- Quickdraw McLaw
- 47 Comments
- 489 Views
- Gov. Lombardo names ex-judge George Assad to seat on the Gaming Control Board. [TNI]
- Youtuber gets in gun battle in Henderson home invasion. [RJ]
- Center offering legal information on eviction, civil matters sees high volume of clients. [Nevada Current]
- $1B in unclaimed property in Nevada. [8NewsNow]
Wasn't George Assad the judge that had the douche bag son that robbed the hotel? Do not remember exactly. I am glad that Vegas is still Vegas…Lol!
"Former Las Vegas judge George Assad, who was sanctioned by judicial overseers for a punishment he meted out and lost his re-election bid after his son robbed the Bellagio in a high-profile heist more than a decade ago, was named to the Gaming Control Board on Monday by Gov. Joe Lombardo." Amazing lede.
Yeah this was a real headscratcher of an appointment.
The Board required someone with expertise in casino robberies.
I see we all had similar thoughts at this appointment.
Hey 10:23, please read the referenced/linked article before commenting. There is no paywall at the Independent, god bless 'em. Your answer was in the first paragraph of the story, i.e., the "amazing lede" referenced by 10:29.
I appreciate all you anonymous guys giving in to your innate attorney habit of being haters, but I know George Assad and I have known him for almost twenty years. Judge Assad has always been a very principled human being and while I fought with him a lot over what the proper outcome was on a matter, he always put time and effort into every decision. Has he made some mistakes? Yes. But is he a good dude ? 100%. Is it his fault that his son has some issues? I have two kids, so god I hope not. Is he like Rain Man when it comes to second half lines on football? 100%. Don't hate on Judge Assad cause you read something somewhere, if you know him then you know that he is not what you read. He really is a solid dude and he gives a shit, I respect that. So go back to your offices and bang your secretaries when your wife thinks you're working late, but leave a good guy alone.
5:41-Assad is very bright, hard-working and quite personable. He also still has significant juice and connections, so the appointment makes sense from that perspective as well.
And true enough that parents are seldom largely culpable for the conduct of their adult children, and their reputation should not be publicly harmed based on the behavior of such adult children.
That all said, I did find it somewhat concerning when the judge had a Defendant's girlfriend held in custody, to compel the Defendant to appear and make payment on his court fines.
However, I don't like to see a judge's lengthy, solid career spoiled by one, or even a few bad mistakes while on the bench–particularly if those mistakes have nothing to do with public corruption, but are merely wrong calls while conducting calendar.
And, if memory serves, he stipulated to the discipline, so he clearly acknowledges that he went too far.
So, although I think some measured commentary, and even some criticism, can be legitimately considered, it is true that a few posters have taken gratuitous pot shots, and attempt to dismiss a man's entire career, reputation, and self-worth with a condemning, snide sentence or two. None of us have unblemished careers, where there is nothing we regret, and thus the dialogue against Assad goes way too far.
Ben, how many other "principled human beings who give a shit" were available for that appointment who did not have Assad's baggage? Lots. In fact, lots who are very likely even more principled than Assad in that they were never sanctioned by any entity. Many who did not make the documented mistakes/poor judgment of the significance that he did. That's the point, my good dude. Not only are there many guys – and gals – who are at least as good, there are plenty who are better. The appointment shows poor judgment on Lombardo's part. Not a good start.
You also hurt your credibility and your argument with your last sentence. Who's the hater in this instance Ben? (BTW, I've agreed with a lot of your prior comments on this blog and said so in my comments. But on this one, your personal bias has gotten in the way of your good sense. You're not looking at this objectively. Hopefully, that's all that happened with Lombardo and his advisors too.)
"He also still has significant juice and connections, so the appointment makes sense from that perspective as well." – 6:02 p.m.
Bingo. Those should not be the reasons for such an appointment.
I think most of these posts are childish and hurtful. The only two which are fair-minded are 5:41 and 6:02. I think 6:02 strikes the appropriate middle ground.5:41 also makes some excelelnt points, but may be a little too influenced by him actually knowing Assad quite well, which could affect his objectivity somewhat. But he seems to acknowledge that when he discusses how well he has known him on a personal basis throughout the years.
And his comment about lawyers and their secretaries is funnier than Hell, while being so true.
