Yesterday was the filing deadline for first quarter campaign contributions. We didn’t review all of them yet, but you may be surprised by the levels of contributions some judges have received—especially some of the judges who got poor grades in the Judging the Judges survey. You can search the filings here. In the “office” field, type “district court judge” and then select Clark County for 2020. Let us know if you find anything interesting.
Judge Gloria Navarro approved a dismissal of all charges against 11 defendants in the Vagos racketeering case. [Las Vegas Sun]
Mayor Goodman calls shutdown of nonessential businesses “total insanity.” [RJ]
Another 5.2 million people filed for unemployment last week—how many of them are lawyers? Are all of your jobs safe for the moment or are you on the chopping block? [8NewsNow]
Hey, some candidates are running to serve, not to receive. Aurbach, Almase, and Coffing come to mind as highly capable individuals who will enrich the bench.
Guest
Anonymous
April 16, 2020 5:16 pm
Does anyone know if US Supreme Court deadlines tolled during pandemic? Thank you.
The deadline to file a cert petition is extended from 90 to 150 days after the judgment below was entered. Note that this deadline cannot be extended any further under 28. U.S.C. § 2101(c).
Guest
Anonymous
April 16, 2020 6:38 pm
Who has taken in the most in donations so far? It would be nice to see that information.
I did a sampling and went through some people I knew. The largest one I saw so far (out of the ~15 I looked at) was Bluth ~$180k so far, with a large amount from personal injury attorneys/firms in town.
And those are some of the reasons that electing judges can be ludicrous–people vote either based on gender, or on name recognition, with such name recognition established by the candidate raising and spending a lot of money.
But appointing judges is no panacea either, and appointing the most qualified person is NEVER the main consideration, even though it is always referenced as being. Instead, it is always a hack political appointment meant to pander to certain groups or a return of political favors, or the appointee is connected to someone prominent and influential, etc. Also, usually, but not always, the Governor appoints someone from the same political party as the Governor.
Often this results in someone getting appointed who actually has little or no meaningful experience in the practice of Law. Often these appointees have spent much of their careers serving in some administrative or political capacity, in order to increase their profile and political viability.
When the appointee does actually have some real legal experience, it can never compare to the legal experience of some of the other applicants. There have been Assistant District Attorneys, as young as about 35, getting appointed over people with decades of sterling legal experience.
Part of the reason for all this is that if one devotes decades to becoming an excellent lawyer, they have seldom have been able to spend any time trying to build political juice.
So, I am not persuaded when people act like we will be assured excellent judges via appointment, as the overall quality does not seem to be much better than what we get when we elect judges. There are good and bad judges who have been elected, and there are good and bad judges who have been appointed.
Now some concede most of the above, but argue that the intense screening process for appointing judges at least protects us form flat out weirdos, who can succeed through the election process, particularly if they are perennial candidates who keep running for judge, and thus keep increasing their name recognition.
So, appointing judges is dominated by politics, just as electing judges is. It's simply that somewhat different political dynamics control each process.
To:2:32,your lengthy post can be summarized as the electing of judges, and the appointing of judges, are both controlled by politics, and that the most qualified person seldom achieves the judgeship. That's really all you needed to say. We get it. You had us at "Hello."
Seems a huge advantage is to be an Assistant District Attorney. The same cannot be said about currently being a Deputy Public Defender.
They don't seem to get appointed. Guess we need to throw "tough on crime" red meat to the public and media, and that is hard to do when appointing a Deputy Public Defender.
But I would love to finally see some defense attorneys take the bench, to balance things out a little better. Perhaps Ossie Fumo will win his NSC race.
12:12–that's a lot of money this early, particularly considering how the pandemic really slows things down, and further considering that I don't think anyone of significant regard is running against her.
But I could be wrong about that, so who is in fact running against her? How formidable are they? Do they really pose a serious challenge to her?
Guest
Anonymous
April 16, 2020 7:34 pm
The small firm I worked at let me and the other lawyer go at the start of the Stay Home Order. So I could use any money. Most of my friends got their Trump Check yesterday. I went to the IRS.gov to check mine but it won't work. Anyone else having that problem? I do unfortunately have an old IE browser. Does it work on anyone's Chrome browser?
