- Quickdraw McLaw
- 62 Comments
- 221 Views
It’s not lost on us that there are few positive mentions of lawyers in the press. There are a lot of lawyers and firms out there who have done, and will continue to do, good things without getting any recognition for their efforts. Today’s post is dedicated to calling out people in our profession that are doing good things, or for pointing out what is working or even just to wax poetic about the things you like about being a lawyer in Las Vegas. Who made your nice list this year?
I appreciate when opposing counsel is reasonable and easy to work with. There's enough jerks in this profession, it's nice when we can play nicely with each other.
Here, here. Michael Infuso is an example of reasonable and easy to work with in my book.
"Do as adversaries do in law, strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends."
I agree about counsel being easy to work with (although my experiences with Mike Infuso would not necessarily put him in that category).
Not to brag, but everyone loves working with me, and I love working with everyone. We are all players on Team Justice.
I second the compliment for Michael Infuso. My matter opposite him was as to-the-point and cordial as it could be between the lawyers despite some weird underlying facts and enmity between the parties.
I third Mike Infuso. He is a good dude. I haven't seen him for a few years, but I always enjoyed working with him, even when we were opposite each other.
Jeff Rogan from the Clark County DA's office is one of the best!
Agreed! Jeff is professional, easy to work with and knows his stuff.
I agree as well.
Agree re Jeff.
Rob Bare. Everything about the man. He is the best of our profession.
Applause!
Had a bench trial in front of him, really appreciated his demeanor and how he handled everything.
Always had great luck with Chris Tilman. Every time I grab a case with him opposite, I know we are getting it done quick and easy. Love that guy!
20+ family lawyer here – love Chris – we settled probably 80% of cases I had with him.
I take some pride in the fact that I rarely need to appear before the discovery commissioner. I do a fair amount of insurance defense work and my last discovery hearing was approximately 5 years ago. By being reasonable, I am generally able to resolve discovery disputes. On the rare occasion I have to go to a discovery hearing, it seems to me that most of the disputes could have easily been resolved if counsel would have been more reasonable. Thank you to all the reasonable opposing counsel that allow me to avoid the discovery commissioner.
I am the same way. I think it's been 3 or 4 years for me. When I do end up there, I always win because it's the unreasonableness of opposing counsel that drove us to that moment.
This is generally true except…. sometimes you have to be the party initiating the Motion to Compel.
I have found most attorneys to be reasonable, at least in what I do. (Commercial litigation) Extensions are usually granted freely, disputes often worked out without the Court's intervention, and arguments are generally reasonable even if I think they are wrong.
I vote that we Blast out the NAUGHTY LIST!
Wasn't that festivus yesterday? Go to that post and blab away!!!
Clearly, you are the type of poster that belongs on the naughty list.
A comment yesterday (and common theme on here) re: the ability of recent Boyd grads grabbed my attention — are they really as bad as they are made out to be? I run a small office and am considering adding a new, young associate in the near future. For those who have hired a new Boyd grad in the last year or two, is anyone willing to share their experience? How did you get introduced to the candidate – through the school, a job posting, etc.? Did they have prior work experience? What is their work ethic like? In the time they've worked for you, would you say the hire has been successful/not?
Honest answer: cannot generalize about Boyd just as cannot generalize about any law school. Randall Jones and Scott Canepa are/were graduates of Cal Western School of Law. There are outstanding graduates from just about any law school that you can name; there are absolute pantloads from just about any law school that you can name. We vowed to never hire a Boyd Grad but they are all over the market. You have to be picky with them as with any graduates. The older I get, the more I am crotchety and convinced that there are no good options anywhere.
80% of them are useless. 10% are servicable and 10% are worthy or immediate hire. My sole Boyd hire (Grad about 2004 as I recall) was a star and still is.
Boyd grads are generally weak writers compared to other schools. I say generally because not all of them are terrible. That said, it doesn't make sense to say you won't hire any Boyd grad. You just need to figure out how to discern how can write and who can't.
Not a boyd grad, I don't understand the looking down on them. I mean before we had Boyd we were full of grads from random geographically close schools that were not particularly impressive (McGeorge anyone?, BYU in the early years and into the 90's before it became a higher rated school, etc) Are we to believe that boyd grads are somehow worse than grads from those less selective schools were? (And before the Mormons come after me, I am talking about BYU then, not now. Its a very good school now, wasn't always that way) To me, this smacks of a generational "kids these days…" type of complaint. Boyd grads are just like grads from anywhere else. There are those who are talented litigators, those who are talented transactional attorneys, and those that aren't really talented at anything. As with anything else, talk to someone you know and trust about an applicant before you hire them.
