- Quickdraw McLaw
- 40 Comments
- 226 Views
- @BonnieBulla is running for reelection to the Court of Appeals. [via @RileySnyder]
- Daniel H. Stewart is joining Governor Sisolak’s office. [via @GovSisolak]
- Robert and Sydney Murdock are representing the family of Jeopardy! champion Brayden Smith in a medical malpractice case. [RJ]
- Ex-PlayUp CEO wins court ruling, files counterclaim. Though the article doesn’t name lawyers, it appears the prevailing attorney was Jennifer Braster. [USBets]
- Law firms came dangerously close to losing almost a quarter of their associates in 2021. [ABA Journal]
- A reader wants to know if anyone has a concise explanation of how the Covid emergency declarations affected tolling of statutes of limitation.
Regarding law firms losing associates and not being able to recruit associates, the article doesn't really speak to the most obvious question: Where are young lawyers going? Law schools are pumping out as many grads as ever. Graduates are as debt-laden as ever. How are they suddenly so able and willing to thumb their noses at paying jobs? It's not like there's so much legal work that associates can suddenly dictate terms.
In our case, we've been looking to add a sixth lawyer to our small litigation firm for almost a year. We've interviewed several candidates. Most of the candidates seem not to have a clue as to how a business functions. They have little motivation to build a practice or even learn how to practice law. One of my partners joked that the candidates seem to want the level of responsibility and involvement that someone might expect to have as a cashier at 7-11.
Has being a young lawyer become a McJob? The whole process is so different from how it was just a few years ago. I wonder how this generation of young lawyers will survive.
"Law schools are pumping out as many grads as ever."
I'm not sure this is true. Peak law school enrollment was around 2012 or 2013. Since then, several toilet schools have closed or lost their ABA accreditation. Many other schools cut back enrollment. The ABA has proven to be an inept and ineffective accreditation agency, in large part because of agency capture. Each State Supreme Court gets to decide the accreditation agency for law schools. The State Supreme Courts should meet up and pick some other entity.
To OP, I'm not sure the actual mindset has changed all that much. Back 10 years ago most associates didn't want to take ownership of matters or really learn the business side of firm life fresh out of law school. It's a first job.
That said, I think the new crop is less interested in the dog and pony show of pretending to be hyper invested in your specific firm before they've been hired. I actually think the new crop is more genuine in that respect.
As the managing partner of a firm, the scales have shifted. Candidates are not looking for opportunity as the principal virtue; they are seeking security. Lower expectations and requirements. Lower growth in developing a practice. They want to do their job that will be there tomorrow but not pretend that loyalty is an expectation. Their friends are working from home or remotely in Tahoe. They have friends making 6 figure starting salaries. There is a common ask for perks before works.
My guess is, at least at an entry level, associates want more of a "job" because loyalty is often not reciprocated in law firms.
Bulla will be reelected. Eat Arby's.
Wrong thread. Eat Fire Fly Tapas.
Do not reelect Bonnie Bulla, thanks.
Doesn't matter whether some attorneys don't want Bonnie Bulla re-elected.
Like most justices on the appellate level(NSC and COA), even if a few of these justices may not be too popular with the Bar, they are essentially guaranteed re-election as no one of any substance runs against them(and often no one at all runs against them).
And I understand why. It's a state-wide race, and an opponent could spend literally a million dollars and still not defeat the incumbent.
So, once these justices are in, they are pretty much there until they decide to retire.
I've practiced here since the late 80's and can only think of one exception. It involved Justice Becker, who happened to be a justice whose intellect was held in high regard by the Bar in general, and was generally fairly popular, so it is ironic that she is the only incumbent who was defeated.
But, long story short, if memory serves some very powerful factions were displeased with her handling of eminent domain matters, and thus a very strong and well-funded opponent, Judge Nancy Saitta, emerged.
Hundreds of thousands were spent on both sides, and Saitta got past Becker by a few percentage points. Close race.
I think that is the only appellate justice who lost re-election. If any poster can think of any other justice who did not get re-elected, hopefully they will weigh in.