I assume every member of the BoG + Kim farmer will be given a travel voucher good for 5 days paid vacation in the destination of their choice.
Guest
Anonymous
April 16, 2020 9:39 pm
The idealist in me hoped that Bill Kephart would not get re-elected. He is running laps around his opposition in fundraising. The realist in me recognizes that his ability to raise money, coupled with the noise from the pandemic and other races on ballot, makes him invincible in spite of his history. 95% of voters will know nothing about his past. He probably wins out right in the primary. Sad.
Kephart is what I like to think of as a Useful Idiot. Halverson was one of these. So was Jessie Walsh. Yes, objectively they are terrible judges that have no idea what they are doing. But they like our firm and always have. We have (had) incredible success percentages in front of them. I will add (because Walsh is in the list to preempt the argument) that our firm has given money to 1 judicial candidate ever and it was none of the foregoing.
He will continue to get re-elected for the reasons 2:39 mentions. He has fairly high name recognition, a memorable last name which he combines with a heart graphic on his signs(a useful little gimmick), and his prominent photo., which he has used on his signs each election, is ingrained with many voters.
Plus he is known by many as being a long term Assistant District Attorney, which allows for the "tough on crime" red meat being tossed to the public and the media(a dynamic pointed out by an earlier poster).
When he was a JP, and ran for District Court, his opponent was Cliff Marcek, who I consider a real solid and real honorable attorney. But Bill K, as a sitting JP and much name recognition as well as endorsements and financial resources, drubbed Cliff by more than 70% to 30%.
So, 2:39 is right on point that the strongest judicial candidates are not necessarily great judges or great attorneys. In fact, that's a point that has been made, and made well, by a few different posters today.
3:12–Agreed. Judicial elections are for the birds, as is the gubernatorial appointment process as currently configured.
Some states have a far superior process for appointing judges, which often includes panels consisting of those in the legal community and who are trained in legal matters.
But our current process consists of an initial screening panel dominated by lay persons, and then the next step, the gubernatorial appointment, is dominated by political concerns, rather than legal acumen and performance.
Anyone have any suggestions of how we can reform thee appointment process?
"a lot people are saying…," you missed a word. Before you start trolling other people about grammar, you should check your own. And I agree with 4:31. Have a nice evening!
6:19 here. I didn't troll anybody on their grammar. I trolled you on your unsubstantiated argument that there are plenty of others who feel the way you do without anything to back it up and tied it to 45's penchant for doing the same thing.
The point remains – a bare conclusion that we should "vote all incumbents out" gives nothing to the discussion here. If you think every single sitting judge (including those who pretty much everyone likes like Denton) should lose without looking at who is running against them then you are an idiot. Ni-night.
I really grow weary of the "throw them all out mentality" Its a feeble minded refusal to carefully consider the fact that we have some good judges who work hard and need to be retained. Also, look at the challengers to the incumbent civil/criminal judges ( I do not know anything about family court) is there ANY that can credibly say they are better or more qualified? If you have a problem with all current judges, maybe you are the issue, not the judge.
I actually don't mind grammar trolls if they save me from making some fundamental grammar errors. If someone proof reads something important I will be submitting, I more than welcome the corrections.
This is particularly true if it saves me from some fundamental errors, which can affect the weight and viability of what I wrote, if being read by more exacting types.
If I say "your" when I should be saying "you're", I want to be corrected, particularly if someone is proof-reading something important that I am submitting.
Also, if I say "to" when I should be saying "too", I likewise want to be corrected.
So, what's more important? Us indulging being offended when someone corrects our grammar, or being saved from making basic errors in our writings(which are often intended to persuade).
Now that said, I realize that I am discussing someone catching our grammatical errors in our written legal writings, while the posters here are mainly discussing people correcting each other on this blog.
Trolls roll call. I am glad judges are on here trolling attorneys, happens all the time. Also, agree with the above posters, vote all incumbents out. It is sad that you have so much time on your hands to correct grammar on a blog.
There is something wrong with an attorney, because they don't want to support the judges down at the RJC or appellate judges? I guess there is something wrong with me too, because I am only voting for two or three of them.
Guest
Anonymous
April 16, 2020 11:28 pm
3:19–Vote ALL of them out, or just MOST, or SOME of them?