I have worked with some really good Boyd grads. Also some nice people that are turkeys as lawyers. My impression (feel free to correct me as I know this group will) is that it is really difficult to fail at Boyd. Once admitted graduation is almost certain. More wokness and social justice than hard work on Corbin and Chemerinsky.
Dennis Prince is from Cal Western, too.
Terry Marren was from Cal Western.
Israel Kunin was from Cal Western.
Well, there goes any pretense that this is a nice thread.
1:01 has a point. Some of the worst writing I have ever seen.
Boyd 13s' legal writing is exemplary, just like everything else about them.
Stupid question but how do I submit the CLE affirmation? The CLE is on the state bar website now and I cannot find how to submit the affirmation. Thanks.
1:05: Please go to nvbar.org, click on "Member Login," and then "MCLE Transcripts" after you have logged into your account. You should see the option to submit your 2022 affirmation.
They moved it to the 'License Renewal' page now. It's at the end after you confirm child support, liability insurance, trust account, and pro bono stuff. You just click to affirm, and then submit your renewal.
I think it used to be under the MCLE Transcripts page.
1:46 again, you don't even need to submit the renewal, just click 'Affirm' and it'll accept it. I just did it and checked on the MCLE Transcripts page and now it shows I've completed the affirmation.
Hope that helps!
Got it! Thanks!
For those of us who passed the bar in the last two years, do we have to do anything? Last year I think I had to submit a form, but I can't find the form on the MCLE website or the Bar website this time, and I don't have any affirmation to affirm on the license renewal page.
Matthew Harter, Jeff German, and Judge John McGroarty. All the good men we lost recently.
I'm not one much for censoring posts, but this one needs to go.
Concur.
Jordan– I generally agree with you. However on this one, I am a little confused as to what is removeably objectionable (on a gossip blog) about 1:17 wanting to apparently (a) express support for his/her friend Rob Telles and (b) expressing some reservation about the manner in which Jeff German reported on lawyers. That poster wants their friend to win in their criminal trial; nothing untoward about that even if we think Telles is unquestionably guilty.
The second point is a little trickier which is to speak ill of the dead. I knew Jeff and was interviewed by him a number of times. I liked him. But he was dogged in his pursuit of a story and often could not drop a bone. Those comments are true and in many ways flattering.
The third point which was not made by 1:17 is the equating of latter as a justified cause of the former: that German was so dogged as a reporter that it justifiably caused his death. I would likewise find such an assertion to be repulsive. But 1:17 did not say that.
You understand that was biting, dark humor, right? Not OP
Apparently even though Rob is legally presumed innocent, he may not be proclaimed so on this blog.
That's not even close to the crap you were posting about Rob and Jeff, you stupid troll.
9:46– This is 1:53. I think it is fair to state that there is a presumption of innocence in criminal cases. There is also the ability to not turn a blind eye to evidence and motive. While the RJ might not treat Telles evenhandedly, they are most likely not just making up the evidence against him.
There's a presumption of innocence *in court* because the state has to present evidence to show you're guilty, due process, etc.
But that's totally different outside of the courtroom. We're not talking about whether he's legally liable for murder of some degree, or manslaughter.
Is there really any doubt that Telles didn't kill German? Not whether he's legally liable for murder/manslaughter, but whether he just actually did the thing that ended German's life.
10:53 brings up a good point, and I would like to bring up another. Telles is certainly legally entitled to his day in court. However, he knows he killed German. Isn't it unethical for him to waste the resources of the state and put all the interested parties, especially German's family, through a trial? Isn't the ethical thing to accept responsibility, plead guilty and then litigate the sentence?
There is no doubt Telles did it. But there is doubt as to whether it was legally justified. German destroyed his life. In some instances that can constitute a legal provocation justifying homicide.
Legally justified? I cannot wait to hear the legal theory (and precedent) that if a reporter is saying not very nice things about you that you are legally justified to go to his house in a disguise and slay him.
3:58 wtf? Please tell me ur not a lawyer
When does Fiore take the bench? I am going to drive up there and watch her run a docket. I can't wait. It's going to be entertaining as hell.
Prediction: Fiore resigns from the bench when she realizes her removal and/or election defeat are inevitable (probably the former). She will cry political victimhood, that it was a partisan hatchet job because she's conservative/Republican/MAGA. She then moves on, effortlessly, to her next elected position.
We should rent a van and go up. This will be more entertaining than any reality tv!
She will resign when she has to show up every day, and figure out the difference between a tort and a tart and will never understand a contract implicating the UCC. A second reason she will quit is because initial appearance and bail hearings day after day are really, really boring. Oh, and then there are traffic IAP and trials.
It's justice court, 223. The most difficult thing she will have to address is summary eviction and a preliminary hearing.
The woman has no experience being a lawyer or judge, and is not even a college graduate. Nye County Commissioners — not just your average morons. They're . . special.
Trolls on this blog. They need to get a life.