I do recall that Judge Steve Jones Of Family Court almost took out Justice Cliff Young(think it was Young, but it could have been Charlie Springer) about 25 years ago. It came down to just one or two percent differential.
1:18-Although I can think of a good many District Judges who lost re-election(including as recently as the 2020 elections) I am also unable to remember a NSC justice, aside from Justice Becker, who lost re-election.
But you appear to suggest that justices on our(still fairly new) COA would be as hard to defeat as a member of the NSC. I would assume that in a COA race that the incumbents would not raise nearly as much as members of the NSC, so that a well-funded opponent might have a better chance against a COA incumbent than they would have against a NSC incumbent.
But I could be wrong about that as COA, like NSC, is also a state-wide race. Also, many firms have practices wherein their appellate work is mainly resolved on the COA level, rather than NSC. So those firms might be more likely to contribute to COA races than they would to a NSC race.
So, based on that, and other factors, it's possible that an opposed incumbent in COA could raise almost as much(or possibly even more) as an opposed incumbent in a NSC race. But it probably depends more on the individual race, and who is involved in it, than it depends on which appellate court we are dealing with
What do you guys think?
I thought Justice Bulla might try for the upcoming Justice Hardesty vacancy. Don't know if she ever considered it, but I thought it quite possible that she, and/or Justice Tao, might have considered it.
But Judge Bell apparently intends to run, so that could have a dramatic freezing effect on many other possible candidates throwing their hat in the ring.
Tao has a political party identity crisis on his hands. He is an easy target.
Justice Becker was defeated for approving a tax increase to fund education on a 6-1 decision. The R/J wanted all 6 justices defeated; only Becker was up for a election that year. She ran against then-Judge Saitta who ran attack ads against Becker through a right-leaning PAC; however Saitta would end up being a far more liberal justice than Becker ever was.
https://lasvegassun.com/news/2006/oct/15/far-right-targets-justice-becker/
Between Bell, Tao and Bulla, Bell is clearly the best prepared and equipped to be a Justice. No disrespect meant to the other two. I hope Bell runs and wins.
Any thoughts about the cost to run for election? We talking $20K moment? $125K moment?
Manoukian was beat by Cliff Young
Is Manoukian still around? I liked him. Nice man.
Those were some wild days at NSC
Cost to run for election for court of appeals? I would guess (and it's just a guess) a minimum of $500,000. As someone else mentioned, it could easily be $1M+, and you might not win.
But this year would be the best year to try, because judges can't file for re-election until March, instead of January because of redistricting. So there would be less time for the incumbent to raise money. But I am unsure if that even matters really. Once the gates open, money can flow fast.
2:23-A lot more than that. Hotly contested District Court races can require a few hundred thousand, and some hotly contested Supreme Court races have cost north of a million.
But, when you think about it, perhaps with modern technology, the costs can be driven down quite a bit.
For example, in decades past many well-funded judicial races placed the majority of their funds into television advertising.
Not sure that is smart advertising anymore as people now have options to watch television and pretty much avoid all ads.
So, we are now seeing different methods, such as various forms of internet advertising.
1:59-that's true that certain media outlets(such as the LVRJ)targeted Justice Becker on account of that education funding vote.
But I also think that 1:18 is correct that there were certain influential factions who were displeased concerning the handling of certain eminent domain decisions, and that those factions tended to put their resources behind Justice Saitta. At least that is what attorneys in general tended to perceive and believe at the time. But it has been some time(like 15 years) and I could be remembering it inaccurately or confusing things with some other election.
At any rate,I liked both of them a lot. In fact, of all the judges and justices I have experienced or been exposed to, I think that Justice Becker may well have been the most intelligent and knowledgeable. And she always tempered such knowledge with a true pragmatism in her rulings.
But there is no such thing as a perfect person or perfect judge. My only minor quibble would be that she did not necessarily exhibit a great, warm and friendly bedside manner.