There are some judges who make serious efforts. Others loaf along until retirement eligible. A third category, who don't read briefs and rely way too heavily on their law clerks, who are mostly inexperienced.
I try to maintain the exact same schedule that I do when I'm going into the office. I don't work more than I did when I went into the office and I'm just as productive if not more so.
@5:28p – I'm trying to do the same thing. The one change is instead of getting up at 6:00am, I shifted it down to 7:00am, and going to bed an hour later (no kids here.) I'm enjoying bankruptcy 341 meetings by phone & video, and RJC hearings by phone. We're a ~2 attorney, 3 staff office, and moved the IP phone to the assistant's home office (fortunately she doesn't yet have kids, and her dog is quiet) and everyone is able to work at home.
Guest
Anonymous
April 17, 2020 1:20 am
Phase two of the fed's open the country plan includes groups of up to 10 people being allowed to gather together…good news for the clandestine orgy-party folks. Not a law or justice industry related post? Sure, whatever you say, and I've got a bridge for sale in Tahiti that drops down into a toilet paper field and it's ready for harvest (actually, I don't know what that means…I just couldn't stop typing, but I was able to purchase TP today so optimism abounds).
Guest
Anonymous
April 17, 2020 5:52 pm
Incumbents I will vote for, Susan Johnson, probably. I don't want to, but the other choices are scary. Villani and Atkins I will vote for. Kristina Pickering, no. You don't follow the law. Bonnie Bulla, no. You don't have enough experience to be an appellate judge, and your demeanor is rank. Any questions? Call me at…..
Bonnie Bulla is a piece of work. She went after me as a sexual assault survivor in a case, giving me shit about not being willing to go to an office to the person who assaulted me.
I am impressed about how much in debt judges go into to run. It is satisfying for the incumbents who are assholes.
I am not impressed how much debt those asshole judges are willing to expect all of us to put them into in order to stroke their ego.
Hey, some candidates are running to serve, not to receive. Aurbach, Almase, and Coffing come to mind as highly capable individuals who will enrich the bench.
Does anyone know if US Supreme Court deadlines tolled during pandemic? Thank you.
Sort of: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/031920zr_d1o3.pdf
The deadline to file a cert petition is extended from 90 to 150 days after the judgment below was entered. Note that this deadline cannot be extended any further under 28. U.S.C. § 2101(c).
Who has taken in the most in donations so far? It would be nice to see that information.
I did a sampling and went through some people I knew. The largest one I saw so far (out of the ~15 I looked at) was Bluth ~$180k so far, with a large amount from personal injury attorneys/firms in town.
Yeah, her daddy is a Reno PI attorney. Not voting for her.
She is a shitty, unqualified Sisolak appointee, no thanks.
1:22–but aside from that, is she a good judge?
I guess that's kind of like asking,"But aside form that Mrs. Lincoln, did you enjoy the play?"
She is a nice lady; however, I find her lacking as a judge.
Are any of the incumbents likely to fall to their challengers? Who are the most vulnerable ones?
It is discouraging that it is not knowledge, skill or ability that counts, but how much money you have/can raise.
1:48. It's always been that way.
And those are some of the reasons that electing judges can be ludicrous–people vote either based on gender, or on name recognition, with such name recognition established by the candidate raising and spending a lot of money.
But appointing judges is no panacea either, and appointing the most qualified person is NEVER the main consideration, even though it is always referenced as being. Instead, it is always a hack political appointment meant to pander to certain groups or a return of political favors, or the appointee is connected to someone prominent and influential, etc. Also, usually, but not always, the Governor appoints someone from the same political party as the Governor.
Often this results in someone getting appointed who actually has little or no meaningful experience in the practice of Law. Often these appointees have spent much of their careers serving in some administrative or political capacity, in order to increase their profile and political viability.
When the appointee does actually have some real legal experience, it can never compare to the legal experience of some of the other applicants. There have been Assistant District Attorneys, as young as about 35, getting appointed over people with decades of sterling legal experience.
Part of the reason for all this is that if one devotes decades to becoming an excellent lawyer, they have seldom have been able to spend any time trying to build political juice.
So, I am not persuaded when people act like we will be assured excellent judges via appointment, as the overall quality does not seem to be much better than what we get when we elect judges. There are good and bad judges who have been elected, and there are good and bad judges who have been appointed.
