Firms distributing your billable hour totals to all other attorneys in the firm. My hours, my business. Sure there's always going to be partners that have access to it, but why give access to all attorneys in the firm. I've never been in a firm that does it, but I've heard of hour totals being emailed out to all attorneys in the firm on a monthly basis, weekly basis, and daily basis. Does this happen at most firms? If so, how often are they distributed. I just don't see the rationale for it other than to have unhealthy competition leading to overworked, overstressed, anxious attorneys working for you.
My experience at mostly "biggish" law firms is that this isn't routed beyond partners. I understand the negatives (competition, etc.) but at the same time if it were anonymized, it would provide folks with context (you feel you're busy, and it turns out you're right, or actually pretty average – which may not help but at least is context). I'm a fan of some form of anonymized data.
You hit the nail on the head in that last sentence. If overworked then the FBUs (fungible billing units) are doing their jobs. Their jobs are to generate revenue for the firm to distribute to its owners, with performance bonuses distributed to the FBUs when deemed necessary to keep them in place.
Never had to deal with that. I can see how regular reports to all attorneys is toxic. Sure, distribute the associate billable hours to partners so that partners know what associates they can distribute more work to. Associates wouldn't even know that was happening. But I don't think associates should see other associates hours. That's toxic and creates those problems you identified. I have no problem with 10:09 idea about sending out anonymized data so you can see where you are.
Insurance defense firms do this to try and shame the associates. It creates a scenario where every single email or text message on every single case generates a .2.
I've always thought that a better way to beat the associates into productivity would be to publicly post their collected fees rather than their hours billed. In the world of insurance defense, by the time the carrier's auditors get through a defense firm's bill, each hour billed is cut to about .8.
My last firm was a smallish firm (under 100 lawyers firm wide at the time) and used the billing software "Time Matters" and you could see any individual's hours in the entire firm including paralegals, associates, partners, and even owners.
My old firm distributed hours to all attorneys, and I appreciated it. This was in a more public interest type field, so there was more commitment to the mission than in a normal biglaw firm.
Sometimes it seemed like everyone else was in the office all the time and I was worried I wasn't pulling my weight, and I liked seeing that in fact we were all in the same zone. And seeing that the partners were in fact working more than me tamped down my resentment a little when I felt I was being overworked.
But not all associates agreed with me that it was a good thing, and I understand the reasonable critiques of the system.
I worked for a small firm (<20 attorneys) that circulated all the associates' hours and collections for the month, with a YTD total. It was the first time I worked in private practice, so it was interesting to me and helpful to see how I was doing compared to everyone else.
It showed me that family law is a cash cow, if you can stand it. (I can't.)
It also showed me that it made very little financial sense to stay with the firm. At least not for me. I don't know what the actual overhead was, but I imagine it was quite high (staff costs, building, services like cleaning, IT, etc.).
The collected revenues were higher than I expected. If you had the same revenues at a modern, lean firm, you could go from nothing to being a millionaire in 2-3 years.
Vote for Bogs, and don't forget to comment about 2020 State Bar. You have one day left. So nice of the Nevada Supreme Court.
Guest
Anonymous
May 14, 2020 4:54 pm
I am 71 years old and learned I now have to complete CLEs. I along with others 70+ were previously exempted under Supreme Court Rule 14. The Bog has some explaining to do. I urge you all to VOTE OUT the current Bog. I sure am.
Non-incumbents to vote for:
Mary Bacon
Donald Green
Scott Lachman
Casey Quinn
Brittnie Watkins
10:39: I have likely been licensed for longer than you've been alive. I have taken my fair share of CLEs over the years and have never been disciplined. The rule exempting 70+ had been on the books for 30+ years with no evidence 70+ were acting incompetently due to the lack of CLEs. Shame on the Bog.
90% of all CLE is irrelevant. Everyone should have to do a 3-4 hour annual refresher in their area of concentration (e.g. family, criminal, general civil, etc.) covering rule changes/NRS changes/significant NSC decisions. That's it. If you want to do more than that because it's interesting or your think it would be helpful, then go ahead, but it shouldn't be required. I think the over-70 rule was designed for people who are truly semi-retired but want to keep an active license. So if I were king for a day, I'd exempt those who practice exclusively as arbitrators or short-trial judges, or who can prove they practice less than, say, 200 hours per year (kind of an honor system there, admittedly). That would maintain the intent of the original rule.
11:00: So what? We've all "taken our share" of CLEs over the years. Why should you be exempt now? CLE is part of the job of being a lawyer. If you don't like it, don't be a lawyer.
If an attorney is actively practicing at age 70, 80, 90, whatever, then I think (on average) that attorney needs CLE more than someone straight out of law school. Old timers oftentimes think they know everything, but they're still citing cases from 20-30 years ago, ignoring legal standards that have changed drastically since then.
Like 11:00 (#2) said, if people are in a part-time situation or a niche practice, maybe there could be some accommodation, but I don't think age alone should affect the requirements.
11:28: Lachman was Cherry's clerk through 2013. Watkins was Douglas's clerk through 2016. So should we not vote for either just because they clerked for now former justices? I personally know Scott and Brittnie and they are both worthy to be on the board. Mary Bacon too.
I think CLEs on stress and alcohol abuse are rich. I'm stressed because I have too much shit to do, and not enough time. Adding a CLE to my plate doesn't help my problem it makes it worse. So I get stressed and go home and drink. The move on CLEs is to do PLI during commutes. I've gotta be in my car listening to inane bullshit anyways, why not inane CLE bullshit.
