B.O.G. elections? For all the hue and cry among rank and file bar members, including on this blog, that a new broom will sweep clean and that we need to, and will, elect outsiders to replace the entrenched members who serve us badly, little or nothing constructive will happen.
We will not see any holy crusaders of change, with broad-based support, sending out mass emails or mass mailings elucidating a bold new approach that serves the membership much better than the current BOG.
Instead, we will see the current, entrenched incumbents sending out letters and/or mass emails extolling their supposed accomplishments, but indicating there still remains important work to be done, so please vote for me. And those folks tend to get re-elected again and again.
It will be a case of meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
In past years, the BOG has addressed some issues of arguable value–attempting to curb the unlicensed practice of law, and control misleading attorney advertising, etc. Although worthy, the attempts to address these issues were not particularly successful, and, in any event, they were more consumer based protection issues, rather than serving the rank and file bar members(although we benefit a bit from curbing unlicensed practice).
But very little is done directly for the bar members. Bar members perceive that things are done against them, not for them. Wildly disproportionate and unfair discipline is aa real concern.
Guest
Anonymous
March 25, 2019 5:07 pm
Please list the Bar should do on behalf of the members (needed or wanted). Legitimately asking.
Wait wait, you want an actual,specific plan rather than "they are all bad so get rid of them?"
Guest
Anonymous
March 25, 2019 5:12 pm
I'm pretty sure Nicole Cannizzaro still works for the Clark County DA, as does Melanie Scheible and Jason Frierson. I assume this means the DA is not in need of any additional employees given his willingness to let these 3 employees take massive amounts of time off to work for the legislature. It must be nice to have this kind of free time.
Guest
Anonymous
March 25, 2019 5:13 pm
Expanding on what 9:54 said about wildly disproportionate and unfair discipline, an illustrative example would be helpful, so I'll take a stab at it.
As to the individual who ripped off over 20 million from clients, according to some news reports there were complaints to the Bar trickling in for the better part of a decade. But it was apparently far too complicated, multi-layered and overwhelming, and would have included the necessity of freezing assets, appointing a receiver and the like, etc.
So, by the time the Bar was prepared to really go after such lawyer,there appears to be almost no funds to reimburse any of these people whose lives were ruined.
I'm, of course, not blaming the Bar in any way for the results of what that vile crook did, but it appears from what was reported that people had been complaining to the Bar for several years about their money being ripped off. So, I for one believe that the Bar could have at least acted earlier, and much more boldly, and stopped some of this bleeding. That would have been the optimum, preferred approach.
But because it is so involved, immensely time-consuming and multi-layered, that may partly explain why it appears it may not have been as aggressively handled, and much earlier in time, than it was. Seems to me that by the time the Bar became appropriately aggressive, this guy had been arrested for serious crimes, and almost all the money was gone.
But, on the other hand, if you are temporarily off by $18. in your trust account, and you quickly correct and reconcile the problem,and no client is harmed or is even aware of it, and you self-report, it appears the discipline will be disproportionately harsh–partly because it's an easy, clear case for the Bar to connect the dots.
These are some of the things that rankle bar members. But no current BOG member, nor anyone running for such position, seem to agree or care as none of them are discussing this issue as part of their platform.
So, although I hope 9:54 is very wrong, I am afraid that the post is essentially correct that the more we bitch and complain, the less anything changes.
And, for varying reasons, I myself cannot run. But many who do righteously complain could run, but don't–perhaps because they believe that the entrenched incumbents are unbeatable. And, if an outsider does happen to beat the odds, get elected, they will be a lone voice in the wilderness and be crushed and completely outvoted by the other members.
e
But what if two outsiders are eventually elected? Or three? Or four? And so on.
Guest
Anonymous
March 25, 2019 5:29 pm
We elected 2.5 outsiders out of 4 last time. Adding another 3 or so this time will aid them. I am already committed to vote against every incumbent and to actively encourage colleagues to do the same.
Agreed wholeheartedly. No the outsiders elected last time all appear to have ingratiated themselves to be insiders (because that is where the best Jasons Deli sandwiches get served).
You people realize that the more you turn on your exalted "outsiders" and label them "ingratiated" or whatever other synonym for turncoat you can think of, the more difficult it will be to have actual outsiders or reformers throw their hats into the ring (along with putting their professional reputations on the line). I personally have zero interest in it, but if I were toying with the idea of running for BOG on some sort of bar/OBC reform platform I'd take a hard look at the kind of personal insults that get thrown around here before doing so.
The insults on here against private attorneys on here carry no weight with me whatsoever. Opposing counsel was on here spewing nasty comments on here to advance their clients' case concerning a colleague of mine. It backfires, and we know who you are, asshole.
