I'm torn. On one hand I'd love for Forsberg to leave family court altogether so I never have to run the risk of appearing in front of her again. On the other hand, she lacks the legal chops and intellect necessary for an appellate judgeship. Some people have suggested that the COA is perfect because she'll always be on a panel so the other judges can balance her out. If I vote on merit, it's Westbrook. If I vote on self-interest (getting her out of family court), it's Forsberg.
The COA doesn't need another judge who doesn't show up for work, or can't or won't pull his/her weight. Not fair to the other two who are working their butts off. Sorry, Rhonda, we need Deborah on the COA, not you.
Guest
Anonymous
October 11, 2022 5:36 pm
Elli is an excellent Judge with fine a temperament and well-reasoned decisions, even if they go against my clients at times. I would much rather retain her in her position. I do not believe that she is someone that we need to "get off the bench" and I have not heard her being criticized much by either side. I wonder why Anderson thought this was a vulnerable seat?
She seems solid, although I have not appeared before her. The other one was a nightmare in private practice and would be one of those officious micro-managers on the bench
I know and like Ellie personally and was familiar with her when she was an adjunct at Boyd. I was optimistic about her appointment, but admittedly had my doubts about her civil/state experience and the uphill battle of jumping into a department blind. I have not appeared in front of her yet since she took the seat, but I've honestly not heard anything bad at all. Many of my colleagues really like her temperament and thoughtfulness, and the worst review I've heard so far was pretty much indifference. Based on those data points, I am inclined to support her as an incumbent and hope she continues to grow into the position. If anyone has contrasting experiences to share, I would like to hear them. I do not know much about Albertson.
Let me be the first to state that Roohani is trying but its been an uphill slog without any state court (and very little civil) experience. The problem is that Roohani is running against a very inferior candidate in Yianna Reitzkis.
@11:25 Why? I'm genuinely interested in hearing your thoughts. I've always thought she was really smart and she's been helpful on a couple cases over the years. Without resorting to insults, why wouldn't you want her on the court?
OP back. You asked a sincere question and I'll giver sincere answer. I had many dealing with her in Family Court (maybe couple dozen). I won some and lost some. But she would make decisions, IMHO, that benefited her practice rather than her client and drug things out. For example, (without outing myself in case she reads this) we once had a case where I would sign a stip to get her exactly what her client wanted and she insisted on doing an Opp. We then went to Court, and I explained that we agreed to EXACTLY the same so no benefit to her client, just cost the Court time, etc. And that is one of quite a few examples. To be frank, it struck me as running up her bills. Years later, I had a case with her firm and there was a decision she had to make and I told my Paralegal – I guarantee you she will do XY&Z because it will run up the hours – and she did. I have nothing personal against her as she was always pleasant and nice to me – I just felt it was dishonest to practice that way. Of course, feel free to disregard and others may have had different experiences.
I've litigated against Emily for years. Regardless of whether or not I win or lose, I never trust her. Never.
Guest
Anonymous
October 11, 2022 6:28 pm
Of the six candidates for Seat F, I think only one is probably not in the same league as the others. This will be a tough one. I honestly like them all, but think the finalists will be Freeman, Jones and Pocker. Good luck to all.
A Pocker appointment would be epic. One word comes to mind when he is considered: FIDELITY. A shame he is just a White guy. A fine intellect, even temperament, and he would avoid getting so involved in politics and feel good endeavors outside the job discription.
QUICK WAKE UP CALL TO THE 6 APPLICANTS FOR SEAT F: You better check to see where the seat is venued, 'cause I think you're gonna be moving to Carson City.
6:20 — Actually, Seat F is up at the end of 2024. Winner will have to run in two years, with Cadish and Stiglich.
Guest
Anonymous
October 11, 2022 6:41 pm
I think the choice that Sisolak goes with is Patricia Lee. She has the strong legal mind and complex litigation experience that the Governor will be seeking, is a strong writer, national accolades as an attorney and in public service and meets the demographic requirements on multiple fronts which the Governor will want to appease. Patty is a strong lawyer don't get me wrong. But we would have to be blind to not understand that this is politics.