I have no problem advocating for voting out the incumbents. However the CLE rule change is a no brainer. 60 year old lawyers may have been practicing 35 years and need CLE but 70 year old lawyers think that they do not? If you do not want to fulfill the requirements for practice, go inactive or take emeritus status. There is nothing special about being 70.
I agree with 11:28, I had a few cases with Scott Lachman. He brags about his clerkship and ties to Mike Cherry. Plus, he is a jerk. So, I will not be voting for him.
I don't think it's productive for the 71-yeaar-old attorney and the other posters to get sucked into a debate as to whether the older attorney merits a CLE Exemption.
No need for that acrimony. Plus someone who is 71 and has practiced honorably for decades deserves more respect that that.
Suffice it to say that certain privileges and accommodations have often come with age and years of service. Plus, it may be perceived that most attorneys past 70 are not practicing nearly to the extent they previously did.
Those reasons may not be particularly convincing(after all, many post-70 attorneys still practice full-time) but it has always been the case that with age comes the exemption.
So, to have always allowed it for post-70 attorneys, and now to suddenly eliminate it(probably as a grab for more CLE money, and thus more Bar money) does not seem that fair or honorable.
Older attorneys were getting a break for years, but now when attorneys reach 70 they do not receive the same breaks as their slightly older colleagues.
And I think those are the considerations the dialogue should revolve around–rather than simply "what makes them so special that they don't have to pay. So what if they are now a bit older."
1109 here. "But that's how it's always been done!" is not a compelling argument. Agreed that the discussion should be civil. If there is a better argument for waiving CLEs for the attorneys who most need it (and can afford it), I'm all ears (or eyes, as the case may be).
If you want to retire and do pro bono full time (regardless of age), I have no problem with waiving the CLE requirement. If you want practice law as a profession after age 65 or 70 or 80 just the same as everyone else, meet the same standards as everyone else.
2:26–"But that's how it's always been done" is a weak argument, or astronger argument, based on context.
if we are doing something in a clearly bad, damaging and incompetent manner, then yes, we don't want to continue down that road simply because it has always been that way.
But, in situations like the recent withdrawal of the Post-70 CLE exemption, the concept is used to point out the apparent unfairness of revoking a benefit that was enjoyed by those who went before, but now denied to those who have paid their dues.
So, context can make thee concept a little more meaningful
The CLE Board is not governed by the BOG. They have their own Board and answer to the NSC. There is no reason that they are separate, but they are. Direct angst accordingly…..
"But, in situations like the recent withdrawal of the Post-70 CLE exemption, the concept is used to point out the apparent unfairness of revoking a benefit that was enjoyed by those who went before, but now denied to those who have paid their dues."
No the unfairness is in drawing an arbitrary line at 70 that has no relationship to the practice of law currently. People over 70 "have paid their dues"; people under 70 have paid their dues. There is no estoppel argument that people only practiced law because they were promised to be CLE free at 70. And they have the ability to be CLE-free after age 70. But to claim that you want the full benefits of driving licensure but do not want to take the eye exam because you feel you have earned the right to drive blindly makes no sense.
This is the current Bog trying to justify their actions. There was no reason to change the 70-plus exception but for money. This senior citizen attorney is voting out the incumbents and will be sending them my CLE bill this year! Approve 9:54!!
1:01 – Lachman and I worked together at Weinberg Wheeler. He is damn good guy and one of the hardest workers I know. Even if you think he is a jerk as an opposing counsel, he is exactly the kind of attorney we need on the BoG. Someone who is willing to go to bat and is not status quo. Go get 'em Scottie!
Coffing is only 55, wow. Sorry, man, I thought you were olde. I gots to day no, too, to the Scottman Lachman, too. You are nice at Youngs, but not in the wrestling ring.
The reason that the CLE Board and the BOG are separate is that the Bar makes money off of CLEs and the CLE Board approves not only their CLEs but those of their competitors.
3:03–you may be right that 2:40's opinion, that the exemption should continue past Age-70, is not particularly supportable.
But if 2:40 is wrong(which I think they are) it is not for the reasons you say.
You remind me of one of those legal briefs where I agree with the conclusion, but the argument offered in support of the conclusion does not seem particularly valid, or even very rational.
You set up a straw man argument for 2:40, and then knock it down in order to prove you are right. But effective straw man arguments are based on taking the basic import behind someone's point, and then twisting it a bit, and modifying it as far as it can credibly be bent, in order to make it sound weaker and more susceptible to attack.
But you purely invented something totally bizarre which cannot possibly remotely parallel with anything 2:40 offered in support of the Post-70 CLE exemption.
You argued that under 2:40's analysis people who are now completely blind would be permitted to drive merely because they used to be permitted to drive years before they went blind.
What?!
Guest
Anonymous
May 14, 2020 4:55 pm
So Trachok pushes Hardesty for Chancellor while simultaneously wanting a seat on the Nevada Supreme Court. "Numerous regents and others within NSHE who asked not to be named say Trachok, who announced earlier this year he would not seek re-election to the Board of Regents, intended to run for Supreme Court until he was sidelined by bad publicity — allegations that as chair of the board, he attempted to unduly influence the last search for a chancellor in 2017. The search effort was scrapped and current Chancellor Thom Reilly stepped in temporarily. He intends to leave the post this year."
Not necessarily. That's one of the two issues in the Board of Regents' and Hardesty's petition for advisory mandamus: whether chancellor of NSHE is an incompatible office under the Nevada Constitution and, if it is an incompatible office, whether the incompatibility creates a disability to become chancellor that lasts for Hardesty's entire judicial term or just until he resigns his judicial office.
