Video shows custody fight for teen later charged in father’s death. [RJ]
If you don’t want legal trouble, then do not leave your dog in a hot car once, let alone twice. [RJ]
Also, don’t threaten the Governor or his family. [8NewsNow]
The FBI is questioning witnesses in a Michele Fiore campaign finance probe. [RJ]
Some of you having been discussing first year salaries in the comments in light of increases at national firms (via Above the Law)–what do you think is a fair first year salary for Las Vegas associates of national firms?
First saw the new salaries were in the comments yesterday, with links. The old salaries are off of memory, but for sure close if not exact, considering NALP has some of the other big law firms current rates and they are 115 through 125.
Wow that custody case is incredibly sad. I've got a couple cases right now in family court and I just wonder how these parents see this working out for their kids. They clearly hate their ex more than they love their children. Disgusting. Obviously this case is the extreme, but you just know that kid has been through 10 years of hell with those parents. The therapists are just as bad…milking these cases and letting these idiotic parents tear their children apart.
I have seen clients spend the entire childhoods of their children in court, battling over custody and visitation. Then you start seeing their kids outside of juvenile court, having been arrested for some crime. The parents don't seem to understand that they are destroying their children.
Yep. I had a case where dad and step-mom were nightmares. Flew the kid home at midnight the night before school started every summer, took his clothes from him as soon as he got off the plane from mom's house, kid spent every christmas in the airport, etc. Once the kid turned 18, hasn't seen dad since. Go figure. Incredibly selfish, awful people.
I have seen several cases in my 20+ years that literally start litigation before the child is born and the fight rages on (usually over money) for a couple years after the child ages out. Ugly ugly ugly!
In many cases, the litigation is usually instigated by one party over the other. Over and over. Meaning, its usually one parties repeated fault and the victimized parent has to convince the judge, usually repeatedly, that the other parent is a psycho.
What is worse is when the therapists agree and the judge still doesn't get it.
Had this with DelVecchio (fixed by Ochoa), Sanchez (surprising actually, fixed by Marquis and then effed up by Ochoa again).
@1:22 you are right. So many times it is one side who just will not stop. Granted there are plenty of cases where they're both nuts, but more often one side just can't let go of their hatred. They file over and over and over. It's like their life doesn't exist without family court litigation.
Guest
Anonymous
July 13, 2021 6:04 pm
Fair salary depends on the hourly rate? Are any truly valued at more than $250 an hour? At $250 per hour over 1800 hours, there is potential revenue of $450,000. In reality, many of those hours won't be billed to clients, but if you had 90% collection rates on that $450,000, it's hard to justify paying more than $135k, which is the 1/3 ratio. https://www.olmsteadassoc.com/blog/law-firm-associate-and-non-equity-partner-compensation-is-there-a-cap-or-ceiling/. I suspect, however, that collections are closer to 50% when considering write-offs, non-billable time, "marketing" and the other nonsense bloat, making a 100k a more realistic good business choice. So even if you are billing first years at $500 an hour, I can't see how you can pay them 145 and 160. Once I realized how the numbers work, I instantly regretted being angry I wasn't paid and bonused more my first few years. You simply aren't worth it.
Hasn't the Biglaw salary corrolary always been that they pay a ton, but then they basically own your life?
Sure, a first year associate isn't really worth more than $250/hr. But a first year associate that you can drop a 40 hour project on Friday night and have it turned around Monday is what they're paying for.
Biglaw associate here. I almost quit on a daily basis but I know I need my current salary to afford shit I want (but honestly still can't afford because of this insane price inflation). My job requires miserably long hours, and I wouldn't do it for less than my current pay.
A few other things: (i) we see our collection rates and mine have always been in the mid to high 90% range, even when I was very junior; (ii) I have beat the 1/3 ratio you cite for almost every year I've been in practice; (iii) client billable time is counted separately from "marketing and nonsense bloat," and those things generally don't count towards billable requirements; they're just add ons to make out lives even more miserable; (iv) I've never once had fewer than 2000 client billable hours in a year. A few times I was in the 2400-2600 range.