I think Lee is the best candidate of the bunch for competency. She is smart, writes well, researches well and would develop into a great judge. Jones would likely fit with the democratic party goals and they would not need to look further but I do not think she is seasoned enough for the SC. She needs to mature more. A few are just too old to even be worth appointing for a politician.
1:30 I think Lee would be great, but I don't see how Jones isn't "seasoned enough." She's been a district court judge for 5 years, that certainly counts (especially against someone who hasn't been a judge)
Ok, 1:30, if no one else will say it, here it is: Jones doesn't belong on the Supreme Court. She does not possess good judicial temperament; she is not a good decisionmaker; and she really has not demonstrated the legal acumen necessary to be a competent appellate judge. If she is appointed to the position, it won't be because she's the best choice.
@6:09p – so you're saying that the same reason she shouldn't have been appointed to her current position for a few years before being re-elected, is the same reason she shouldn't be appointed to the NVSC? Thank you captain obvious. It won't stop Sisolak from appointing someone for political gain.
Hate to say it, but if you actually look at each of the candidates' credentials the clear choice is . . . Heidi Stern. Experienced appellate lawyer with broad range of experience, Harvard Law, community involvement, and the right age to be around for a while. Sorry, Scott and Dick. The SCON is not district court — you better love long, hard hours of intensive research and writing, because that's what the job is all about. Anyone who is thinking about being a SCON Justice just to have a trophy that will look good on a wall should think and look hard before taking that leap. Sorry, Emily. Think this is an easy job? Try asking Silver, or any of the current SCON justices if their job is a picnic. Sorry, Tiera, no appellate experience, 41 years old and only 16 years out job is not what the SCON needs right now. You might be a decent district court judge, but this is a completely different skill set. You'll find yourself looking in the mirror most days and asking, "What have I done to myself?" You, too, Patty. Dick, you'll probably be asking, "Do I need this at this point in my career?"
All six are decent or better candidates, which you don't usually see.
Pocker and Judge Freeman have reached an age where you don't usually see appointments made. Late 50's is as far as it usually goes, and I think both of them are 65 or more. There is an unwritten rule that a Governor wants to appoint someone to the bench who could serve for a while, like about 20 years, and they don't want to appoint someone whereby their successor in the Governor's seat may get a crack at re-filling the seat.
I don't think McFarling or Stern have the name-recognition in the legal community, nor the "juice"(for lack of a better term) to be serious players. They are real fine lawyers, however.
That leaves us with Jones and Lee, and Lee would actually be the best and most qualified choice of the six(as many posters seem to agree on).
But, ultimately Jones profiles extremely well from a political standpoint.
It might be better if she were slightly older and had more than 5 years on the bench, and more than 10 years of legal experience before she took the bench, but none of that will be a major concern.
So, if the appointment is primarily made based on selecting the person with the most legal heft and ability, then it is Lee. If, instead, the emphasis is more on politics(which it usually is) then Jones is the only horse on the track.
Maybe I am mistaken, but even if Sisolak's appointment is ultimately predicated on politics, doesn't that still leave Lee with a strong edge over Jones given Lee's strong legal acumen and experience as a litigator? Demographically, both Jones and Lee are black women (yes, per her bio, Lee was the President of the Black Students' Union at USC). While Jones may be a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, Lee is a registered Independent who – judging by her political donations – has generally found herself aligned with Democrat candidates (e.g., Sisolak, Ford, etc.). As others have stated, Jones' time on the bench has not demonstrated she would be a great Supreme Court Justice; meanwhile, I believe the bench would benefit greatly from a well-rounded, experienced litigator like Lee.
1:08–you mention Lee has an edge if the appointment is mainly based on politics as she has strong legal knowledge and is an excellent litigator. Those, in fact, are traits which favor her if the appointment is made mainly based on legal ability and accomplishments.