If the first question is answered in the negative, then I don't see any state constitutional provision that would preclude him from being both chancellor of NSHE and a supreme court justice. And before you go crazy with "but of course chancellor is an incompatible office, it's a public officer," the Nevada Supreme Court has already held there is a distinction between "public officer" and a constitutional "office."
This whole situation really couldn't be any more Hardesty-esque.
Imagine having so much hubris that you not only think you could do both jobs, but that it's worth fighting for. Even if this just diminishes Hardesty's influence on the court, I am for it. Please make this happen! Hopefully, he will have to choose between the two and leave the Court. That guy is a wrecking ball on the judiciary.
One must remember that, unlike many states, being the head of an educational system in Nevada(whether the School Board, the Regents, etc.) will never result either in prestige, or the holder of the office receiving fulfillment for making positive change.
So, if one is in it for the prestige of the office, there is none, as the public, as well as the media, will mercilessly barbecue anyone in a leadership positon-whether it be our public schools, or the university system.
If involved with the school district, the condemnations are relentless–we have one of the lowest ranked school districts in the country, have been in those doldrums for decades, and anyone new who gets involved is just part of the problem, and makes matters worse.
Now if one is involved in the college system, the condemnation isn't quite as harsh as it is for the public school system, but it is still pretty bad. People view's of UNLV and UNR are, quite unfairly, that they suck and the only value UNLV had was in the late 80's and early 90's when we had championship basketball(all this conveniently ignores past successes of the hotel management program, nursing program, BOYD LAW–if Boyd deserves praise,etc).
No matter how much money is pumped into the college system, the view is largely the same as the public school system–"Nevada education sucks, and oddly, sucks even more when we pump more money into it."
The public believes that. The major media outlets certainly take that approach, and nuance is never considered, nor are any measurable improvements ever focused on or credited.
Now if one realizes that the public and media will never recognize a person for doing a good job, and therefore the person is mainly involved for the self-satisfaction that they made a positive difference, that is also not gong to be accomplished.
You will never feel you made a positive difference if (1) No one else recognizes it; and (2) you never get the funding you desired for your projects(and you never really will ever remotely reach the desired funding levels to ideally accomplish the goals).
This post sounds cynical, but is the honest truth. People and the media have always felt this way, and always will.
Now some may wish to point out isolated education figures who were well-respected and well-regarded, such as Kenny Guinn who subsequently became Governor. But the really positive assessment of Guinn's leadership in education was mainly revisionist–i.e. once he ran for, and then became, Governor, we were told how effective he had been in educational matters. But that was certainly not the media or public dialogue earlier on when he was actually serving in education leadership positions.
1:43. Seems like a real lengthy post to make the points that Nevada is substandard in education, and that those in education leadership generally receive criticism, but seldom praise, from the media or the public at large.
Agree with those general points. But your post, although long, ignores the nuance that you suggest should guide our analysis.
Most of us generally agree our educational system(at least public, pre-college) is lacking. Can't disagree unless all the ratings for decades have been a fraudulent sham.
But there is a funding issue that has always been heavily debated and argued. Is the main funding problem that our school district is underfunded, or is it mainly that the funds are miss-used and incompetently and/or unfairly distributed.
1:50–I've lived here for decades and have seen many school budgets debated and then ultimately passed, and have, at least to some meaningful extent, reviewed many of the studies for decades that includes the assessment and the rankings.
So, to add my two cents, I believe it is more of a problem of how the funds are apportioned, and then used and spent, as opposed to the funding itself being glaringly substandard on its face.
But, since nuance is suggested, it seems we have many decent public schools. To make an unfair but often accurate generalization–areas with higher home prices, and greater per capita income per household, usually will ultimately result in better public schools. But schools in areas that feature really low income and relatively high crime, seem to get the short end of the stick and never seem to really improve.
This opens up the funding disparity debate as not all schools receive the same degree of funding proportionate to their student population. Many variables are in play. Some of them are unfair and hold back the poorly performing schools so they can never see daylight.
Som emay claim schools I beter areas only receive superior funding to to the schools in
Looks like a sentence of gibberish at the end of 2:02's post, but the part that preceded it focuses me on something I have always wondered about.
If there are High Schools, for example, that receive different degrees of funding, what causes that? One school having more students? There must be more involved than that, as the better schools do seem to receive superior and disproportionate funding.
Sweet Jesus, nothing go see here. Yes, no conflicts here. I am sure the not corrupt, non law applying Nevada Supreme Court will allow Hardesty to violate the constitution.
Guest
Anonymous
May 14, 2020 7:23 pm
Well crapola, my health insurance expired (short term plan) and tomorrow is the last day of the special enrollment period. All the plans suck and are expensive.
I'm a solo with no employees, so I can't get on the group exchange thing.
Anyone have any advice on health plans, or do I just bite the bullet and spend the money for a shitty plan?
Have you had any major claims? If so, did they handle them well and not do the usual insurance company bullshit?
The religious ministries things seem a little shady to me, to be honest.
Obama promised the plans would be affordable…and you could keep your doctor. I am lucky that I have health insurance. Sorry you are getting pinched from another Democratic lie.
To 4:39 — You obviously are not an attorney, because attorneys are generally well-read and well-informed. Well-read and well-informed people know that the Republicans have done their level best to undermine and defund the Affordable Care Act, all the while criticizing it and offering no real alternative plan. Obamacare would be working quite well if the Republicans had not undermined it. Also, since you are not an attorney, STAY THE eff OFF THIS BLOG!