“ So go back to your offices and bang your secretaries when your wife thinks you're working late, but leave a good guy alone”. Love the low blow! Nothing like a good targeted attack.
Nadig is right on this one. Ya'll can STFU. Assad is good people and will be an asset to the GCB.
A long article on a YouTuber and 5 minors breaking in and shooting him but zero details on what the goal of the break in was and why did they immediately just shoot him? I heard this was in Mcdonald highlands?
The Youtuber has 8.9 million followers. I am guessing that the goal was money or swag.
The Youtuber has publicly stated he has about 1Million dollars worth of jewelry in his closet in his house. On his Youtube channel he flaunts his lifestyle and money. I presume it's easier to ransack someone's house if they're dead as opposed to trying to be quiet while they sleep upstairs.
Soon-To-Be-Plaintiff re Bar back from yesterday. As you will soon know my name because the Court Records are public, I want to first thank the Blog Owner here for allowing the conversation yesterday. I also, want to promise that going forward, I will only post factual, non-defamatory items on the Blog such as "Complaint was filed today in Case Number …" Or Bar hired this firm to defend, etc. I will not use it as a place to vent – In addition to that not being my personality, I do not want to actually violate any rules. Also, to clarify, I do have standing and do not pretend to be solely altruistic, although believe it or not, at this age in my life, that is a large motivation. Thank you.
Bravo. Please email me. I would be happy to sit down and meet face-to-face and have coffee. I am happy to provide history, context and many factual items that I believe will be helpful in your endeavors.
We wish you the best of luck!
Look forward to reading the complaint, please post it when you can. Wouldn't this just get dismissed as a SLAPP? ie. Your complaint would consist of trying to prevent individuals' speech in a judicial matter? You would need to be able to prove they did something that was malice and maybe criminal to keep the case going?
Dear 11:50 – It has nothing to do with defamation, etc. but if it did, in the current political environment, it seems everything is dismissed via Anti-SLAPP, it seems lawyers can be defamed at will the last few years 🙂
Will do 11:45. Your email still 911@aol.com? Alllllllllrighty then.
Dear 1:03 SLAPP applies to every tort, not just defamation. It seems that you allude to the Willick case and Abrams case at the end of your statement even those cases had a lot more torts claimed than defamation. Suing OBC because you do not like what they say, or that they "went after you" by sending a letter requesting information etc. would seem to fit perfectly under the Anti SLAPP law (go read it) and would seem an easy dismissal. Or, they could just file a motion to dismiss and cite litigation privilege. Pretty hard to see how any complaint filed is going to make it past motions to dismiss.
To the person who requested an example of the OBC being frivolous. Here is one. This happened to me. I had a minor "feud" with a fellow lawyer. Just the normal not agreeing on discovery situations, etc. but where there was a little mutual dislike. I had never had ANY bar problems. He got on the BOG and within two months, a former client complained of lack of communication stating I failed to provide the minutes from a hearing in his file. Now you can believe me or not. After all I'm anon on a blog. But I emailed them the minutes with proof 3 – that is THREE times. On the 4th request, I politely emailed that they could be found at the Courthouse and provided instructions. I wasn't even rude or mad – I just knew he would keep asking. Never charged for any of that. When I got the complaint you would have thought I had robbed my Trust Account or something. I ended up winning but it was very time-consuming and costly. The process is what was problematic. The sneering attitude of "we've got you for no reason at all" is what is disturbing. 100% related to a conflict of personalities.
You won. After an investigation, after a CLIENT complained. The OBC did not "go after you", they took action only after receiving a complaint. Should they ignore client complaints? No. Your case is what should happen and the result was just. Nothing happened after you provided proof. Ever been pulled over? Your story sounds like what innocent people experience every day on road sides. It sucks. It delays you. But most of the time after they see your license, ownership and valid insurance you are back on your way. Unless you did something wrong, and then you get a citation for it.
@3:04 did you not see the part where it says “costly?” There is no reason for OBC to file a complaint under those facts. Years ago, under previous OBCs, I faced a similar situation with a client. I was able to respond and it got closed out without a compliant being filed. Under the current OBC, no doubt I’d be facing a formal proceeding. OBC is out of control.
@3:04— Investigation letter? Sure. This dude stated that he was served with a Complaint after providing proof that he had provided court minutes 3 times. And we are filing complaints over allegations of failure to provide court minutes?