But, if the appointment is made based mainly on political factors, Jones may have the edge for the reasons some have already offered.
I am the original poster and it did not escape me at all. Patty is a great lawyer, was the National Pro Bono Attorney of the Year and checks two boxes.
@6:09 Thank you for saying it; Jones’ temperament is terrible. She’s rude and has a huge ego. She’s very obvious about deliberately picking on particular lawyers, usually young females.
Nothing Jones has done on the bench, either in rulings or in demeanor, has demonstrated that she is fit for SCON or deserves to be there.
Guest
Anonymous
October 14, 2022 4:06 pm
In terms of legal acumen, I don’t think it is even close between Jones and Lee. If it is really down to those two, it should be Lee, easily.
I also think judicial demeanor matters and, again, Lee wins. I have to agree on the comments about Jones’s behavior on the bench. She’s fine with some people and then just seems to take pleasure in ripping into others. I’ve also noticed the females trend. One of those women who deliberately makes life miserable for other women.
Lee is also the more diverse candidate between the two, if that is what matters. She’s the better candidate however you look at it.
Guest
Anonymous
October 14, 2022 11:13 pm
How do you define acumen? Talent alone, or talent combined with relevant experience? If you are looking at relevant experience, the two supposedly leading candidates have . . . not much. Taht's why i am looking at Pocket as the favorite.
I'm torn. On one hand I'd love for Forsberg to leave family court altogether so I never have to run the risk of appearing in front of her again. On the other hand, she lacks the legal chops and intellect necessary for an appellate judgeship. Some people have suggested that the COA is perfect because she'll always be on a panel so the other judges can balance her out. If I vote on merit, it's Westbrook. If I vote on self-interest (getting her out of family court), it's Forsberg.
Kind of tough to win a statewide race on five grand.
I live in rural Nevada and appreciate that a judicial candidate is actually putting time in here.
The COA doesn't need another judge who doesn't show up for work, or can't or won't pull his/her weight. Not fair to the other two who are working their butts off. Sorry, Rhonda, we need Deborah on the COA, not you.
Elli is an excellent Judge with fine a temperament and well-reasoned decisions, even if they go against my clients at times. I would much rather retain her in her position. I do not believe that she is someone that we need to "get off the bench" and I have not heard her being criticized much by either side. I wonder why Anderson thought this was a vulnerable seat?
She seems solid, although I have not appeared before her. The other one was a nightmare in private practice and would be one of those officious micro-managers on the bench
I know and like Ellie personally and was familiar with her when she was an adjunct at Boyd. I was optimistic about her appointment, but admittedly had my doubts about her civil/state experience and the uphill battle of jumping into a department blind. I have not appeared in front of her yet since she took the seat, but I've honestly not heard anything bad at all. Many of my colleagues really like her temperament and thoughtfulness, and the worst review I've heard so far was pretty much indifference. Based on those data points, I am inclined to support her as an incumbent and hope she continues to grow into the position. If anyone has contrasting experiences to share, I would like to hear them. I do not know much about Albertson.
Let me be the first to state that Roohani is trying but its been an uphill slog without any state court (and very little civil) experience. The problem is that Roohani is running against a very inferior candidate in Yianna Reitzkis.
100% for Roohani over Yanna. Not even close…
4:48 — Exactly . . .
I haven't been in front of her and haven't heard much either. Usually no news is good news when it comes to judges.
McFarling? Please dear God no
@11:25 Why? I'm genuinely interested in hearing your thoughts. I've always thought she was really smart and she's been helpful on a couple cases over the years. Without resorting to insults, why wouldn't you want her on the court?