ACA was passed in 2010. In the 10 years since passed on March 23, 2010(6.5 under Obama and 3.5 under Trump), ACA has never worked as advertised. Certainly Republicans have had 3.5 years to come up with a better system and failed at every turn. However to put the failure of ACA at the Republicans' feet is silly.
8:33 is absolutely right that 4:39 is not an attorney. And this conclusion is not based on the fat that 4:39 espouses a conservative or anti-democrat positon.
After all, the Law is a pretty conservative profession and a good half or more of the attorneys are Republicans. I believe they clearly outnumber the Democrats in our profession.
So, the conclusion that 4:39 is not a lawyer is not based on the fact that 4:39's positon is anti-democrat or conservative. The opinion is based on the utter mindless idiocy of the opinion. And in addition to being idiotic, it represents the most mindless parroting of the most simplistic, moronic anti-Obama talking points. It's like thee tenth million time we have all heard that point.
8:33 is absolutely correct in deducing that someone with seven years of higher education would have analytical skills that are a billion times more developed than 4:39.
There is a lot that can be legitimately criticized about in the Obama administration(and all administrations in fact) and there is a great deal wrong with the Affordable Care Act beyond the necessity of some fine tuning or allowing for growing pains. And the problems with it cannot be solely or primarily blamed on Republicans obstructing it and not being supportive(although that is certainly a major factor). It is a lot more complex and nuanced than that. But we cannot have that conversation with people who essentially believe Obama was a Muslim terrorist bent om destroying our country, which I'm sure 4:38 believes is the case.
Agree with 8:33 and 9:13, except as to the point that 4:39 should not be mandated to stay off the blog simply because he is not an attorney. But I would request that 4:39 frame his arguments as a considered adult would, and not like some angry devotee of right wing talk radio.
I'm in the same situation. During open enrollment late last year, I was able to get decent coverage for myself (no dependents) through HPN for around $550 per month, which was just slightly more than COBRA from my prior firm was costing. That's for a PPO. I could have saved a little with an HMO but not enough to make it worthwhile.
4:39 here.
Thanks to all the Democrats for their emotional responses. What, Obama did not promise affordability and keep your own doctor? The truth hurts, doesn't it.
I thought 8:33 and 9;13 were a little harsh on 4:39, but now that I see how 4:39 keeps standing by his "point", I have to wonder.
4:39 missed the point that his opinion was not really being attacked, but the attack was on the way he frames the opinion, which shows he formulates no opinions of his own, does not have the ability to synthesize facts and details, and can only regurgitate the inane, and completely simplistic conclusions that he borrows from right wing zealots.
And the fact that when this lack of ability to analyze or maturely discuss any issues is pointed out to him, he can only respond like an 8-year-old by saying, "the truth hurts", is truly disturbing.
Guest
Anonymous
May 14, 2020 7:26 pm
David Lee Phillips gets a second chance and stayed suspension and then pulls crap again while under a stayed suspension.
I am torn: Cutter would be your worst nightmare on the Bench. On the other hand if she gets the seat, I can spend $400 to peremptory challenge her and not have to deal with her whereas if she stays in private practice I am going to have a hard time avoiding her nastiness and improper litigation activities.
Of the Family Court races on the Primary ballot(those races with three or more candidates) this is the only race of the several where the RJ declined a recommendation.
In one or two of the races they actually endorsed two candidates, and in the other races they chose one person to endorse.
So, this refusal to endorse someone is actually quite noteworthy as the RJ generally set the bar pretty low as to what it takes to receive an endorsement. It is clear from the content of some of their editorial endorsements that to receive their endorsement you don't necessarily have to be much good. You only need to be not quite as dreadful as the other choices.
So, even if it comes down to who is worse–Stoffel or Cutter, they should have taken a stand. After all, we attorneys need to take a stand, unless we plan to skip the race on the ballot.
Is Gemma the best choice in this race? I don't know but I will vote for Stoffel. Cutter will be a nightmare and I don't want to have to pay $450 to give her the boot each time we get a case in that dept. She is nasty.
My vote will be for anyone but Stoffel. Whether that's Gem for Judge (that sounds like a cartoon character) or Nadine Cutter, I don't know. Hopefully when I get a case assigned, it will go to one of the other 25 departments. The chances of my getting multiple cases assigned to one department are pretty low.
Guest
Anonymous
May 14, 2020 10:24 pm
Wonders never cease: The Nevada Supreme Court allowed the CoA to have a published opinion on (of all subjects) discovery (where of course Bulla was disqualified). So on a 2-0 decision, the Court of Appeals has interpreted the burdens of relevance and proportionality.
If I were the COA, I would publish every decision until the Supremes changed the no publication rule. There is no reason we should be allowed to cite unpublished cases from the Tennessee court of appeals, but are admonished when we cite our own COA decisions.
Pet Peeve of the Day:
Firms distributing your billable hour totals to all other attorneys in the firm. My hours, my business. Sure there's always going to be partners that have access to it, but why give access to all attorneys in the firm. I've never been in a firm that does it, but I've heard of hour totals being emailed out to all attorneys in the firm on a monthly basis, weekly basis, and daily basis. Does this happen at most firms? If so, how often are they distributed. I just don't see the rationale for it other than to have unhealthy competition leading to overworked, overstressed, anxious attorneys working for you.
My experience at mostly "biggish" law firms is that this isn't routed beyond partners. I understand the negatives (competition, etc.) but at the same time if it were anonymized, it would provide folks with context (you feel you're busy, and it turns out you're right, or actually pretty average – which may not help but at least is context). I'm a fan of some form of anonymized data.
