- Quickdraw McLaw
- 75 Comments
- 342 Views
- Guardianship abuse is the focus of a new documentary. [KTNV]
- The attacks against Aaron Ford aren’t about him says this commentary. [Nevada Current]
- A civil bench bar tomorrow will feature discovery commissioner Bonnie Bulla talking about proposed changes to discovery rules. [eightjdcourt blog]
- MGM is trying to pay for more schooling for its employees. [TNI]
Documentaries shouldn't contain reenactments, just my two cents.
James Pengilly's discipline decision is released. Suspended 6 months + 1 day. http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/document/view.do?csNameID=44549&csIID=44549&deLinkID=668590&sireDocumentNumber=18-35030
And this case right here will show why the Nevada discipline system is bullshit. Complete bullshit. I am not arguing what Pengilly's suspension should have been, merely that the system that tells you that it is really a 184 day suspension is a lie.
Six months and a day means under SCR 116(1) that Pengilly has to petition for Reinstatement. Once the Petition is filed, the OBC conducts assigns an investigator, conducts an investigation, asks for records, appoint a Panel Chair and then have a hearing within 60 days. OBC takes 60 days after the hearing is conducted to file its Findings with the Nevada Supreme Court. The Nevada Supreme Court has been averaging 8-10 months after a Reinstatement is filed to order Reinstatement.
Therefore Pengilly's 6 month suspension will de facto keep him out of the practice of law most likely for 18 months. Think about that. This supposedly much more efficient system that you have been hearing about means that suspensions are actually 3 times longer than advertised.
Ah… the value of a day…
Karen Ross hit her Trust Account for six figures and got six months (so she will not have to petition for reinstatement).
Gabriel Ginapp got his suspension for failure to answer a Bar Complaint. You may recall Ginapp's case was built upon false testimony by the Bar Investigator in the hearing when they refused to call the actual complainant because he would contradict the Bar Investigator, at which time the OBC slammed through a disbarment. So Ginapp was punished more severely for not answering a letter from the OBC (and now will have to pay $5000 to get reinstated over 18 months) than Ross was for taking hundreds of thousands of dollars out of her Trust Account.
The original Complaint against Pengilly was filed 10/3/2016. That means it took almost 2 years for the OBC/NSC to process the case, 2 years in limbo to process a supposedly 6 month suspension (that the poster above correctly indicates will require 18 months to reinstate if Pengilly files on the very date that he becomes eligible for reinstatement).
Furthermore when you hear how much more efficient the NSC thinks it is being, Pengilly's suspension was filed with the NSC on 11/1/2017. It took the Supreme Court over 10 months to process his file. Karen Ross's suspension took 9 months to process. When the Supreme Court tells you how efficient discipline cases are today, they are lying to you.
Favoritism at the OBC.
So, I guess disbarment would require actually shooting the deponent?
This asshole should be disbarred. Jesus.
Not a single person who actually heard the testimony and evidence in the Disciplinary Hearing agrees with you. Not a single member of the Nevada Supreme Court agrees with you. Charges were never filed regarding the conduct. What do you know that none of these people who actually heard the evidence and testimony do not know?
1:45, why don't you release opinions based on evidence and law on a timely manner instead of responding to the legal blog on tax payers' dollars while at work.
Make sure you get more of the same Purina and vote for Stiglich.
1:59–I will have you know that it is not the taxpayer's dollars. It is your Bar Dues as well as those fines that we keep assessing.
Hey of all of those discipline decisions last week, how many was Stiglich on the opposite side from Hardesty? How many en bancs in the last month (including the dismissal of the appeal on the Marshals case last week) was Stiglich opposite Hardesty? Precisely zero. For someone who supposedly had experience and a viewpoint for fairness and independence, Stiglich has turned out to be a toady.
Oh, so it is OBC who is defending the Pengilly discipline. Thank you for clarifying. No wonder you ate understaffed.
2:30-and exactly why is it that you think Stiglich is following Hardesty rather than the other way around? She's smarter.
She is smarter. However Hardesty is the bully of the bench. It is not Hardesty signing onto Stiglich opinions. It is Stiglich signing onto Hardesty opinions. She might have brains but zero backbone. But to be fair, that is the entire Court right now. Hardesty bullies everyone around, and there is not an independent thinker of the bunch except Pickering sometimes. Hardesty is a terrible justice and an even more miserable human being.
Yes, he spear heads the referendum for the COA, and then he tries to dismantle it. He is gone. Never received my vote.
I like the Purina comment, true. Pengilly should have been charged with attempt murder by Wolfson. Glad to see this winner is only suspended.
I used to work at the NVSC. I can assure you Pickering is always an independent thinker.
Would the person who posted earlier about Bar Counsel stating that they are not A substitution for the courts share that letter with me. I am working on a defense.
Sure. I just sent you an email.
