The Boulder City crosswalk drama continues–now Boulder City is seeking to disqualify Judge Richard Scotti! [BCR]
A federal judge handed Jim Acosta and CNN a (temporary?) victory against Donald Trump by granting a TRO and ordering Acosta White House press pass be restored. [CNBC]
Another round of golf course/development fights is going to start–this time regarding Black Mountain Golf and Country Club. [News3LV]
The Motion by Boulder City is amateur and ridiculous.
Guest
Anonymous
November 16, 2018 4:53 pm
Anyone see the Doug Gardner suspension. 24 months for his Trust Account being out of balance with no proof he took any client monies. Conversely Karen Ross took $200,000 of client monies from her Trust Account and she got a 6 month suspension. Doug has to pay $2500 for the suspension; Ross did not. What a joke our Supreme Court and State Bar are.
Although we can never really expect total consistency or fairness with how these trust account issues are dealt with, the results in many case are so wildly divergent that it undercuts the integrity of the whole process. The situation 8:53 mentions is not just an isolated example. There is no real consistency and there is a parade of mind-boggling inequities. People who truly steal clients' money sometimes get far lesser punishment than someone who temporarily failed to reconcile or balance the accounts, but no clients were harmed and there is so one who needs to be made whole.
If they are going to continue with this fixation on trust accounts always needing to be reconciled at all times, at least strive to be somewhat consistent and fair with enforcement. Otherwise, it raises the issue of inconsistent enforcement based on how prominent someone is.
And although I concede that always reconciling trust accounts, and avoiding any problems with such accounts, is of critical importance, of more importance is protecting the public and preventing harm. It's incredibly myopic to nail someone severely on a trust fund issue where no one is harmed, and the discrepancy is promptly corrected.
This issue is often glossed over in these proceedings. It is conveniently ignored if no client was harmed or not made whole.
OBC doesn't make the decisions, it makes recommendations. A 3 member panel decides. Who knows if the OBC is consistent in its recommendations, as the panel can deviate as it sees fit.
How difficult is it in this day an age for an attorney to purchase a less than $200 version of Quickbooks and have it do the accounting math of maintaining the trust account? It is a fairly easy program to operate… enter your deposits (funds coming in) and the money going out is entered just like writing checks (the GUI even looks like a check). The program can even print the check on pre-printed check stock (can purchase the stock from your bank, Costco, a printer, etc.)
It's amazing how many people will happily spend $800+ for the newest Iphone but not refuse to spend less than $200 (which is a tax deductible business expense) to avoid math errors from jeopardizing their licenses (assuming it is a simple math error causing the problem as frequently alleged).
That being said, if the attorney is using such a computer program (or its equivalent, (possibly even a fiduciary 3rd party bookkeeping service), then the bar should create a safe harbor provision for de minimis math errors that are immediately corrected (transposed numbers, duplicate entries, etc.).
The only recommendations that the OBC makes out of the presence of the attorney is to have a formal hearing, dismiss, or issue a letter of caution. Everything else is with the attorney present.
The statement "OBC doesn't make the decisions, it makes recommendations" is the same as saying the AUSA does not make decisions, only recommendations, when deciding to overcharge. Baloney. The OBC decides what to charge, how much to charge and what they are seeking. No offense, as someone who was on the Southern Nevada Disciplinary Panel, Panels eat whatever the OBC feeds to them. OBC wants 36 months; the Panel will give 24-30 months just so it seems like they had a heart when in reality had the OBC been consistent and asked for 12 months like they did last week, maybe its a 6 month or a year. Panels have no idea what the appropriate suspension is and blindly relies on the OBC to tell them/us.
Add to the fact that the same paralegal who is prepping the evidence for the Assistant Bar Counsel is also the paralegal preparing our packets and support materials for us on the Panel.
Guest
Anonymous
November 16, 2018 5:11 pm
Anyone see the Alexis Plunkett decision. Reversed and remanded. Someone is going to have to pay the piper.
Someone was being quite messy and commented: "Did you provide the cell phone? Did you have court approval to do so? If the answer is Yes & No serve your time if it’s No or Yes & Yes then fight."
Her response: "I signed a waiver saying I was bringing in my cell phone to use it for case work, and then I openly used the cell phone to make bond-related calls and never lied to anyone. I personally used the phone, I never "provided" it to anyone.