You hit the nail on the head in that last sentence. If overworked then the FBUs (fungible billing units) are doing their jobs. Their jobs are to generate revenue for the firm to distribute to its owners, with performance bonuses distributed to the FBUs when deemed necessary to keep them in place.
Never had to deal with that. I can see how regular reports to all attorneys is toxic. Sure, distribute the associate billable hours to partners so that partners know what associates they can distribute more work to. Associates wouldn't even know that was happening. But I don't think associates should see other associates hours. That's toxic and creates those problems you identified. I have no problem with 10:09 idea about sending out anonymized data so you can see where you are.
Insurance defense firms do this to try and shame the associates. It creates a scenario where every single email or text message on every single case generates a .2.
I've always thought that a better way to beat the associates into productivity would be to publicly post their collected fees rather than their hours billed. In the world of insurance defense, by the time the carrier's auditors get through a defense firm's bill, each hour billed is cut to about .8.
My last firm was a smallish firm (under 100 lawyers firm wide at the time) and used the billing software "Time Matters" and you could see any individual's hours in the entire firm including paralegals, associates, partners, and even owners.
My old firm distributed hours to all attorneys, and I appreciated it. This was in a more public interest type field, so there was more commitment to the mission than in a normal biglaw firm.
Sometimes it seemed like everyone else was in the office all the time and I was worried I wasn't pulling my weight, and I liked seeing that in fact we were all in the same zone. And seeing that the partners were in fact working more than me tamped down my resentment a little when I felt I was being overworked.
But not all associates agreed with me that it was a good thing, and I understand the reasonable critiques of the system.
I worked for a small firm (<20 attorneys) that circulated all the associates' hours and collections for the month, with a YTD total. It was the first time I worked in private practice, so it was interesting to me and helpful to see how I was doing compared to everyone else.
It showed me that family law is a cash cow, if you can stand it. (I can't.)
It also showed me that it made very little financial sense to stay with the firm. At least not for me. I don't know what the actual overhead was, but I imagine it was quite high (staff costs, building, services like cleaning, IT, etc.).
The collected revenues were higher than I expected. If you had the same revenues at a modern, lean firm, you could go from nothing to being a millionaire in 2-3 years.
My favorite thing to see on billing reports is the 26.3 hour day that one of the named partners at my firm routinely bills.
That partner just operates on a 37-hour day: https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/de999e13-50e6-49ae-8cdb-b0cc36b2d295
Vote for Bogs, and don't forget to comment about 2020 State Bar. You have one day left. So nice of the Nevada Supreme Court.
I am 71 years old and learned I now have to complete CLEs. I along with others 70+ were previously exempted under Supreme Court Rule 14. The Bog has some explaining to do. I urge you all to VOTE OUT the current Bog. I sure am.
Non-incumbents to vote for:
Mary Bacon
Donald Green
Scott Lachman
Casey Quinn
Brittnie Watkins
See ADKT 549.
Why shouldn't EVERY active member of the bar do CLE? What makes you so special that you should be exempt? Asking for a friend.
10:39: I have likely been licensed for longer than you've been alive. I have taken my fair share of CLEs over the years and have never been disciplined. The rule exempting 70+ had been on the books for 30+ years with no evidence 70+ were acting incompetently due to the lack of CLEs. Shame on the Bog.
90% of all CLE is irrelevant. Everyone should have to do a 3-4 hour annual refresher in their area of concentration (e.g. family, criminal, general civil, etc.) covering rule changes/NRS changes/significant NSC decisions. That's it. If you want to do more than that because it's interesting or your think it would be helpful, then go ahead, but it shouldn't be required. I think the over-70 rule was designed for people who are truly semi-retired but want to keep an active license. So if I were king for a day, I'd exempt those who practice exclusively as arbitrators or short-trial judges, or who can prove they practice less than, say, 200 hours per year (kind of an honor system there, admittedly). That would maintain the intent of the original rule.
11:00: So what? We've all "taken our share" of CLEs over the years. Why should you be exempt now? CLE is part of the job of being a lawyer. If you don't like it, don't be a lawyer.
I'm not 10:39, btw. But I feel the same way.
Don't vote for Lachman. You might as well give the Supreme Court a seat as a BOG.
If an attorney is actively practicing at age 70, 80, 90, whatever, then I think (on average) that attorney needs CLE more than someone straight out of law school. Old timers oftentimes think they know everything, but they're still citing cases from 20-30 years ago, ignoring legal standards that have changed drastically since then.
Like 11:00 (#2) said, if people are in a part-time situation or a niche practice, maybe there could be some accommodation, but I don't think age alone should affect the requirements.
11:28: Lachman was Cherry's clerk through 2013. Watkins was Douglas's clerk through 2016. So should we not vote for either just because they clerked for now former justices? I personally know Scott and Brittnie and they are both worthy to be on the board. Mary Bacon too.
I think CLEs on stress and alcohol abuse are rich. I'm stressed because I have too much shit to do, and not enough time. Adding a CLE to my plate doesn't help my problem it makes it worse. So I get stressed and go home and drink. The move on CLEs is to do PLI during commutes. I've gotta be in my car listening to inane bullshit anyways, why not inane CLE bullshit.
I have no problem advocating for voting out the incumbents. However the CLE rule change is a no brainer. 60 year old lawyers may have been practicing 35 years and need CLE but 70 year old lawyers think that they do not? If you do not want to fulfill the requirements for practice, go inactive or take emeritus status. There is nothing special about being 70.
I agree with 11:28, I had a few cases with Scott Lachman. He brags about his clerkship and ties to Mike Cherry. Plus, he is a jerk. So, I will not be voting for him.