If the elections go right, the men on the NVSC will be in the minority.
Sure, I have no problem sharing. Just let me know how I can get a hold of you.
If the elections go right? Only a candidate would say that. Harter has our support.
Where was this post/letter in which OBC stated "they are not A substitution for the courts"?
That letter is damming to Bar Counsel. Who authored it? I would love a copy as well
As I said, provide me a mailing address and I will send a copy. It will be redacted with my name and address. It was authored by Phil Pattee and sent in a blue envelope. If I could post a copy of it annoys, I would.
I have heard Phil say this before to blow off complaints.
Post it to Scribd or DocStoc or any other document sharing service. You can remain relatively anonymous and redact any personal information.
So on 8/31 the CLE Board file a motion to scrap ADKT 0499 (a proposal to amend some of the CLE fee fiasco if you will)
The Supremes just granted that motion. The CLE board will now submit a new amendment. What is hilarious in their motion to scrap the proposed amendment is this statement: "the CLE Board has received both positive and negative comments on the business plan as it has unfolded this year.”
Who honestly thinks their business plan was a good? The dearth of CLE selections on the bar's website as a result of this new plan is just sad.
Even more intriguing is that reading Willick's comments he indicates the CLE Board has surplus of $600K. Unreal.
http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseView.do?csIID=34375
It's not Willick's comments that show the CLE has a reserve of $600k. It's the Board's Business Plan filed on 12/7/2015.
I am affiliated with one of the CLE providers. They have admitted that they are going to offer approximately 15-20 of their 1500 courses that otherwise would have been eligible for credit in Nevada in 2018 because it just makes no sense to even try and provide CLE credits to Nevada attorneys with the new system. They want to provide a path to CLE compliance in Nevada but its just a bundle so they can fulfill their commitment to Nevada subscribers.
The CLE Board has nothing to do with the CLEs offered by the State Bar.
Agreed. But notice how many fewer CLEs are being offered by the private CLE providers this year? They have all been run off so that the CLE Board could make more money, and it has been a disaster.
It does and it doesn't, 1:44. The CLE Board charges CLE providers an absurd fee. It then exempts its favored institutions, like the State Bar and LACSN, from having to pay that fee. Result? Competition disappears. Willick has it right. This has nothing to do with improving the quality of legal education in Nevada.
Nothing to see here either.
I believe the CLE $600,000 was subsequently spent on furniture
I am not privy to any conspiracy against Aaron Ford. I do not support Laxalt or Trump. I am not a right winger of any kind. I just know that I worked with Ford at Snell and the guy rarely showed up for work. Does he know how to practice law? Is he qualified to be the Attorney General of the State of Nevada? I have my doubts.
What did Ford even do at Snell? For that matter, what does he do at E&P? Has anyone litigated a case with him and able to shed light on his legal skills? Because there isn't much of a record out there.
Duncan has real legal experience and is smart. He's worked at the highest level in that office and has no skeletons in his closet. Nobody owns him. In fact, he probably should have been AG instead of Laxault.
On the other hand, Ford's tax liens are a little troubling and he has no real record of any significant accomplishment as an attorney. He's received compliments as a legislator; but legislative talent (if he actually has any) isn't highly applicable to being AG. And we should probably have some concern that as AG, Ford would have a lot of (ahem) favors to repay.
Ford failed to pay taxes as a "partner" of Snell. Something smells.
1:11 – What does Ford make per year at E&P for not practicing law? And if he doesn't practice law, what does he do?
Ford works for free, 1:20. He had middle six figures in cash to pay back three or four tax liens, while working for Eglet.
Damn it must be great to be Eglet. I mean, what's the downside?
Eglet paid for Ford's tax liens. Ford runs his campaign.
The Nevada Current has been a complete disappointment. What could have been a stable source of news has turned into a less-than-credible rag. It is really bad.
I am generally not opposed to its political bent, but its journalism is really shoddy.
Bulla getting snippy.
As far as the Commissioner presenting on proposed changes to discovery rules, we don't really need new rules and don't need any substantive changes to the existing ones.
When there are committees to propose new rules and/or changes to existing rules, it is usually based on the false premise that adopting new rules, or modifying existing rules, will solve some systemic problems that are occurring.
But it never has that effect. There are by now more than ample rules controlling discovery, and they are pretty all encompassing as to various contingencies that occur, and about as reasonably complete as they realistically can and should be. So, we don't need additional rules and changes IMO.
The problems are caused by enforcement issues, not by lack of sufficient rules to cover certain contingencies.
Enforcement problems can take several shapes. Sometimes there are sufficiently codified rules but they are not sufficiently enforced. At other times existing rules are enforced too harshly, rigidly or inappropriately while other times they are enforced too leniently or not at all.
Read the proposed amended rules and then come back for informed discussion.
I love it!
