- Quickdraw McLaw
- 28 Comments
- 114 Views
- Dickinson Wright is not only picking up Gordon Silver’s six Reno attorneys, but also seven Las Vegas attorneys. [Vegas Inc.]
Triple Crown
- Law
- Posted on 9 years ago
Most Voted Comments
Active Comment Threads
Recent Comments
I need some free newspaper article-vertising. Something less drastic than Stubbs but more on point than DW.
If you want your name in the paper, either rob a liquor store while wearing a hoodie or hire a publicist. That's it. The game is rigged. If you wanna to play, you gotta pay.
Or try to avoid jury duty
I had a call into gordon silver office in Reno, and it was answered as Dickinson Wright. I thought I called the wrong number. Now reading this I understand.
I was going through some old posts and one of them was on "The Most Prestigious Firm in Town." This response is now even more awesome considering recent events … "After all these years it's still LS&C."
Totally unrelated, but blogworthy:
I saw this morning in the RJ that someone, on behalf of the Nevada Supreme Court, put a small subsection tucked away in the final budget bill that will be signed (or has been signed?) by Governor Sandoval any day now. The subsection makes sure that the Nevada Supreme Court will not be reduced to five Justices after the 2016 election.
Mmm, that sausage tastes so good! Just the right amount of fennel. Yum yum.
more details please?
One has to wonder when the Guv will call in that chit? Maybe there is a big case in the works that needs the "correct outcome." Remember Guinn v. Legislature ? Maybe the Guv needs some judicial juice on tap….
Jane Ann Morrison talked about it today, but the Nevada Appeal had it a week ago.
Thanks, 2015 RINOs.
Specifically, in SB 514, which is the primary appropriations bill, Section 86 says this: "Section 9 of Chapter 433, Statutes of Nevada 1997, at page 1532, is hereby repealed."
Here is a picture Roberson holding up SB514 after passage.
Very sneaky. Anyone think this was really legal? What are the chances that a technicality could upset this cart?
Anytime a politician says "We did nothing illegal." it's certainly worth a closer look.
Meanwhile, the old G&S can't be bothered to return calls.
Never saw that coming.
sarcasm added
A quote from the article:
One outside, veteran lawyer, speaking on condition of anonymity, said last month that he heard Gordon Silver shareholders voluntarily did not get paid at the beginning of the year “to keep things going.”
I don't think that is unusual or a sign of disaster. It is not uncommon for firms to drain their bank accounts at year end. To make payroll, they use a line of credit until money starts coming in the door. The shareholders then elect to receive their salary payment from the line of credit or defer until enough money is collected.
Why would you do that? I mean, if you receivables don't come in, and you've borrowed money to pay bonuses and salaries, aren't you close to bankrupt? I only know what I know from the Profit, but he would suggest that you're close to closing under that model.
Well, 5:10, you missed the whole point of the visionary leadership that shone bright at LSC and GS, and continues to illuminates the halls of Congress. Credit, baby.
You have to zero out your account at years end for IRS purposes, so you either have to loan money back or use credit to pay bills on January 1. However, the disbursement of money at the end of the year should be good and you should not need a paycheck for many months.
6:29 – You're assuming it's a C corp.
3:57 – I have a mid-sized firm. I've never eve thought about getting a credit line. If I don't make the money, then I don't distribute it. I make so much more than our expenses every month that the whole though of what you're saying is done by others is mind-boggling. People need to learn that if you don't earn it, then don't distribute it. I know that start-ups are different and might need a credit line, but for a veteran law firm, having to use a credit line should be embarrassing to them. This is why I couldn't fathom the whole LSC situation. That was just plain child-like to run the firm into the ground like that and distribute money that wasn't theirs.
6:29 – regarding your statement that year end money should be good such that you do not need a payout should be true, in theory, for shareholders. But not for staff who by all likelihood cannot afford to go without a paycheck.
8:59,
Well then, isn't it great that a) asking staff to accept salary deferments is actually illegal, and b) no one asked the staff to go without?
9:26 – you misunderstand. My point was that while shareholders can go without getting paid (hopefully due to a large bonus at year end), staff cannot; hence the necessity of firms needing to take out a line of credit to pay staff salaries after they zero out their accounts at the end of the year.
I would love to know what the enormity of the debt load of various "successful" law firms in town. Keeping up with trend of LSC.