Living outside your means usually doesn't end well. A larger salary or a bigger bonus won't rescue most people in your scenario. It usually just leads to an even more inflated and unaffordable lifestyle. Why do you care so much about what others think of you? I can't think of any other reason behind that mentality.
Regardless of whether you make 100K or 1,000,000, you have to live within your means. Definitely hear what you are saying 2:00pm, better to keep expenses low and put that money into investments, continuing passive income, rather than stuff. That way you use your cash to avoid the golden handcuffs.
1:18 here. I am living within my means. I unfortunately didn't buy a house when I apparently should have, and now I need to figure out a way to get a long term acceptable housing solution in a good school district. Feeling comfortable with what I anticipate will be a big house payment is what keeps me in my job.
Sorry, 118. I interpreted your statement about stuff you couldn't afford as you are living outside your means. I get what you're saying. Though, with a biglaw salary, I can't imagine why the difficulty in affording things. My advice is that of 235, avoid the golden handcuffs at all costs.
1:18 here. Honestly, it's more of a fear that I won't be able to find anything that I like that also pays enough to sustain me going forward. I could put a down payment down on a nice house. But what if I quit and the best job I can land pays a tiny fraction of where I'm at? I'm probably screwed.
@1:42 If you are Biglaw, remember as well that the golden ratio is for the firm, not the attorney. There are big New York Salaries to be paid. You are picking up some one elses slack. Most importantly, lock step wages mean that your only reward for outperforming your peers is getting to do the same next year, while they take some inhouse law gig, where they still are called lawyers, get to spend time with their families, and tell people about how hard they work. If you are almost going to quit on a daily basis, find something else. It isn't worth it, even if your goal is to have the GT Partner title. Also, no matter what you are making, there is going to be something comparable with better lifestyle. Think boutique. I've seen the advice here 1000 times, the only step to financial freedom and happiness at big firms is your own clients. Period. Hard Stop.
118, 328 here. I hear you. I have the same fears. Best advice, save a very large reserve fund, like equal to your salary large. Or, at least as much as you can. That way, if you end up somewhere else that's not initially ideal, you'll avoid any major financial catastrophe until you do. Hope my rambling is making sense.
Guest
Anonymous
July 13, 2021 7:59 pm
Remember Craig Mueller's Toxic Tort case against Clark County, et al.? Case No A-21-827461-C. Well, on June 29, 2021 Clark County was dismissed from the lawsuit due to Worker's Comp Exclusive Remedy for Employees.
Guest
Anonymous
July 13, 2021 11:44 pm
Concerning that Justice Court appointment, posters the last couple days remarked that the group, as a whole, lacks name-recognition, not only in the legal community in general, but in the criminal law community in particular.
I figured this point was probably being exaggerated, so I checked the list.
For most judicial appointments, usually the names of three or four worthy applicants jump out at you.
In this case, none of the names stood out. Several of these people may do fine at the job, but they are simply not too well known in the legal community, in my view.
That suggests that some of them may do little or nothing(in the legal community or community at large) to get involved or raise their profile. They simply go to work and then go home.
That's my view, anyway.
So, since I don't recognize the names, who are the two or three who stand out from the rest(if any of them truly do)?
Guest
Anonymous
July 13, 2021 11:47 pm
4:44–perhaps Rob Walsh or Fikisha Miller.
I'm sure several of the others would be just fine, but those two kind of stick out for me.
Walsh has practiced over three decades and(I believe) already served as an interim judge, filling in for the last part of an expiring term
4:44,4:47–I'm trying to avoid, at least for a spell, paying too much attention to judicial appointments, and particularly judicial elections, as the results are so concerning.
