- Quickdraw McLaw
- 51 Comments
- 201 Views
- RIP George Dickerson. [RJ]
- Will assisted suicide soon be legal in Nevada? [TNI]
- Scandal at the Valley Electric Association in Nye County. [Fox5Vegas]
- As you mentioned in the comments, the new Rules of Civil Procedure go into effect on Friday.
- Today is the start of the February Bar exam. Good luck!
This profession can be difficult. Remember, you can be civil with opposing counsel while still being a zealous advocate for your client.
Let me ask a question about professionalism. My standard practice is that if you ask for a professional courtesy, I will always oblige unless it would legitimately undermine my client's position or interest somehow- even if you are the most insufferable asshole opposing counsel. As we all have, I have had opposing counsel who refuse such requests. They usually say, "let me check with my client" and then later follow up with, "client won't let me." Weeks later, the same opposing counsel will ask me for a professional courtesy. Generally, I oblige, but I tell them that I am making the accommodation for them even though they did not earlier. Then I tell them that the next time I ask for a courtesy, I expect it will be given, and if it is not, I will never oblige a professional courtesy to them again in the future. Ever. So far this is worked and I haven't had to invoke the death penalty against anyone. Does anyone have a better way?
In well over fifteen years of doing ID work, never once did I "check with my client"[read "adjuster"] over something like like an extension of a week or two. Since I've been on the other side, I've been hearing that kind of crap more and more frequently.
When I was a very junior associate, I had to ask "my client" aka my asshole'ish partner who made me respond to oc's request for a 2-week extension to respond to a complaint with "only if you're planning on filing an Answer." OC did not accept and instead filed a very angry MTD. He also refused any future requests for extensions. So… if you happen to be dealing with a younger attorney, just keep that scenario in mind. Partners can be dicks, man.
Sounds like a perfect way to deal with the issue. You give them the benefit of the doubt that they didn't understand, at the time that they were being a jerk, that eventually the shoe always lands on the other foot. Hopefully they graciously view it as a learning experience and modify their practice for the remainder of their career. If not, their reputation will slowly travel and they will find fewer oc's willing to grant their requests.
Also, check out Nevada Rule of Professional Conduct 3.2.
Rule 3.2. Expediting Litigation.
(a) A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client.
(b) The duty stated in paragraph (a) does not preclude a lawyer from granting a reasonable request from opposing counsel for an accommodation, such as an extension of time, or from disagreeing with a client’s wishes on administrative and tactical matters, such as scheduling depositions, the number of depositions to be taken, and the frequency and use of written discovery requests.
Sadly "professional courtesy" is dying. I just had an attorney file an MSJ with the complaint. I contacted him as the 10 days was expiring and basically said I'm in a big trial and the time to answer has not even elapsed, will you give me another few days so I can work on an answer and response over the holiday? The response was "no." He then submitted it as an uncontested motion without advising the court that we had spoken and our time to answer had not even yet elapsed. Very representative of stuff I'm seeing these days. Judges and the bar do nothing when you complain, so this stuff continues.
Thought Rule 56 said MSJs cannot be filed until 20 days after the commencement of the Action (NRCP 56(a)). File a three page Opposition pursuant to NRCP 56(a) and NRCP 56(f) with a short Affidavit/ Declaration that lays out how Plaintiff refused you courtesies that he/she/it was not allowed to decline you as Plaintiff is in violation of the very rule pursuant to which Plaintiff moves.
There are going to be bungholes in this profession. You can bemoan them or you can rise above them.
Yeah, 56(f) alone should shut this shit down. Honestly, aside from being a total dick, what is opposing counsel thinking here? There's not a chance in hell the MSJ gets granted, regardless of the compelling evidence he may already have. What is OC trying to accomplish here? This kind of shit also pisses off judges. Never good to make a bad first impression like this in a case!
This is the kind of crap that makes me wish I could retire.