Now some concede most of the above, but argue that the intense screening process for appointing judges at least protects us form flat out weirdos, who can succeed through the election process, particularly if they are perennial candidates who keep running for judge, and thus keep increasing their name recognition.
So, appointing judges is dominated by politics, just as electing judges is. It's simply that somewhat different political dynamics control each process.
To:2:32,your lengthy post can be summarized as the electing of judges, and the appointing of judges, are both controlled by politics, and that the most qualified person seldom achieves the judgeship. That's really all you needed to say. We get it. You had us at "Hello."
Seems a huge advantage is to be an Assistant District Attorney. The same cannot be said about currently being a Deputy Public Defender.
They don't seem to get appointed. Guess we need to throw "tough on crime" red meat to the public and media, and that is hard to do when appointing a Deputy Public Defender.
But I would love to finally see some defense attorneys take the bench, to balance things out a little better. Perhaps Ossie Fumo will win his NSC race.
Herndon: $322K
12:12–that's a lot of money this early, particularly considering how the pandemic really slows things down, and further considering that I don't think anyone of significant regard is running against her.
But I could be wrong about that, so who is in fact running against her? How formidable are they? Do they really pose a serious challenge to her?
The small firm I worked at let me and the other lawyer go at the start of the Stay Home Order. So I could use any money. Most of my friends got their Trump Check yesterday. I went to the IRS.gov to check mine but it won't work. Anyone else having that problem? I do unfortunately have an old IE browser. Does it work on anyone's Chrome browser?
If you didn't receive a refund for TY 2018, you are getting paper. The website is bulloxed. You might not get your check until late summer.
Could be a good,lucky day for Alverson Taylor. We have reached the afternoon and no one has posted a comment attacking them.
Who cares about A-T, let's get our priorities straight. Its Kim Wexler that we should be worrying about.
When will Season 5 be on Netflix?
I just got an email from A/T confirming a discussion that we have never had because we have never actually talked ever.
It is on Prime now.
Student Council just cancelled the New Orleans Annual Meeting! How will they spend the money now?
I assume every member of the BoG + Kim farmer will be given a travel voucher good for 5 days paid vacation in the destination of their choice.
The idealist in me hoped that Bill Kephart would not get re-elected. He is running laps around his opposition in fundraising. The realist in me recognizes that his ability to raise money, coupled with the noise from the pandemic and other races on ballot, makes him invincible in spite of his history. 95% of voters will know nothing about his past. He probably wins out right in the primary. Sad.
Kephart is what I like to think of as a Useful Idiot. Halverson was one of these. So was Jessie Walsh. Yes, objectively they are terrible judges that have no idea what they are doing. But they like our firm and always have. We have (had) incredible success percentages in front of them. I will add (because Walsh is in the list to preempt the argument) that our firm has given money to 1 judicial candidate ever and it was none of the foregoing.
He will continue to get re-elected for the reasons 2:39 mentions. He has fairly high name recognition, a memorable last name which he combines with a heart graphic on his signs(a useful little gimmick), and his prominent photo., which he has used on his signs each election, is ingrained with many voters.
Plus he is known by many as being a long term Assistant District Attorney, which allows for the "tough on crime" red meat being tossed to the public and the media(a dynamic pointed out by an earlier poster).
When he was a JP, and ran for District Court, his opponent was Cliff Marcek, who I consider a real solid and real honorable attorney. But Bill K, as a sitting JP and much name recognition as well as endorsements and financial resources, drubbed Cliff by more than 70% to 30%.
So, 2:39 is right on point that the strongest judicial candidates are not necessarily great judges or great attorneys. In fact, that's a point that has been made, and made well, by a few different posters today.
3:12–Agreed. Judicial elections are for the birds, as is the gubernatorial appointment process as currently configured.
Some states have a far superior process for appointing judges, which often includes panels consisting of those in the legal community and who are trained in legal matters.
But our current process consists of an initial screening panel dominated by lay persons, and then the next step, the gubernatorial appointment, is dominated by political concerns, rather than legal acumen and performance.
Anyone have any suggestions of how we can reform thee appointment process?
I am glad to see Craig Friedberg file again to run. He is turning into Tony Likes.
Liker
Vote incumbents out.
Thank you for that nuanced interpretation.