OP back. You asked a sincere question and I'll giver sincere answer. I had many dealing with her in Family Court (maybe couple dozen). I won some and lost some. But she would make decisions, IMHO, that benefited her practice rather than her client and drug things out. For example, (without outing myself in case she reads this) we once had a case where I would sign a stip to get her exactly what her client wanted and she insisted on doing an Opp. We then went to Court, and I explained that we agreed to EXACTLY the same so no benefit to her client, just cost the Court time, etc. And that is one of quite a few examples. To be frank, it struck me as running up her bills. Years later, I had a case with her firm and there was a decision she had to make and I told my Paralegal – I guarantee you she will do XY&Z because it will run up the hours – and she did. I have nothing personal against her as she was always pleasant and nice to me – I just felt it was dishonest to practice that way. Of course, feel free to disregard and others may have had different experiences.
I referred a client to Emily. He was shocked by her high bills. She had a nice office and just bought a house in Europe.
I've litigated against Emily for years. Regardless of whether or not I win or lose, I never trust her. Never.
Of the six candidates for Seat F, I think only one is probably not in the same league as the others. This will be a tough one. I honestly like them all, but think the finalists will be Freeman, Jones and Pocker. Good luck to all.
Not sure I agree with you on the finalists. Pocker and Freeman are on the wrong side of 65. I think it's three women finalists.
Agree. I was pleasantly surprised with the caliber of the candidates.
A Pocker appointment would be epic. One word comes to mind when he is considered: FIDELITY. A shame he is just a White guy. A fine intellect, even temperament, and he would avoid getting so involved in politics and feel good endeavors outside the job discription.
The fix is in for Scott Freeman. He is the only Renoite. Sisolak needs the votes from the north.
LOL. Appointment is after the election.
@6:20p – Silver's term is through 2025 so whomever gets appointed at least gets 3 good years.
QUICK WAKE UP CALL TO THE 6 APPLICANTS FOR SEAT F: You better check to see where the seat is venued, 'cause I think you're gonna be moving to Carson City.
6:20 — Actually, Seat F is up at the end of 2024. Winner will have to run in two years, with Cadish and Stiglich.
I think the choice that Sisolak goes with is Patricia Lee. She has the strong legal mind and complex litigation experience that the Governor will be seeking, is a strong writer, national accolades as an attorney and in public service and meets the demographic requirements on multiple fronts which the Governor will want to appease. Patty is a strong lawyer don't get me wrong. But we would have to be blind to not understand that this is politics.
I agree. Lee would make a terrific SCT justice. She is a strong writer and very smart
I think Lee is the best candidate of the bunch for competency. She is smart, writes well, researches well and would develop into a great judge. Jones would likely fit with the democratic party goals and they would not need to look further but I do not think she is seasoned enough for the SC. She needs to mature more. A few are just too old to even be worth appointing for a politician.
1:30 I think Lee would be great, but I don't see how Jones isn't "seasoned enough." She's been a district court judge for 5 years, that certainly counts (especially against someone who hasn't been a judge)
No civil experience as a practitioner. That takes longer to learn from the bench. She's only 41.
Ok, 1:30, if no one else will say it, here it is: Jones doesn't belong on the Supreme Court. She does not possess good judicial temperament; she is not a good decisionmaker; and she really has not demonstrated the legal acumen necessary to be a competent appellate judge. If she is appointed to the position, it won't be because she's the best choice.
@6:09p – so you're saying that the same reason she shouldn't have been appointed to her current position for a few years before being re-elected, is the same reason she shouldn't be appointed to the NVSC? Thank you captain obvious. It won't stop Sisolak from appointing someone for political gain.
Hate to say it, but if you actually look at each of the candidates' credentials the clear choice is . . . Heidi Stern. Experienced appellate lawyer with broad range of experience, Harvard Law, community involvement, and the right age to be around for a while. Sorry, Scott and Dick. The SCON is not district court — you better love long, hard hours of intensive research and writing, because that's what the job is all about. Anyone who is thinking about being a SCON Justice just to have a trophy that will look good on a wall should think and look hard before taking that leap. Sorry, Emily. Think this is an easy job? Try asking Silver, or any of the current SCON justices if their job is a picnic. Sorry, Tiera, no appellate experience, 41 years old and only 16 years out job is not what the SCON needs right now. You might be a decent district court judge, but this is a completely different skill set. You'll find yourself looking in the mirror most days and asking, "What have I done to myself?" You, too, Patty. Dick, you'll probably be asking, "Do I need this at this point in my career?"