Only did not grant one continuance in decade plus career for health reasons. Initially granted and then I could not follow through on it. Called a liar by opposing counsel. Think before you start being an asshole. Granted the same jerk a continuance before that.
Complaint with MSJ–Sounds like California attorneys or California law firm with a Nevada licensed attorney on board. Is that right? By filing the Rule 56 (f) violation, this should be place the Motion in a procedural limbo. It can then be only heard when the Motion is refiled/resurrected with a hearing date. Reminds me of California lawyers that propounded discovery with the complaint/answer without the ECC and discovery plan/scheduling order.
To 1:09 pm: CA does not allow Plaintiff to propound discovery with the Complaint — for Plaintiff there is a hold for 20 day after service of summons. Def't is free to begin discovery immediately.
CA also does not allow Motn Summary Judgment in early stages of the case.
If the motion for MSJ was filed before it is allowed per Rule 56(f) AND you brought that fact to the moving counsel's attention to no avail, it sounds like a classic vexatious motion without a good faith basis problem (read Rule 11 situation). Upon their refusing to do anything with that knowledge (you were nicer than most in only asking for an extension of time to oppose rather than it being withdrawn as premature) I would have sent the safe harbor letter to start the Rule 11 process, following up with a request for sanctions under Rule 11, EDCR Rule 7.60(b)(1) and NRS 7.085 (sanctions against the attorney personally rather than against the client). If they won't do the right thing simply because it was the right thing to do (heck anyone could make a mistake and as long as they own it and fix it, no harm no foul) perhaps getting a spanking will help them learn.
It is sad. I am dealing with unprofessional judicial staff.
Does anyone know if the EDCR are being amended in conjunction with the NRCP amendments? If not, I am assuming we still use EDCR 1.14(a)–as opposed to the new NRCP 6(a)(1)–to calculate deadlines that are "less than 11 days" under the EDCR. For example, in calculating a date for an opposition to a motion (10 days under EDCR 2.20(e)), you still do NOT count "intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and non-judicial days" in calculating the deadline under EDCR 1.14(a)–same as the old NRCP 6(a), but different than the new NRCP 6(a)(1).
Thoughts?
NRCP 83 says local rules only apply to the extent "not inconsistent with" the NRCP. So, I'd say new NRCP control in civil.
The order adopting the new rules notes there will be inconsistencies and it is up to the local courts to figure out what amendments are needed. The Eighth also needs to get away from the notice of motion for new simultaneous file/serve rules to work optimally. Not sure who's in charge of EDCR but this requires attention.
Good point. Agree, EDCR needs to amended sooner rather than later.
The EDCRs are being amended. Judge Kishner is in charge of this. Not sure when the proposed amendments are released. Until then, the new NRCPs trump any EDCR to the contrary.
So how long do we have for oppositions to MSJs? This is so confusing
Oppositions are due ten calendar days after service.
Well that sucks. It shortens the actual response time. Before weekends were excluded from the calculation. There goes my life
it will soon be 14.
Starting on Friday, the new deadline will be 14 calendar days to respond to Motions.
What rule puts the deadline at 14 days? I knew this would eventually be the new deadline but thought we had to wait until the new EDCRs came out.
NRCP Rule 6
Also, no more 3-day extension for e-service.
NRCP Rule 6 does not provide a deadline for oppositions to motions. The Advisory Committee Note from 2019 mentions that "In general, . . . time periods between 6 and 15 days are now set to 15 days . . ." and the phrase is "in general." There is no actual rule in the new NRCPs that state the opposition deadline for motions is 14 days. Just do a Ctrl+F search of "14" and you will see.
10:12 "periods between 6 and 15 days are now set to 14 days," so it's weekday to weekday. Also, I think it's the counting more than the time periods that are changed–no more excluding days or adding 3 days for e-service.
10:23 – that quote is not in the rule, just in the committee note.