It used to be that incumbent judges would only be defeated if they were really substandard, and had real issues, and were challenges by a really solid, and well-supported, well-financed attorney.
But, now, as we saw last election, solid judges can be defeated, often by opponents who are, relatively speaking, not particularly well known, and who have much less financing and much leas support than the solid incumbent.
Trevor Atkin and Rob Bare, for example, although not necessarily beloved and not the highest rated judges, were quite solid, fairly well-received, and fairly well-evaluated in the Judging The Judges Survey.
If it was only the legal community voting, I think they both would have cruised to a comfortable re-election. But it was the public that voted, and they, generally speaking, know little or nothing about the performance or legal acumen of the incumbent, so they vote based on other factors–factors which don't have much to do with performance or ability.
This is not meant as any disrespect to the candidates who beat these two. I can't even specifically remember who each of them was defeated by, and these new judges may turn out to be quite fine.
I'm just making the broader point that I don't think they deserved to lose their positions. The large majority of lawyers agree with me that they were doing an adequate or better job.
In my view, much better than adequate, although not the top of the top.
Now that all said, I shouldn't complain across the board about all this, as one judicial incumbent, who did lose, did not generate any tears from me as to such election results. I concluded, as did many others, that we are better served rolling the dice with the challenger, and see if the department is now better served by a changing of the guard.
Guest
Anonymous
July 14, 2021 4:25 pm
Its not only the incumbents that lost. Completely unknown and unqualified people won open seats over others with solid experience and credentials. We will pay for this for a long time
Agreed. Family court is a mess. Several people with good experience lost out to random candidates with little to no family court experience. We will definitely be paying for this for a long time.
We are already paying for this. The officeholders in 4,8,23,24 and 32 so far have been absolutely baffling in the incompetence. Incredibly bad. I don't mean that they are not trying and do not mean well. But they are lost.
It is kind of staggering how much Ballard and Snell raised their Vegas salaries: Snell 125 to 145, Ballard 130 to 160. Huge bumps for first years!
NALP says that BHFS is paying $180k now.
10:51 do you have a link? I think that's their salary for first-years in Denver and other cities, but not Vegas
Where are you getting this information?
First saw the new salaries were in the comments yesterday, with links. The old salaries are off of memory, but for sure close if not exact, considering NALP has some of the other big law firms current rates and they are 115 through 125.
NALP says $180k firmwide:
https://www.nalpdirectory.com/employer_profile?FormID=14151&QuestionTabID=36&SearchCondJSON=%7B%22SearchEmployerName%22%3A%22brownstein%22%7D
Law Crossing's old entry shows same salary across the board, but could be wrong:
https://www.lawcrossing.com/lawfirmprofile/KKydr/Brownstein-Hyatt-Farber-Schreck-LLP/salary-benefits
Wow that custody case is incredibly sad. I've got a couple cases right now in family court and I just wonder how these parents see this working out for their kids. They clearly hate their ex more than they love their children. Disgusting. Obviously this case is the extreme, but you just know that kid has been through 10 years of hell with those parents. The therapists are just as bad…milking these cases and letting these idiotic parents tear their children apart.
I have seen clients spend the entire childhoods of their children in court, battling over custody and visitation. Then you start seeing their kids outside of juvenile court, having been arrested for some crime. The parents don't seem to understand that they are destroying their children.
Yep. I had a case where dad and step-mom were nightmares. Flew the kid home at midnight the night before school started every summer, took his clothes from him as soon as he got off the plane from mom's house, kid spent every christmas in the airport, etc. Once the kid turned 18, hasn't seen dad since. Go figure. Incredibly selfish, awful people.
I have seen several cases in my 20+ years that literally start litigation before the child is born and the fight rages on (usually over money) for a couple years after the child ages out. Ugly ugly ugly!
In many cases, the litigation is usually instigated by one party over the other. Over and over. Meaning, its usually one parties repeated fault and the victimized parent has to convince the judge, usually repeatedly, that the other parent is a psycho.