Agree with 1:25,as it appears that 12:16 resents Mr.Coffing for some litigation related matter they are mutually involved in.
It appears to have nothing to do with Mr. Coffing's performance on the BOG. If I am wrong and 12:16 has some real knowledge of how Mr. Coffing discharges his duties with the BOG, and the poster disagrees with how Mr. Coffing goes about this, then specifics can and should be offered.
If not, then it simply appears that the poster has some private ax to grind.
I am not 12:16 and I think Terry is a very strong litigator who got screwed in the Department X appointment process. With that said, I cannot tell you a single thing that he has accomplished or pushed to change in his little less than one year on the BoG. I would love to be shown that this understanding (based upon researching BoG meetings is wrong).
The BoG has a lot for which to be held accountable. The threats of "The Gestapo is going to investigate any one who dares to run on some sort of SBN/OBC reform platform" tells you all one needs to know to figure out what a great deal is rotten in Denmark.
Cooper & Kirk usually only hires US Supreme Court clerks that went to Yale. I wish I had Cooper & Kirk on my resume.
Guest
Anonymous
March 25, 2019 6:22 pm
It's time for the State Bar to split its regulatory and trade association functions. The OBC can keep rent the top floor and a new non profit (Nevada Law Association or whatever name fits) takes over the 25 +/- state bar sections. California did it. It's time.
I certainly agree with you, 11:22. I'm not sure, however, that the trade association would necessarily "have" to remain in the same building. Perhaps a better answer, and benefit to the membership would be for the regulatory agency to remain in the official State Bar of Nevada building and to rent out on the open market any unneeded additional space, thereby creating income for the State Bar and possibly reducing the mandatory dues needed to run the Bar.
Once a split occurs, with the sections moving to the voluntary trade association, consideration could also be given to merging duplicative associations into the statewide trade association as additional section (e.g. Clark County Bar, Washoe Bar, etc.). Such a merger should also create economies of scale by eliminating duplicate positions thus allowing lower total annual dues for the membership (and possibly increasing the number of sub-parts they participate in.)
Like California and before that, Nebraska, bifurcating the regulatory and trade association is the way to go. (In Nebraska, the cost to practice decreased by two-thirds. A reduction in practice costs is similarly expected eventually in California although that state bar got so bloated over decades with so many well-paid bureaucrats it's taking time to unravel).
The time to act is now. There's currently a rule petition pending before the Arizona Supreme Court that lays out a model for Nevada to emulate. Here's the link to the rule petition that would amend the relevant state supreme court rules "to make voluntary some aspects of bar membership and to provide for audit to verify the use of mandatory dues." https://bit.ly/2WmKvno
Anyone running for the BOG should take a position on bar bifurcation. It is total B.S. that unlike other professions, lawyers are singled out with the requirement of compulsory trade association membership as a precondition of earning a living as lawyers. We should only be required to pay for licensing and regulation. Moreover, the bar cannot serve two masters: public protection regulator and lawyer trade association. It is an irreconcilable conflict of interest because most times lawyers have different interests and goals than the public.
12:21 is the first cogent comment about a position that the BOG may actually have to consider. Bifurcation is a big, complicated issue that will loom large in the next few years. I disagree that it should be a litmus test, but a commitment to an open mind is fair.
You don't get it. Half of the budget of the SBN is dedicated to performance of tasks, which are pet projects of the Justices….Access to Justice Commission, Pro Bono rah-rah activities, and the like. The good Justices want certain things to occur, and since they don't want to dirty up their budget or manage a "program," they have the bar shill it, under the thumbs of one of the Justices. So the court is not going to be splitting up the bar anytime soon, and lose out on vacations at the annual meeting….at least not until after the next trip to Maui. Kapeesh?
Guest
Anonymous
March 25, 2019 7:19 pm
OBC is advertising for a new "Legal Administrator". Not looking at the glass half empty but rather half full, presumably this means Goodbye Shelley Young. Please take your perjurious assistant Dawn Meeks with you. How the OBC continues to employ an investigator/paralegal who was exposed as committing perjury in a Hearing after the Gabe Ginapp case is mind blowing. (See the Record in Case 71015).
Yeah goodbye and good riddance. Also note that the OBC has added another lawyer (Shain Manuele) with under 5 years of experience in the practice of law. Mr. Manuele got hired from Panaca, you know the small town where Dan Hooge worked and has never actually practiced law.
You are being regulated on how to run a law firm but people who have no idea how to run a law firm.
B.O.G. elections? For all the hue and cry among rank and file bar members, including on this blog, that a new broom will sweep clean and that we need to, and will, elect outsiders to replace the entrenched members who serve us badly, little or nothing constructive will happen.