I don't think it's productive for the 71-yeaar-old attorney and the other posters to get sucked into a debate as to whether the older attorney merits a CLE Exemption.
No need for that acrimony. Plus someone who is 71 and has practiced honorably for decades deserves more respect that that.
Suffice it to say that certain privileges and accommodations have often come with age and years of service. Plus, it may be perceived that most attorneys past 70 are not practicing nearly to the extent they previously did.
Those reasons may not be particularly convincing(after all, many post-70 attorneys still practice full-time) but it has always been the case that with age comes the exemption.
So, to have always allowed it for post-70 attorneys, and now to suddenly eliminate it(probably as a grab for more CLE money, and thus more Bar money) does not seem that fair or honorable.
Older attorneys were getting a break for years, but now when attorneys reach 70 they do not receive the same breaks as their slightly older colleagues.
And I think those are the considerations the dialogue should revolve around–rather than simply "what makes them so special that they don't have to pay. So what if they are now a bit older."
1109 here. "But that's how it's always been done!" is not a compelling argument. Agreed that the discussion should be civil. If there is a better argument for waiving CLEs for the attorneys who most need it (and can afford it), I'm all ears (or eyes, as the case may be).
If you want to retire and do pro bono full time (regardless of age), I have no problem with waiving the CLE requirement. If you want practice law as a profession after age 65 or 70 or 80 just the same as everyone else, meet the same standards as everyone else.
2:26–"But that's how it's always been done" is a weak argument, or astronger argument, based on context.
if we are doing something in a clearly bad, damaging and incompetent manner, then yes, we don't want to continue down that road simply because it has always been that way.
But, in situations like the recent withdrawal of the Post-70 CLE exemption, the concept is used to point out the apparent unfairness of revoking a benefit that was enjoyed by those who went before, but now denied to those who have paid their dues.
So, context can make thee concept a little more meaningful
The CLE Board is not governed by the BOG. They have their own Board and answer to the NSC. There is no reason that they are separate, but they are. Direct angst accordingly…..
"But, in situations like the recent withdrawal of the Post-70 CLE exemption, the concept is used to point out the apparent unfairness of revoking a benefit that was enjoyed by those who went before, but now denied to those who have paid their dues."
No the unfairness is in drawing an arbitrary line at 70 that has no relationship to the practice of law currently. People over 70 "have paid their dues"; people under 70 have paid their dues. There is no estoppel argument that people only practiced law because they were promised to be CLE free at 70. And they have the ability to be CLE-free after age 70. But to claim that you want the full benefits of driving licensure but do not want to take the eye exam because you feel you have earned the right to drive blindly makes no sense.
This is the current Bog trying to justify their actions. There was no reason to change the 70-plus exception but for money. This senior citizen attorney is voting out the incumbents and will be sending them my CLE bill this year! Approve 9:54!!
If octogenarias Aurbach and Coffing are too broke that they have to run for judge at their age, then you can take CLEs, grandma.
Octogenarians which mean people in their 80s. Coffing is 55 and Aurbach is 68.
1:01 – Lachman and I worked together at Weinberg Wheeler. He is damn good guy and one of the hardest workers I know. Even if you think he is a jerk as an opposing counsel, he is exactly the kind of attorney we need on the BoG. Someone who is willing to go to bat and is not status quo. Go get 'em Scottie!
3:32: What was the reason for the exception in the first place?
Coffing is only 55, wow. Sorry, man, I thought you were olde. I gots to day no, too, to the Scottman Lachman, too. You are nice at Youngs, but not in the wrestling ring.
Say
The reason that the CLE Board and the BOG are separate is that the Bar makes money off of CLEs and the CLE Board approves not only their CLEs but those of their competitors.
I'm under 70…never Quinn.
Anonymous May 14, 2020 at 4:21 PM – Grammar Police here. What the hell was that? Or does happy hour start early at your firm?
It was a joke.
3:03–you may be right that 2:40's opinion, that the exemption should continue past Age-70, is not particularly supportable.
But if 2:40 is wrong(which I think they are) it is not for the reasons you say.
You remind me of one of those legal briefs where I agree with the conclusion, but the argument offered in support of the conclusion does not seem particularly valid, or even very rational.
You set up a straw man argument for 2:40, and then knock it down in order to prove you are right. But effective straw man arguments are based on taking the basic import behind someone's point, and then twisting it a bit, and modifying it as far as it can credibly be bent, in order to make it sound weaker and more susceptible to attack.
But you purely invented something totally bizarre which cannot possibly remotely parallel with anything 2:40 offered in support of the Post-70 CLE exemption.
You argued that under 2:40's analysis people who are now completely blind would be permitted to drive merely because they used to be permitted to drive years before they went blind.
What?!
So Trachok pushes Hardesty for Chancellor while simultaneously wanting a seat on the Nevada Supreme Court. "Numerous regents and others within NSHE who asked not to be named say Trachok, who announced earlier this year he would not seek re-election to the Board of Regents, intended to run for Supreme Court until he was sidelined by bad publicity — allegations that as chair of the board, he attempted to unduly influence the last search for a chancellor in 2017. The search effort was scrapped and current Chancellor Thom Reilly stepped in temporarily. He intends to leave the post this year."
Politics in Nevada.
If Hardesty gets the appointment, then he's off of the NSC, correct?
Not necessarily. That's one of the two issues in the Board of Regents' and Hardesty's petition for advisory mandamus: whether chancellor of NSHE is an incompatible office under the Nevada Constitution and, if it is an incompatible office, whether the incompatibility creates a disability to become chancellor that lasts for Hardesty's entire judicial term or just until he resigns his judicial office.