What is worse is when the therapists agree and the judge still doesn't get it.
Had this with DelVecchio (fixed by Ochoa), Sanchez (surprising actually, fixed by Marquis and then effed up by Ochoa again).
System is SO broken.
@1:22 you are right. So many times it is one side who just will not stop. Granted there are plenty of cases where they're both nuts, but more often one side just can't let go of their hatred. They file over and over and over. It's like their life doesn't exist without family court litigation.
Fair salary depends on the hourly rate? Are any truly valued at more than $250 an hour? At $250 per hour over 1800 hours, there is potential revenue of $450,000. In reality, many of those hours won't be billed to clients, but if you had 90% collection rates on that $450,000, it's hard to justify paying more than $135k, which is the 1/3 ratio. https://www.olmsteadassoc.com/blog/law-firm-associate-and-non-equity-partner-compensation-is-there-a-cap-or-ceiling/. I suspect, however, that collections are closer to 50% when considering write-offs, non-billable time, "marketing" and the other nonsense bloat, making a 100k a more realistic good business choice. So even if you are billing first years at $500 an hour, I can't see how you can pay them 145 and 160. Once I realized how the numbers work, I instantly regretted being angry I wasn't paid and bonused more my first few years. You simply aren't worth it.
Hasn't the Biglaw salary corrolary always been that they pay a ton, but then they basically own your life?
Sure, a first year associate isn't really worth more than $250/hr. But a first year associate that you can drop a 40 hour project on Friday night and have it turned around Monday is what they're paying for.
I think both 11:04 and 11:55 are correct. I'd just add supply/demand.
Biglaw associate here. I almost quit on a daily basis but I know I need my current salary to afford shit I want (but honestly still can't afford because of this insane price inflation). My job requires miserably long hours, and I wouldn't do it for less than my current pay.
A few other things: (i) we see our collection rates and mine have always been in the mid to high 90% range, even when I was very junior; (ii) I have beat the 1/3 ratio you cite for almost every year I've been in practice; (iii) client billable time is counted separately from "marketing and nonsense bloat," and those things generally don't count towards billable requirements; they're just add ons to make out lives even more miserable; (iv) I've never once had fewer than 2000 client billable hours in a year. A few times I was in the 2400-2600 range.
Living outside your means usually doesn't end well. A larger salary or a bigger bonus won't rescue most people in your scenario. It usually just leads to an even more inflated and unaffordable lifestyle. Why do you care so much about what others think of you? I can't think of any other reason behind that mentality.
Regardless of whether you make 100K or 1,000,000, you have to live within your means. Definitely hear what you are saying 2:00pm, better to keep expenses low and put that money into investments, continuing passive income, rather than stuff. That way you use your cash to avoid the golden handcuffs.
1:18 here. I am living within my means. I unfortunately didn't buy a house when I apparently should have, and now I need to figure out a way to get a long term acceptable housing solution in a good school district. Feeling comfortable with what I anticipate will be a big house payment is what keeps me in my job.
Sorry, 118. I interpreted your statement about stuff you couldn't afford as you are living outside your means. I get what you're saying. Though, with a biglaw salary, I can't imagine why the difficulty in affording things. My advice is that of 235, avoid the golden handcuffs at all costs.
1:18 here. Honestly, it's more of a fear that I won't be able to find anything that I like that also pays enough to sustain me going forward. I could put a down payment down on a nice house. But what if I quit and the best job I can land pays a tiny fraction of where I'm at? I'm probably screwed.
@1:42 If you are Biglaw, remember as well that the golden ratio is for the firm, not the attorney. There are big New York Salaries to be paid. You are picking up some one elses slack. Most importantly, lock step wages mean that your only reward for outperforming your peers is getting to do the same next year, while they take some inhouse law gig, where they still are called lawyers, get to spend time with their families, and tell people about how hard they work. If you are almost going to quit on a daily basis, find something else. It isn't worth it, even if your goal is to have the GT Partner title. Also, no matter what you are making, there is going to be something comparable with better lifestyle. Think boutique. I've seen the advice here 1000 times, the only step to financial freedom and happiness at big firms is your own clients. Period. Hard Stop.