We will not see any holy crusaders of change, with broad-based support, sending out mass emails or mass mailings elucidating a bold new approach that serves the membership much better than the current BOG.
Instead, we will see the current, entrenched incumbents sending out letters and/or mass emails extolling their supposed accomplishments, but indicating there still remains important work to be done, so please vote for me. And those folks tend to get re-elected again and again.
It will be a case of meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
In past years, the BOG has addressed some issues of arguable value–attempting to curb the unlicensed practice of law, and control misleading attorney advertising, etc. Although worthy, the attempts to address these issues were not particularly successful, and, in any event, they were more consumer based protection issues, rather than serving the rank and file bar members(although we benefit a bit from curbing unlicensed practice).
But very little is done directly for the bar members. Bar members perceive that things are done against them, not for them. Wildly disproportionate and unfair discipline is aa real concern.
Please list the Bar should do on behalf of the members (needed or wanted). Legitimately asking.
Wait wait, you want an actual,specific plan rather than "they are all bad so get rid of them?"
I'm pretty sure Nicole Cannizzaro still works for the Clark County DA, as does Melanie Scheible and Jason Frierson. I assume this means the DA is not in need of any additional employees given his willingness to let these 3 employees take massive amounts of time off to work for the legislature. It must be nice to have this kind of free time.
Expanding on what 9:54 said about wildly disproportionate and unfair discipline, an illustrative example would be helpful, so I'll take a stab at it.
As to the individual who ripped off over 20 million from clients, according to some news reports there were complaints to the Bar trickling in for the better part of a decade. But it was apparently far too complicated, multi-layered and overwhelming, and would have included the necessity of freezing assets, appointing a receiver and the like, etc.
So, by the time the Bar was prepared to really go after such lawyer,there appears to be almost no funds to reimburse any of these people whose lives were ruined.
I'm, of course, not blaming the Bar in any way for the results of what that vile crook did, but it appears from what was reported that people had been complaining to the Bar for several years about their money being ripped off. So, I for one believe that the Bar could have at least acted earlier, and much more boldly, and stopped some of this bleeding. That would have been the optimum, preferred approach.
But because it is so involved, immensely time-consuming and multi-layered, that may partly explain why it appears it may not have been as aggressively handled, and much earlier in time, than it was. Seems to me that by the time the Bar became appropriately aggressive, this guy had been arrested for serious crimes, and almost all the money was gone.
But, on the other hand, if you are temporarily off by $18. in your trust account, and you quickly correct and reconcile the problem,and no client is harmed or is even aware of it, and you self-report, it appears the discipline will be disproportionately harsh–partly because it's an easy, clear case for the Bar to connect the dots.
These are some of the things that rankle bar members. But no current BOG member, nor anyone running for such position, seem to agree or care as none of them are discussing this issue as part of their platform.
So, although I hope 9:54 is very wrong, I am afraid that the post is essentially correct that the more we bitch and complain, the less anything changes.
And, for varying reasons, I myself cannot run. But many who do righteously complain could run, but don't–perhaps because they believe that the entrenched incumbents are unbeatable. And, if an outsider does happen to beat the odds, get elected, they will be a lone voice in the wilderness and be crushed and completely outvoted by the other members.
e
But what if two outsiders are eventually elected? Or three? Or four? And so on.
We elected 2.5 outsiders out of 4 last time. Adding another 3 or so this time will aid them. I am already committed to vote against every incumbent and to actively encourage colleagues to do the same.
Agreed wholeheartedly. No the outsiders elected last time all appear to have ingratiated themselves to be insiders (because that is where the best Jasons Deli sandwiches get served).
Terri Coffing, oh hell yeah. Sorry I voted for him. Andrew Craner, jury is still out on him. Jessica Goodey is about the only one I have faith in.
You people realize that the more you turn on your exalted "outsiders" and label them "ingratiated" or whatever other synonym for turncoat you can think of, the more difficult it will be to have actual outsiders or reformers throw their hats into the ring (along with putting their professional reputations on the line). I personally have zero interest in it, but if I were toying with the idea of running for BOG on some sort of bar/OBC reform platform I'd take a hard look at the kind of personal insults that get thrown around here before doing so.
The insults on here against private attorneys on here carry no weight with me whatsoever. Opposing counsel was on here spewing nasty comments on here to advance their clients' case concerning a colleague of mine. It backfires, and we know who you are, asshole.
Agree with 1:25,as it appears that 12:16 resents Mr.Coffing for some litigation related matter they are mutually involved in.
