know the type of opponent they are facing. Name one other firm that has gone after drug companies all the way through trial in the last 10 years in vegas…ill wait
You'll wait for your next election to buy. Let me get my Huddle House bow tie on. How would you like your eggs cooked? How about a nice side of white toast?
Kemp Jones?
Kemp Jones was my choice. They helped Eglet win the Hep C cases.
No vote for Casey Quinn, difficult personality.
I've never had a problem with him. Difficult how?
He's the only one who talks about transparency and the expense of the convention.
All talk.
IMHO he is not fit to serve now or ever.
That's what Hardesty was suggesting in his concurrence. The problem is no one else has the balls to come out and say it.
Kind of hard, in my mind, to attribute this delayed moral courage to having balls. Hardesty waited until after Smith announced his retirement to pounce.
Hardesty does not like a lot of judges. NSC needs to protect the public from people's rights being violated.
I don't know any of these BOG candidates. I think I dealt with Dreitzer once about 10-15 years ago but I barely remember it. Someone give me a compelling reason why I should vote for any of them, as opposed to just round-filing my ballot. I'd rather do that than unknowingly vote for a jackass.
If it helps at all (and I don't know whether it does or not), the incumbents are Jeffrey Albregts, Richard Dreitzer, and Catherine Mazzeo. Stephens was previously on the BOG but lost in the last election.
Kari Stephens had no platform last year. Got voted off. Runs again THIS YEAR with no platform. That tells you all that you need to know.
I personally like Richard Dreitzer. However his wife is Rasputin to Czar Kim Farm. No nepotistic for my tastes.
I did not get my ballot, who are the choices.
You'll get it electronically on Saturday. Choices are on State Bar website. I intend to vote for two only.