But who really cares in the end analysis? Tough as her exterior could be, she almost always got it right IMO, and was always meticulously prepared.
2:35,Justice Manoukian died in 2019 at age 81.
Which means, (when we do a little math) that when he served form 1977 until he was defeated in his 1984 re-election bid, that he served from the time he was in his late 30's until his mid 40's.
That's really an impressive trajectory–being on the Nevada Supreme Court before age 40.
At age 40 I was still struggling to earn enough each month to cover my business overhead, with hopefully enough left over to pay most of my personal overhead. I was(and still am according to many)such a loser, but I digress.
5:17–but at least you are a little witty with your self-deprecation.
Becker was a horrible justice. Just horrible.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Emergency Directive 009 stated that all statutes of limitations would be tolled starting on March 31, 2020.
Emergency Directive 026 stated that the tolling would end on July 31, 2020.
122 days elapsed during the tolling period of March 31, 2020 through July 31, 2020
Working in a law firm is drudge. A lot of law graduates really don't want to be lawyers. They are leaving the profession and don't want to do the hard work of being an attorney.
This is the real problem. The only good reason to go to law school in my opinion is because you actually want to be a lawyer. Too many go because they want to fight injustice or make money. If you want to do either of those things, there are better ways to do it. Not that you can't fight injustice or make money as a lawyer, you certainly can, but if that is your primary motivation, you can do better than the law.
Longtime LAA here – I told my kid that being a lawyer means sitting and typing 14 hours a day. Am I wrong?
In 22 years, I can count the number of 14 hour days I have done on one hand. Of course, 20 of those years have been solo.
In the 42 days since December 1, I can count the number of 14 hour days on 2 ears, 2 eyes, 1 nose, 2 hands and a foot.
Med Mal Theater. A play in two acts.
Act I:
Call everyone in and stack the cases six and seven deep (for judges and attorneys) so that it looks like you are "doing something," rather than just setting rational trial dates as far out as may be necessary.
Act II:
When a large percentage of these stacked cases fail to settle (because of consent policies, etc.), continue them at the last minute before the trial date, thereby delaying trial for a good 6-9 months beyond what would have happened had you just set a reasonable trial date in the first instance.
4:50 here. My sarcasm is in no way intended as a knock against Judge Weise, who is a great guy and a solid judge. He clearly has marching orders coming from elsewhere.
9:02-you mean that judicial leadership has ordered him to impose a convoluted calendaring system that is specifically designed to waste the time and money of litigants and attorneys?
Most judges have broad discretion with calendaring matters. Generally, it's not the type of issue that judicial leadership interferes with.
After I read your Act 1(but before reading your Act II) I concluded, "and that is a large reason why these trial dates are almost always scuttled and continued out."
And in Act II, you explain part of the reasons why.
Random questions for a Wednesday:
1. Departments 18 and 22 will call you first if you show up in person. Any other departments doing that?
2. Why in this day and age do Counsel insist on originals of settlement agreements, SAO for Dismissal and Confessions of Judgment in the Eighth Judicial District Court? They are going to be e-filed except for Settlement Agreements which you can have counsel certify that it is a true and correct copy. Why are you making parties track down originals and not relying upon copies? I understand the Fifth District still insists on original signatures but I think its stupid in EJDC cases.
9/10 of the time I have had no issues with copies in the EJDC.
Maybe because NEFCR 11(c) requires original signatures on documents that contains signatures of persons other than the e-filers signature? And for confessions of judgment, NRS 17.110 requires "[a] statement in writing shall be made, signed by the defendant and verified by his or her oath," meaning a notary needed to administer an oath and notarize the document.
11:18– My question was unclear but I appreciate it. The documents all have hand-written real signatures. My question was when a client signs (and has notarized) his settlement agreement in Miami, why do you need that original wet ink signature to process the dismissal in this day and age? You have a copy of the original, notarized signature. You are going to e-file the settlement (or confession of judgment) anyway.
I agree, with the wet ink signature document in hand, there's no reason to not let attorneys e-file that document.