Worse yet, those 2000 plus hours are only so sustainable. Ready for depression, unless you can simply bill all day every day (and even as you read this) billing 2000 hours means working significantly more… https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/area/department/cdo/document/billable_hour.pdf
118, 328 here. I hear you. I have the same fears. Best advice, save a very large reserve fund, like equal to your salary large. Or, at least as much as you can. That way, if you end up somewhere else that's not initially ideal, you'll avoid any major financial catastrophe until you do. Hope my rambling is making sense.
Remember Craig Mueller's Toxic Tort case against Clark County, et al.? Case No A-21-827461-C. Well, on June 29, 2021 Clark County was dismissed from the lawsuit due to Worker's Comp Exclusive Remedy for Employees.
Concerning that Justice Court appointment, posters the last couple days remarked that the group, as a whole, lacks name-recognition, not only in the legal community in general, but in the criminal law community in particular.
I figured this point was probably being exaggerated, so I checked the list.
For most judicial appointments, usually the names of three or four worthy applicants jump out at you.
In this case, none of the names stood out. Several of these people may do fine at the job, but they are simply not too well known in the legal community, in my view.
That suggests that some of them may do little or nothing(in the legal community or community at large) to get involved or raise their profile. They simply go to work and then go home.
That's my view, anyway.
So, since I don't recognize the names, who are the two or three who stand out from the rest(if any of them truly do)?
4:44–perhaps Rob Walsh or Fikisha Miller.
I'm sure several of the others would be just fine, but those two kind of stick out for me.
Walsh has practiced over three decades and(I believe) already served as an interim judge, filling in for the last part of an expiring term
He has also been a Pro Tem JP for about 20 years.
4:44,4:47–I'm trying to avoid, at least for a spell, paying too much attention to judicial appointments, and particularly judicial elections, as the results are so concerning.
It used to be that incumbent judges would only be defeated if they were really substandard, and had real issues, and were challenges by a really solid, and well-supported, well-financed attorney.
But, now, as we saw last election, solid judges can be defeated, often by opponents who are, relatively speaking, not particularly well known, and who have much less financing and much leas support than the solid incumbent.
Trevor Atkin and Rob Bare, for example, although not necessarily beloved and not the highest rated judges, were quite solid, fairly well-received, and fairly well-evaluated in the Judging The Judges Survey.
If it was only the legal community voting, I think they both would have cruised to a comfortable re-election. But it was the public that voted, and they, generally speaking, know little or nothing about the performance or legal acumen of the incumbent, so they vote based on other factors–factors which don't have much to do with performance or ability.
This is not meant as any disrespect to the candidates who beat these two. I can't even specifically remember who each of them was defeated by, and these new judges may turn out to be quite fine.
I'm just making the broader point that I don't think they deserved to lose their positions. The large majority of lawyers agree with me that they were doing an adequate or better job.
In my view, much better than adequate, although not the top of the top.
Now that all said, I shouldn't complain across the board about all this, as one judicial incumbent, who did lose, did not generate any tears from me as to such election results. I concluded, as did many others, that we are better served rolling the dice with the challenger, and see if the department is now better served by a changing of the guard.
Its not only the incumbents that lost. Completely unknown and unqualified people won open seats over others with solid experience and credentials. We will pay for this for a long time
Agreed. Family court is a mess. Several people with good experience lost out to random candidates with little to no family court experience. We will definitely be paying for this for a long time.
We are already paying for this. The officeholders in 4,8,23,24 and 32 so far have been absolutely baffling in the incompetence. Incredibly bad. I don't mean that they are not trying and do not mean well. But they are lost.