Your welcome, it works, because it is true. Sorry you don't like it. I know others who feel the way I do.
Do the others who feel the way you do know the difference between your and you're?
The troll is back.
"I know others who feel the way I do" = "a lot people are saying . . ."
"a lot people are saying…," you missed a word. Before you start trolling other people about grammar, you should check your own. And I agree with 4:31. Have a nice evening!
6:19 here. I didn't troll anybody on their grammar. I trolled you on your unsubstantiated argument that there are plenty of others who feel the way you do without anything to back it up and tied it to 45's penchant for doing the same thing.
The point remains – a bare conclusion that we should "vote all incumbents out" gives nothing to the discussion here. If you think every single sitting judge (including those who pretty much everyone likes like Denton) should lose without looking at who is running against them then you are an idiot. Ni-night.
I really grow weary of the "throw them all out mentality" Its a feeble minded refusal to carefully consider the fact that we have some good judges who work hard and need to be retained. Also, look at the challengers to the incumbent civil/criminal judges ( I do not know anything about family court) is there ANY that can credibly say they are better or more qualified? If you have a problem with all current judges, maybe you are the issue, not the judge.
I actually don't mind grammar trolls if they save me from making some fundamental grammar errors. If someone proof reads something important I will be submitting, I more than welcome the corrections.
This is particularly true if it saves me from some fundamental errors, which can affect the weight and viability of what I wrote, if being read by more exacting types.
If I say "your" when I should be saying "you're", I want to be corrected, particularly if someone is proof-reading something important that I am submitting.
Also, if I say "to" when I should be saying "too", I likewise want to be corrected.
So, what's more important? Us indulging being offended when someone corrects our grammar, or being saved from making basic errors in our writings(which are often intended to persuade).
Now that said, I realize that I am discussing someone catching our grammatical errors in our written legal writings, while the posters here are mainly discussing people correcting each other on this blog.
Trolls roll call. I am glad judges are on here trolling attorneys, happens all the time. Also, agree with the above posters, vote all incumbents out. It is sad that you have so much time on your hands to correct grammar on a blog.
There is something wrong with an attorney, because they don't want to support the judges down at the RJC or appellate judges? I guess there is something wrong with me too, because I am only voting for two or three of them.
3:19–Vote ALL of them out, or just MOST, or SOME of them?
There are some judges who make serious efforts. Others loaf along until retirement eligible. A third category, who don't read briefs and rely way too heavily on their law clerks, who are mostly inexperienced.
Insanity!
If you are in the mood for a good time,
NVIndy A Confederacy of Dunces
https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/a-confederacy-of-dunces-at-las-vegas-city-hall
Did they take this article down? I can't find it.
How are you guys dealing with work/life balance? I've made my kitchen my makeshift office and now I am working all of the time.
I try to maintain the exact same schedule that I do when I'm going into the office. I don't work more than I did when I went into the office and I'm just as productive if not more so.
@5:28p – I'm trying to do the same thing. The one change is instead of getting up at 6:00am, I shifted it down to 7:00am, and going to bed an hour later (no kids here.) I'm enjoying bankruptcy 341 meetings by phone & video, and RJC hearings by phone. We're a ~2 attorney, 3 staff office, and moved the IP phone to the assistant's home office (fortunately she doesn't yet have kids, and her dog is quiet) and everyone is able to work at home.
Phase two of the fed's open the country plan includes groups of up to 10 people being allowed to gather together…good news for the clandestine orgy-party folks. Not a law or justice industry related post? Sure, whatever you say, and I've got a bridge for sale in Tahiti that drops down into a toilet paper field and it's ready for harvest (actually, I don't know what that means…I just couldn't stop typing, but I was able to purchase TP today so optimism abounds).
Incumbents I will vote for, Susan Johnson, probably. I don't want to, but the other choices are scary. Villani and Atkins I will vote for. Kristina Pickering, no. You don't follow the law. Bonnie Bulla, no. You don't have enough experience to be an appellate judge, and your demeanor is rank. Any questions? Call me at…..
. . . 555-CLUELESS.
…555-1245…that is too many numbers. So who can't count, Bonnie Bulla or Pickering?
Bonnie Bulla is a piece of work. She went after me as a sexual assault survivor in a case, giving me shit about not being willing to go to an office to the person who assaulted me.