The rules "are not sufficiently enforced. At other times existing rules are enforced too harshly, rigidly or inappropriately while other times they are enforced too leniently or not at all." Sounds almost like the opinion varies based on which side of the ruling the author is on.
In all seriousness, therein lies the problem for the bench officer. If they do their job correctly, properly exercising judicial discretion, they will in most cases upset both sides of the dispute with their ruling.
To: 7:57: I may very well be wrong, but I don't think 1:17 was complaining about the Commissioner or how she rules.
I think a much more general point was being made, and it is a point which is often true. The point is that when there are committees to add or change rules, usually there are already sufficient existing codified rules to deal with most contingencies which arise. So, the problem is not the lack of sufficient rules, but the problem is are the existing rules used and enforced, and if so are they properly used and enforced.
It does appear the rules as currently configured, if utilized and then applied properly, can address almost all disputes and issues which arise. And yes, I have reviewed the proposed amendments(as 1:26 recommends) and believe I can engage in a reasonably informed discussion.
I think it's a little unfortunate that when someone is making a general point, and does not even mention a particular attorney or judicial officer, the point they are making is interpreted that they must dislike a certain individual, and that they probably dislike them because that individual ruled against them.
We, in our profession, seemed so hyper-sensitive at times(and I mean, all of us) that any time generic criticism, or even mere suggestions or observations are made about a certain process, it is viewed as an attack on the person at center of the process and that we must dislike that person because we "lost" a case they presided over.
But did you lose a case she presided over?
Eglet hired Ford to get his foot in the door with the state legislature. Eglet even made Ford a partner. So you think there will be no pay back? Ford already helped to lift the caps on the amount the state can pay contracted attorneys. Ford should have recused himself from that vote.
So why then does Bob run Ford for AG? If Ford is that valuable to Bob in Carson City on legislative and civil justice issues, why not just keep him in the State Senate where he can keep the skids greased? Or why not run him for governor against Laxault? How is Ford useful to Eglet as AG?
Hmm, I wonder how Ford would be helpful to Eglet over at the AGS office. What does the AG do?
Hire outside counsel to represent the State of Nevada. Lobby the Legislature as the state's chief legal officer.
Enforcing the laws of Nevada. There is no incentive for Eglet to buy the position.
The selection of outside counsel to represent the state is worth an incredible amount of money. Think of the law firms that were selected (on a contingency basis of course) to represent the states in the tobacco litigation in the 1990's/2000's. The opioid cases will be a cash cow as well, along with consumer protection issues (think predatory lending practices, cyber crimes, do not call list violations, etc.).
Eglet was picked by the County Commish to handle Opiods cases. Conflict?
How so? Aaron is not running for County Commish.
The legal blog is lit today. Elisa Cadish was at a small business event campaigning, and I did not find her approachable at all.
If it is on a personal level that you refer… is she ever? If it is rather approachable in terms of proximity.. did she bring a protection detail?
I met her in person at a SNAWA event a few years ago. Even though I mispronounced her name, she was very approachable and even friendly.
She's fine. I don't know if I'd characterize her as overly friendly or "approachable," but that's not even close to being one of the most important traits I'm looking for in a judge. Shit's petty.
Her personality aside, if you have nothing nice to say, she is one my least favorite judges. Her rulings. Her staff. I will pass.
I voted for her in the past. I will be voting for Tao. He is more experienced.
More experienced at what? I would trust Cadish's legal mind long before Tao's.
He is already an appellate court judge. She is asking for a huge promotion. I don't think she is a good judge.
Eglet does not do anything that do not directly benefit Eglet. He is not backing Ford because he loves the man. There is always an agenda.
I am a Bernie Sanders supporter, who will be voting for Tao.
Have you noticed that after all of these comments, not one person from Snell or EP has come forward to say, "No, no! Aaron Ford is a real hard worker and a true team player." Can you guess there has been no such push back? Because the guy is a lone ranger and an absent lawyer.
I just pray to the Lord that no one here questioning Ford's legal experience felt justified in voting for Laxalt. I had one case against Aaron when he was at Snell and I thought he was a fine attorney. I'm sure Wes is a fine attorney too. Funny thing is I wish the Ford/Duncan race was the Governor race – can't believe we ended up with Laxalt and Sisolacky.
I think that's the point though. You had one case against Ford. Most people in the fields in which they would expect to see him – haven't. Given the number of years he's practiced, one would expect a far higher number of counsel across the table who have seen him practice. Unfortunately, he, like a recent Democratic candidate for Lt. Governor, has made a career out of being a politician, not out of practicing law. This doesn't make him a bad person. Just one who isn't qualified to act as AG. To the extent Laxalt was unqualified, I don't think anyone should feel any better about Ford just because he happens to be from the other party.
We had one case against Aaron, and he was a low to mid-level associate parading as a partner who when you would call him about the letter that he supposedly authored was not familiar with it. This told me all that I needed to know.