If someone had asked me to stop, I would have stopped. I'm being targeted because of my personal life."
So dies the theory that she might have gotten some help while she was waiting for this case to be processed. Sad.
Guest
Anonymous
November 16, 2018 5:16 pm
re: Black Mountain
I can see how "1,000 new homes and apartments" might possibly cause a marginal increase in traffic. But when the existing residents start sounding alarms about increased "crime" and "police response", it becomes a little dramatic and alarmist. If anything, that old Henderson area has become a bit dusty and tires and can use some sprucing up. As Caddyshack hero Al Czervik once said: “I tell ya, golf courses and cemeteries are the biggest wastes of prime real estate”.
Let's talk about julian assange a minute – am I to understand some brain-filled AUSA used a sealed document from that case as a form in some other case and "forgot" to put the correct person's name in instead?
Boy I like to make fun of AUSAs. But honestly, who has not made a mistake using an old pleading as a template for a new document? I know–sealed case, need to be careful, huge blunder. I hate AUSAs, but this mistake has a there but for the grace of God-element for me.
I am dealing with debilitating anxiety. I can't focus on my work. I am constantly thinking of any possible mistake that I have made that could result in a professional apocalypse, which then triggers personal apocalypse. Suggestions on what I can do to help myself?
Take a deep breath. Then another one. And another.
Is your problem about a statute of limitation or the timely filing of a notice of appeal? If so, God be with you. If not, there is almost always some remedy to deal with whatever mistake you might have, or will, make. Be it dealing with opposing counsel, seeking relief under rule 60, or even just talking it over with your client to prepare them for some issue, you can almost always find a solution that will deal with some form of mistake. Remember, too, that many mistakes often go unnoticed by both counsel and court, and some are simply disregarded.
What's more, even with a mistake, it would likely not even be case ending, let alone career damaging. Not in this jurisdiction, at least. Look at the myriad attorneys out there who have pulled off some seriously messed up errors or even intentional acts that should probably get them disbarred. They're still in business.
And if you're worried that one mistake will cost you a job at the firm you are working at, remember that the market has improved greatly.
The Motion by Boulder City is amateur and ridiculous.
Anyone see the Doug Gardner suspension. 24 months for his Trust Account being out of balance with no proof he took any client monies. Conversely Karen Ross took $200,000 of client monies from her Trust Account and she got a 6 month suspension. Doug has to pay $2500 for the suspension; Ross did not. What a joke our Supreme Court and State Bar are.
WHAAATTT?
Our OBC literally has no idea what it is doing on any given day.
Although we can never really expect total consistency or fairness with how these trust account issues are dealt with, the results in many case are so wildly divergent that it undercuts the integrity of the whole process. The situation 8:53 mentions is not just an isolated example. There is no real consistency and there is a parade of mind-boggling inequities. People who truly steal clients' money sometimes get far lesser punishment than someone who temporarily failed to reconcile or balance the accounts, but no clients were harmed and there is so one who needs to be made whole.
If they are going to continue with this fixation on trust accounts always needing to be reconciled at all times, at least strive to be somewhat consistent and fair with enforcement. Otherwise, it raises the issue of inconsistent enforcement based on how prominent someone is.
And although I concede that always reconciling trust accounts, and avoiding any problems with such accounts, is of critical importance, of more importance is protecting the public and preventing harm. It's incredibly myopic to nail someone severely on a trust fund issue where no one is harmed, and the discrepancy is promptly corrected.
This issue is often glossed over in these proceedings. It is conveniently ignored if no client was harmed or not made whole.
OBC doesn't make the decisions, it makes recommendations. A 3 member panel decides. Who knows if the OBC is consistent in its recommendations, as the panel can deviate as it sees fit.
The OBC makes recommendations, sure. They make the recommendations outside the presence of the attorney to be disciplined or his/her counsel.
If your trust account is "out of balance" the attorney took the $$ What other excuse is possible?
How difficult is it in this day an age for an attorney to purchase a less than $200 version of Quickbooks and have it do the accounting math of maintaining the trust account? It is a fairly easy program to operate… enter your deposits (funds coming in) and the money going out is entered just like writing checks (the GUI even looks like a check). The program can even print the check on pre-printed check stock (can purchase the stock from your bank, Costco, a printer, etc.)