If the first question is answered in the negative, then I don't see any state constitutional provision that would preclude him from being both chancellor of NSHE and a supreme court justice. And before you go crazy with "but of course chancellor is an incompatible office, it's a public officer," the Nevada Supreme Court has already held there is a distinction between "public officer" and a constitutional "office."
This whole situation really couldn't be any more Hardesty-esque.
Imagine having so much hubris that you not only think you could do both jobs, but that it's worth fighting for. Even if this just diminishes Hardesty's influence on the court, I am for it. Please make this happen! Hopefully, he will have to choose between the two and leave the Court. That guy is a wrecking ball on the judiciary.
Hardesty told me he is not thinking of becoming a chancellor. He likes being a judge.
One must remember that, unlike many states, being the head of an educational system in Nevada(whether the School Board, the Regents, etc.) will never result either in prestige, or the holder of the office receiving fulfillment for making positive change.
So, if one is in it for the prestige of the office, there is none, as the public, as well as the media, will mercilessly barbecue anyone in a leadership positon-whether it be our public schools, or the university system.
If involved with the school district, the condemnations are relentless–we have one of the lowest ranked school districts in the country, have been in those doldrums for decades, and anyone new who gets involved is just part of the problem, and makes matters worse.
Now if one is involved in the college system, the condemnation isn't quite as harsh as it is for the public school system, but it is still pretty bad. People view's of UNLV and UNR are, quite unfairly, that they suck and the only value UNLV had was in the late 80's and early 90's when we had championship basketball(all this conveniently ignores past successes of the hotel management program, nursing program, BOYD LAW–if Boyd deserves praise,etc).
No matter how much money is pumped into the college system, the view is largely the same as the public school system–"Nevada education sucks, and oddly, sucks even more when we pump more money into it."
The public believes that. The major media outlets certainly take that approach, and nuance is never considered, nor are any measurable improvements ever focused on or credited.
Now if one realizes that the public and media will never recognize a person for doing a good job, and therefore the person is mainly involved for the self-satisfaction that they made a positive difference, that is also not gong to be accomplished.
You will never feel you made a positive difference if (1) No one else recognizes it; and (2) you never get the funding you desired for your projects(and you never really will ever remotely reach the desired funding levels to ideally accomplish the goals).
This post sounds cynical, but is the honest truth. People and the media have always felt this way, and always will.
Now some may wish to point out isolated education figures who were well-respected and well-regarded, such as Kenny Guinn who subsequently became Governor. But the really positive assessment of Guinn's leadership in education was mainly revisionist–i.e. once he ran for, and then became, Governor, we were told how effective he had been in educational matters. But that was certainly not the media or public dialogue earlier on when he was actually serving in education leadership positions.
1:43. Seems like a real lengthy post to make the points that Nevada is substandard in education, and that those in education leadership generally receive criticism, but seldom praise, from the media or the public at large.
Agree with those general points. But your post, although long, ignores the nuance that you suggest should guide our analysis.
Most of us generally agree our educational system(at least public, pre-college) is lacking. Can't disagree unless all the ratings for decades have been a fraudulent sham.
But there is a funding issue that has always been heavily debated and argued. Is the main funding problem that our school district is underfunded, or is it mainly that the funds are miss-used and incompetently and/or unfairly distributed.
1:50–I've lived here for decades and have seen many school budgets debated and then ultimately passed, and have, at least to some meaningful extent, reviewed many of the studies for decades that includes the assessment and the rankings.
So, to add my two cents, I believe it is more of a problem of how the funds are apportioned, and then used and spent, as opposed to the funding itself being glaringly substandard on its face.
But, since nuance is suggested, it seems we have many decent public schools. To make an unfair but often accurate generalization–areas with higher home prices, and greater per capita income per household, usually will ultimately result in better public schools. But schools in areas that feature really low income and relatively high crime, seem to get the short end of the stick and never seem to really improve.
This opens up the funding disparity debate as not all schools receive the same degree of funding proportionate to their student population. Many variables are in play. Some of them are unfair and hold back the poorly performing schools so they can never see daylight.
Som emay claim schools I beter areas only receive superior funding to to the schools in
Looks like a sentence of gibberish at the end of 2:02's post, but the part that preceded it focuses me on something I have always wondered about.
If there are High Schools, for example, that receive different degrees of funding, what causes that? One school having more students? There must be more involved than that, as the better schools do seem to receive superior and disproportionate funding.
Sweet Jesus, nothing go see here. Yes, no conflicts here. I am sure the not corrupt, non law applying Nevada Supreme Court will allow Hardesty to violate the constitution.
Well crapola, my health insurance expired (short term plan) and tomorrow is the last day of the special enrollment period. All the plans suck and are expensive.
I'm a solo with no employees, so I can't get on the group exchange thing.
Anyone have any advice on health plans, or do I just bite the bullet and spend the money for a shitty plan?
The religious ministries are good. I've used them for a few years now.
Have you had any major claims? If so, did they handle them well and not do the usual insurance company bullshit?
The religious ministries things seem a little shady to me, to be honest.
Obama promised the plans would be affordable…and you could keep your doctor. I am lucky that I have health insurance. Sorry you are getting pinched from another Democratic lie.
To 4:39 — You obviously are not an attorney, because attorneys are generally well-read and well-informed. Well-read and well-informed people know that the Republicans have done their level best to undermine and defund the Affordable Care Act, all the while criticizing it and offering no real alternative plan. Obamacare would be working quite well if the Republicans had not undermined it. Also, since you are not an attorney, STAY THE eff OFF THIS BLOG!