It appears to have nothing to do with Mr. Coffing's performance on the BOG. If I am wrong and 12:16 has some real knowledge of how Mr. Coffing discharges his duties with the BOG, and the poster disagrees with how Mr. Coffing goes about this, then specifics can and should be offered.
If not, then it simply appears that the poster has some private ax to grind.
Posters with some private ax to grind is 60% of this blog.
I am not 12:16 and I think Terry is a very strong litigator who got screwed in the Department X appointment process. With that said, I cannot tell you a single thing that he has accomplished or pushed to change in his little less than one year on the BoG. I would love to be shown that this understanding (based upon researching BoG meetings is wrong).
The BoG has a lot for which to be held accountable. The threats of "The Gestapo is going to investigate any one who dares to run on some sort of SBN/OBC reform platform" tells you all one needs to know to figure out what a great deal is rotten in Denmark.
2:45 I think your estimate is a bit low…
Laxalt found a firm – Cooper & Kirk
https://foxreno.com/news/local/former-nevada-ag-adam-laxalt-to-become-partner-in-national-law-firm
Cooper & Kirk usually only hires US Supreme Court clerks that went to Yale. I wish I had Cooper & Kirk on my resume.
It's time for the State Bar to split its regulatory and trade association functions. The OBC can keep rent the top floor and a new non profit (Nevada Law Association or whatever name fits) takes over the 25 +/- state bar sections. California did it. It's time.
I certainly agree with you, 11:22. I'm not sure, however, that the trade association would necessarily "have" to remain in the same building. Perhaps a better answer, and benefit to the membership would be for the regulatory agency to remain in the official State Bar of Nevada building and to rent out on the open market any unneeded additional space, thereby creating income for the State Bar and possibly reducing the mandatory dues needed to run the Bar.
Once a split occurs, with the sections moving to the voluntary trade association, consideration could also be given to merging duplicative associations into the statewide trade association as additional section (e.g. Clark County Bar, Washoe Bar, etc.). Such a merger should also create economies of scale by eliminating duplicate positions thus allowing lower total annual dues for the membership (and possibly increasing the number of sub-parts they participate in.)
Like California and before that, Nebraska, bifurcating the regulatory and trade association is the way to go. (In Nebraska, the cost to practice decreased by two-thirds. A reduction in practice costs is similarly expected eventually in California although that state bar got so bloated over decades with so many well-paid bureaucrats it's taking time to unravel).
The time to act is now. There's currently a rule petition pending before the Arizona Supreme Court that lays out a model for Nevada to emulate. Here's the link to the rule petition that would amend the relevant state supreme court rules "to make voluntary some aspects of bar membership and to provide for audit to verify the use of mandatory dues." https://bit.ly/2WmKvno
Anyone running for the BOG should take a position on bar bifurcation. It is total B.S. that unlike other professions, lawyers are singled out with the requirement of compulsory trade association membership as a precondition of earning a living as lawyers. We should only be required to pay for licensing and regulation. Moreover, the bar cannot serve two masters: public protection regulator and lawyer trade association. It is an irreconcilable conflict of interest because most times lawyers have different interests and goals than the public.
12:21 is the first cogent comment about a position that the BOG may actually have to consider. Bifurcation is a big, complicated issue that will loom large in the next few years. I disagree that it should be a litmus test, but a commitment to an open mind is fair.
You don't get it. Half of the budget of the SBN is dedicated to performance of tasks, which are pet projects of the Justices….Access to Justice Commission, Pro Bono rah-rah activities, and the like. The good Justices want certain things to occur, and since they don't want to dirty up their budget or manage a "program," they have the bar shill it, under the thumbs of one of the Justices. So the court is not going to be splitting up the bar anytime soon, and lose out on vacations at the annual meeting….at least not until after the next trip to Maui. Kapeesh?
OBC is advertising for a new "Legal Administrator". Not looking at the glass half empty but rather half full, presumably this means Goodbye Shelley Young. Please take your perjurious assistant Dawn Meeks with you. How the OBC continues to employ an investigator/paralegal who was exposed as committing perjury in a Hearing after the Gabe Ginapp case is mind blowing. (See the Record in Case 71015).
Yeah goodbye and good riddance. Also note that the OBC has added another lawyer (Shain Manuele) with under 5 years of experience in the practice of law. Mr. Manuele got hired from Panaca, you know the small town where Dan Hooge worked and has never actually practiced law.
You are being regulated on how to run a law firm but people who have no idea how to run a law firm.
Dan Hooge, Dan. Hooge. Dano. Dani. Dan Dan Noodles. Hooge, Hoogie. Doog, doogie.
I still want hear about the Wolfson Linda Bell meetings.