It's amazing how many people will happily spend $800+ for the newest Iphone but not refuse to spend less than $200 (which is a tax deductible business expense) to avoid math errors from jeopardizing their licenses (assuming it is a simple math error causing the problem as frequently alleged).
That being said, if the attorney is using such a computer program (or its equivalent, (possibly even a fiduciary 3rd party bookkeeping service), then the bar should create a safe harbor provision for de minimis math errors that are immediately corrected (transposed numbers, duplicate entries, etc.).
The only recommendations that the OBC makes out of the presence of the attorney is to have a formal hearing, dismiss, or issue a letter of caution. Everything else is with the attorney present.
The statement "OBC doesn't make the decisions, it makes recommendations" is the same as saying the AUSA does not make decisions, only recommendations, when deciding to overcharge. Baloney. The OBC decides what to charge, how much to charge and what they are seeking. No offense, as someone who was on the Southern Nevada Disciplinary Panel, Panels eat whatever the OBC feeds to them. OBC wants 36 months; the Panel will give 24-30 months just so it seems like they had a heart when in reality had the OBC been consistent and asked for 12 months like they did last week, maybe its a 6 month or a year. Panels have no idea what the appropriate suspension is and blindly relies on the OBC to tell them/us.
Add to the fact that the same paralegal who is prepping the evidence for the Assistant Bar Counsel is also the paralegal preparing our packets and support materials for us on the Panel.
Anyone see the Alexis Plunkett decision. Reversed and remanded. Someone is going to have to pay the piper.
She was in Facebook about it right away
Someone was being quite messy and commented: "Did you provide the cell phone? Did you have court approval to do so? If the answer is Yes & No serve your time if it’s No or Yes & Yes then fight."
Her response: "I signed a waiver saying I was bringing in my cell phone to use it for case work, and then I openly used the cell phone to make bond-related calls and never lied to anyone. I personally used the phone, I never "provided" it to anyone.
If someone had asked me to stop, I would have stopped. I'm being targeted because of my personal life."
Commented on her FB page*
So dies the theory that she might have gotten some help while she was waiting for this case to be processed. Sad.
re: Black Mountain
I can see how "1,000 new homes and apartments" might possibly cause a marginal increase in traffic. But when the existing residents start sounding alarms about increased "crime" and "police response", it becomes a little dramatic and alarmist. If anything, that old Henderson area has become a bit dusty and tires and can use some sprucing up. As Caddyshack hero Al Czervik once said: “I tell ya, golf courses and cemeteries are the biggest wastes of prime real estate”.
*tired
Let's talk about julian assange a minute – am I to understand some brain-filled AUSA used a sealed document from that case as a form in some other case and "forgot" to put the correct person's name in instead?
"Find and Replace All" will catch all instances of JULIAN PAUL ASSANGE but it won't catch JULIAN ASSANGE. Or JULIAN ASANGE.
Boy I like to make fun of AUSAs. But honestly, who has not made a mistake using an old pleading as a template for a new document? I know–sealed case, need to be careful, huge blunder. I hate AUSAs, but this mistake has a there but for the grace of God-element for me.
Line. By. Line.
Then you print and check again. Good heavens.
I am dealing with debilitating anxiety. I can't focus on my work. I am constantly thinking of any possible mistake that I have made that could result in a professional apocalypse, which then triggers personal apocalypse. Suggestions on what I can do to help myself?
Take a deep breath. Then another one. And another.
Is your problem about a statute of limitation or the timely filing of a notice of appeal? If so, God be with you. If not, there is almost always some remedy to deal with whatever mistake you might have, or will, make. Be it dealing with opposing counsel, seeking relief under rule 60, or even just talking it over with your client to prepare them for some issue, you can almost always find a solution that will deal with some form of mistake. Remember, too, that many mistakes often go unnoticed by both counsel and court, and some are simply disregarded.
What's more, even with a mistake, it would likely not even be case ending, let alone career damaging. Not in this jurisdiction, at least. Look at the myriad attorneys out there who have pulled off some seriously messed up errors or even intentional acts that should probably get them disbarred. They're still in business.
And if you're worried that one mistake will cost you a job at the firm you are working at, remember that the market has improved greatly.
Alright, back at it.
There are very few things that cannot be fixed by way of a motion and an apology. If you're honest and do good research, you're going to be fine.