I believe OP. I can't disclose what I know for various reasons, but OBC is filing complaints against attorneys for the most ridiculous allegations. Nothing to do with stealing money or abusing clients or any of the usual shenanigans we're used to hearing about. They are also selective about who they file complaints on. If you're on their list, you won't even get an investigation. It'll go straight to complaint.
Are these "complaints" public record anywhere?
The referenced "complaints" have be real to be public, and they're not real. These guys have no idea what they're talking about. They couldn't reference even one. And they won't.
No, they’re not public. 6:48 has no idea what they’re talking about.
Its what happens when the bureaucracy takes on a life of its own and its only aim is to maintain and increase its power base (in the form of budget dollars).
Your dollars…..
6:48 don't be a dingleberry, they are not public, as a matter of fact if you make it public it is another violation
I've been looking to provide electronic coverage of a State Bar disciplinary proceeding as our viewers are interested in it. Office of Bar Counsel has been cordial but the last request they put in the hands of the chair, who either disregarded it or denied it without letting me know. I'll give it another shot with a couple of other cases coming up. If the Commission on Judicial Discipline allows electronic coverage of their proceedings, I don't see why the State Bar can't too.
I'm a solo and i just received notice of a complaint against me. Any recs for an attorney in town that will help?
Rob Bare.
Second that. Call Rob and Glenn.
Lol. You guys are killing me.
Bailey Kennedy
Bare and Glenn if you're killing it in the solo biz. Mike Warhola is also a solid choice.
You guys are using "complaint" in two widely different situations.
If it's just a client letter, email, or other communication that is the initial communication ("complaint") with the bar, just handle it yourself. Write a letter back to the bar detailing everything concerning the situation, with any and all exhibits attached to your letter to show that you're in the right, you're on top of things, and you'd like to prominently address the matter. Write like you're writing an insurance defense letter to them – every single little inane detail, all exhibits (relevant or not), etc. Remember, attorney/client privilege does not exist anymore in this type of situation, so have at it.
The bar has not opened a formal "complaint" when a client files something with them. They just randomly send the attorney a letter with the wonderful blue line on it that strikes fear in the best of us, with a request to "please respond within 2 weeks."
Hiring an attorney to represent you at this point in time will cost you at least $5,000.00, or maybe more or a lot more. It might be necessary in some situations but most of the time, certainly not.
The bar will take a few months before deciding what to do with your situation. If the bar doesn't know, sometimes they will have a "panel" review what your matter before deciding how to proceed. If, and only if, it gets to a "formal complaint" should you hire an attorney going forward. That means there is going to be an administrative hearing at the State Bar offices.
The biggest "complaint" the Bar gets from clients is lack of communication. Index everything while it occurs and you probably won't have to spend hours and hours looking for every email, text, letter, or phone call to prove that adequate communication was present. Another big issue is when someone "complains" about outcome – again, this is a "judgment call" situation from an attorney perspective most of the time so a vast majority of the time, this type of situation will go nowhere.
10:32-I would generally agree with the concept that generally you can answer the inquiry letter without counsel, but that it becomes necessary to engage counsel if it proceeds to the complaint stage.
However, if something is serious enough, there may be instances where it is prudent to also involve counsel at the initial inquiry letter stage.
I have received 3-4 of these "Letters" in my 20+ years. Always resolved with my response. Thankfully, never got to the "complaint" stage.
What you all don’t seem to understand is those grievance letters are no longer just grievances. The current regime at OBC is turning everything they can into a complaint and I mean complaint in the actual legal sense of the word. OBC is targeting small and solo practitioners and filing on everything. They are literally making up charges. It is textbook prosecutorial abuse.
I too have gotten one of those letters years ago from OBC regarding a grievance from an unreasonable client. I answered with volumes of exhibits showing the client’s grievances were false and the matter was closed. That was before the current regime took over. Today it would be a complaint and it would cost me thousands to defend myself.
There is an article in today's Washington Post (above the fold) and Review-Journal on the Matthew Beasley Mormon Ponzi Scheme.
Now for some good news – only $999,999,850.00 left to claim! Found $150! Woo hoo!
$999,999,500 (Got my $350, from a 2002 Real Estate Deal)