All six are decent or better candidates, which you don't usually see.
Pocker and Judge Freeman have reached an age where you don't usually see appointments made. Late 50's is as far as it usually goes, and I think both of them are 65 or more. There is an unwritten rule that a Governor wants to appoint someone to the bench who could serve for a while, like about 20 years, and they don't want to appoint someone whereby their successor in the Governor's seat may get a crack at re-filling the seat.
I don't think McFarling or Stern have the name-recognition in the legal community, nor the "juice"(for lack of a better term) to be serious players. They are real fine lawyers, however.
That leaves us with Jones and Lee, and Lee would actually be the best and most qualified choice of the six(as many posters seem to agree on).
But, ultimately Jones profiles extremely well from a political standpoint.
It might be better if she were slightly older and had more than 5 years on the bench, and more than 10 years of legal experience before she took the bench, but none of that will be a major concern.
So, if the appointment is primarily made based on selecting the person with the most legal heft and ability, then it is Lee. If, instead, the emphasis is more on politics(which it usually is) then Jones is the only horse on the track.
Maybe I am mistaken, but even if Sisolak's appointment is ultimately predicated on politics, doesn't that still leave Lee with a strong edge over Jones given Lee's strong legal acumen and experience as a litigator? Demographically, both Jones and Lee are black women (yes, per her bio, Lee was the President of the Black Students' Union at USC). While Jones may be a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, Lee is a registered Independent who – judging by her political donations – has generally found herself aligned with Democrat candidates (e.g., Sisolak, Ford, etc.). As others have stated, Jones' time on the bench has not demonstrated she would be a great Supreme Court Justice; meanwhile, I believe the bench would benefit greatly from a well-rounded, experienced litigator like Lee.
So, is pretty much everyone commenting on this topic a lawyer at Hutchison & Steffen?
1:08–you mention Lee has an edge if the appointment is mainly based on politics as she has strong legal knowledge and is an excellent litigator. Those, in fact, are traits which favor her if the appointment is made mainly based on legal ability and accomplishments.
But, if the appointment is made based mainly on political factors, Jones may have the edge for the reasons some have already offered.
Does anyone think Pocker and/or Freeman have a chance? Or is there agreement that they are too old and this is down to Lee and Jnoes?
Tierra is a capable district court judge. Not SCON material. Patty or Heidi are much better, and Patty checks off more boxes. Emily? Nahhhh.
Has escaped everyone's notice that Patricia is BOTH Black AND Asian? (And first and foremost, very smart!)
I am the original poster and it did not escape me at all. Patty is a great lawyer, was the National Pro Bono Attorney of the Year and checks two boxes.
All Patty has to do is come out this week as LGBTQAHKIDMMREOKMDO+ and she will lock down the nomination for sure
@6:09 Thank you for saying it; Jones’ temperament is terrible. She’s rude and has a huge ego. She’s very obvious about deliberately picking on particular lawyers, usually young females.
Nothing Jones has done on the bench, either in rulings or in demeanor, has demonstrated that she is fit for SCON or deserves to be there.
In terms of legal acumen, I don’t think it is even close between Jones and Lee. If it is really down to those two, it should be Lee, easily.
I also think judicial demeanor matters and, again, Lee wins. I have to agree on the comments about Jones’s behavior on the bench. She’s fine with some people and then just seems to take pleasure in ripping into others. I’ve also noticed the females trend. One of those women who deliberately makes life miserable for other women.
Lee is also the more diverse candidate between the two, if that is what matters. She’s the better candidate however you look at it.
How do you define acumen? Talent alone, or talent combined with relevant experience? If you are looking at relevant experience, the two supposedly leading candidates have . . . not much. Taht's why i am looking at Pocket as the favorite.