ACA was passed in 2010. In the 10 years since passed on March 23, 2010(6.5 under Obama and 3.5 under Trump), ACA has never worked as advertised. Certainly Republicans have had 3.5 years to come up with a better system and failed at every turn. However to put the failure of ACA at the Republicans' feet is silly.
8:33 is absolutely right that 4:39 is not an attorney. And this conclusion is not based on the fat that 4:39 espouses a conservative or anti-democrat positon.
After all, the Law is a pretty conservative profession and a good half or more of the attorneys are Republicans. I believe they clearly outnumber the Democrats in our profession.
So, the conclusion that 4:39 is not a lawyer is not based on the fact that 4:39's positon is anti-democrat or conservative. The opinion is based on the utter mindless idiocy of the opinion. And in addition to being idiotic, it represents the most mindless parroting of the most simplistic, moronic anti-Obama talking points. It's like thee tenth million time we have all heard that point.
8:33 is absolutely correct in deducing that someone with seven years of higher education would have analytical skills that are a billion times more developed than 4:39.
There is a lot that can be legitimately criticized about in the Obama administration(and all administrations in fact) and there is a great deal wrong with the Affordable Care Act beyond the necessity of some fine tuning or allowing for growing pains. And the problems with it cannot be solely or primarily blamed on Republicans obstructing it and not being supportive(although that is certainly a major factor). It is a lot more complex and nuanced than that. But we cannot have that conversation with people who essentially believe Obama was a Muslim terrorist bent om destroying our country, which I'm sure 4:38 believes is the case.
Agree with 8:33 and 9:13, except as to the point that 4:39 should not be mandated to stay off the blog simply because he is not an attorney. But I would request that 4:39 frame his arguments as a considered adult would, and not like some angry devotee of right wing talk radio.
But that's the problem with all this. There is an attempt to brainwash susceptible, impressionable, angry people of limited intelligence by having them memorize mantra or talking points. Once they memorize those couple angry and condemning clichés, they are not able, nor have they been taught, to peel away at the matter a little and support their opinion with facts or details.
I'm in the same situation. During open enrollment late last year, I was able to get decent coverage for myself (no dependents) through HPN for around $550 per month, which was just slightly more than COBRA from my prior firm was costing. That's for a PPO. I could have saved a little with an HMO but not enough to make it worthwhile.
4:39 here.
Thanks to all the Democrats for their emotional responses. What, Obama did not promise affordability and keep your own doctor? The truth hurts, doesn't it.
I thought 8:33 and 9;13 were a little harsh on 4:39, but now that I see how 4:39 keeps standing by his "point", I have to wonder.
4:39 missed the point that his opinion was not really being attacked, but the attack was on the way he frames the opinion, which shows he formulates no opinions of his own, does not have the ability to synthesize facts and details, and can only regurgitate the inane, and completely simplistic conclusions that he borrows from right wing zealots.
And the fact that when this lack of ability to analyze or maturely discuss any issues is pointed out to him, he can only respond like an 8-year-old by saying, "the truth hurts", is truly disturbing.
David Lee Phillips gets a second chance and stayed suspension and then pulls crap again while under a stayed suspension.
http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseView.do?csIID=55782
Any comments on Family Court Dept. T? Cutter, Nazareno-Edquilang, or Stoffel. I tend to shy away from Stoffel.
I am torn: Cutter would be your worst nightmare on the Bench. On the other hand if she gets the seat, I can spend $400 to peremptory challenge her and not have to deal with her whereas if she stays in private practice I am going to have a hard time avoiding her nastiness and improper litigation activities.
Cutter is far better than Stoffel. She is the only choice we have! Didn't preempts go up to $450?
Of the Family Court races on the Primary ballot(those races with three or more candidates) this is the only race of the several where the RJ declined a recommendation.
In one or two of the races they actually endorsed two candidates, and in the other races they chose one person to endorse.
So, this refusal to endorse someone is actually quite noteworthy as the RJ generally set the bar pretty low as to what it takes to receive an endorsement. It is clear from the content of some of their editorial endorsements that to receive their endorsement you don't necessarily have to be much good. You only need to be not quite as dreadful as the other choices.
So, even if it comes down to who is worse–Stoffel or Cutter, they should have taken a stand. After all, we attorneys need to take a stand, unless we plan to skip the race on the ballot.
You can argue Stoffel is ineffectual. But Cutter is actually underhanded and sneaky. You cannot have that on the bench.
I will never vote a Cooley grad for judge.
Cutter, never Stoffel
Is Gemma the best choice in this race? I don't know but I will vote for Stoffel. Cutter will be a nightmare and I don't want to have to pay $450 to give her the boot each time we get a case in that dept. She is nasty.
My vote will be for anyone but Stoffel. Whether that's Gem for Judge (that sounds like a cartoon character) or Nadine Cutter, I don't know. Hopefully when I get a case assigned, it will go to one of the other 25 departments. The chances of my getting multiple cases assigned to one department are pretty low.
Wonders never cease: The Nevada Supreme Court allowed the CoA to have a published opinion on (of all subjects) discovery (where of course Bulla was disqualified). So on a 2-0 decision, the Court of Appeals has interpreted the burdens of relevance and proportionality.
If I were the COA, I would publish every decision until the Supremes changed the no publication rule. There is no reason we should be allowed to cite unpublished cases from the Tennessee court of appeals, but are admonished when we cite our own COA decisions.
Bonnie Bulla is disqualified from hearing discovery matters, but she is still is anyone. Vote her out. This violates the law.
anyway