I know we don't get new cards, but I paid my bar dues over a month ago, and I have received nothing. Have my receipt I paid. Should we have received confirmation in the mail?
You get confirmation on the page from which you make the payment. You can login to your account and it will show that you're paid up for the year. When I login to my NVBar.org account, it says "Our records indicate that you have a ATTORNEY membership, which expires on 1/1/2020"
Thank you, I know I am being annoying. Just paranoid.
They checked your social media. You said something unkind about someone with a high intersectionality score. You're done. You'll never hold a bar card again.
Pack your bags and leave. Take your hate with you.
If we don't get new cards, how do you prove to security that you're an attorney and avoid the belt and shoes show?
I have never been asked for my bar card at the RJC.
What are you people schlepping around wearing at the RJC that prompts a bar card request? lol
I get trolled all the time. Young female. I even got shit for having previous year bar card.
@4:43; It must be the RPG launchers they have slung over the shoulder and the ammo belt across their chest.
You get one card 'forever' now, but you can pay for a replacement if you lost yours.
FYI – Looks like MACLAW is hiring. https://jobs.nvbar.org/job/litigation-associate/46976947/
Let's see if I have this correct: The NV Legislature is considering legalizing assisted suicide… BUT the state can't even agree on what drug(s) to use for capital punishment? Scott Dozier was on death row for 12 years before committing suicide and now NV wants anyone with a terminal illness to be able to end his/her life with drugs the state would not allow to be used on any death row inmate?
It wasn't the state, it was the drug companies themselves that intervened and said the State couldn't use their drugs to kill people. Bad PR or something.
And now the drug companies are willing to go along with their drugs being used for suicides? Assisted or otherwise?
I few differences in terms of the law…. The State, when it is doing the killing is prohibited from violating the 8th Amendment (cruel and unusual punishments concerns) whereas allowing a doctor to prescribe medication to assist a patient to do what they will likely do anyways without the doctor's assistance (commit suicide) without fear of subsequent civil or criminal liability makes some sense.
Someone intent on committing suicide is going to try to do it, with or without, assistance. Unfortunately, many who try it fail and are left worse off than before the attempt, becoming even bigger burdens on their families and society than before the attempt. At least under a proposal like this there are some safeguards in place by focusing on the terminal stages of life, having the person talk with a doctor before the attempt, using a method that is more likely to successfully meet their wishes while also reducing their pain and suffering in the process.
To some extent a law like this is not completely necessary. A patient that wants to commit doctor assisted suicide need only go to the doctor complaining about unremitting pain and obtain an opioid based painkiller to treat it. Continue with the process for a couple of months (filling the prescriptions but not actually taking them until you have a sufficient number of pills, then taking them all at once (with alcohol) to trigger an overdose. Same outcome but messier with greater chance of failure resulting in a permanent family/societal burden.
A firearm is another time honored way to accomplish the same goal, along with a sharp blade, poisons, etc.
What's the inside scoop on the Probate Commissioner's Office and why they are short-staffed again?
Incredibly difficult docket complicated by their insistence upon rejecting ever Order under the sun.
P-18-093945-E was the first probate case filed in 2018. P-18-097800-E was the last. That's 3,855 petitions to review, compare against what's required, and approve/hold over. And that's only the new cases. We've only got one Commissioner, and he doesn't have a huge staff. Is it time to consider requesting a second Commissioner, who can handle things like real estate auctions on a separate calendar?
They need a second Probate Commissioner, or elevate the existing Probate Commissioner to a Probate Judge position so that hearings can be held 2x a week, which is needed most of the time.
Also, having 1 hearing date a week jams up everything around the holidays, and it's only going to get worse. They still haven't caught up yet from having a few missed Fridays late last year.
Also, in case anyone's wondering: the case load is only increasing. The first case number filed in 2017 was P-17-090461-E, for a total of 3,483 cases in 2017. 2016 had 3,322.
Any word on the bar exam? What did they test yesterday? I think today's the MBE.