From the Attorney Opening Brief: “Ms. Van became aware that the State Bar breached confidentiality by sharing her investigative file, which contained privileged information, to those inside and outside of the investigation. She therefore moved to dismiss the Complaint for the
clear violation of her due process rights and blatant disregard of the SCR 121. ROA
Vol. I, 32-105. The Chair of the Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board, Dana Oswalt, took Ms. Van’s allegations of breaches of confidentiality “very seriously” in evaluating the request for dismissal and issuing her Order. ROA Vol. I, 143-173. Chair Oswalt’s findings, which should be undisturbed here, included that the State Bar violated SCR 121 when it provided Ms. Van’s grievance responses to Mr. Dimopoulos. ROA Vol. I, 146-150
“Chair Oswalt also found evidence of confidentiality breaches due to approximately two thousand two hundred (2,200) pages consisting of Ms. Van’s grievance responses being disclosed by another law firm (Resnick & Louis) during discovery in an unrelated personal injury case for one of Ms. Van’s clients who was wholly unconnected to the grievances at issue. ROA Vol. I, 148. This information included “attorney client privileged information, including but not limited to case management software data entries, communication between attorneys, internal
memoranda, medical and billing records for clients, billing ledgers, and more.” Id. ”
******************************
These seem like pretty serious allegations. OBC denies they did anything wrong. I hope that NVSC addresses them directly. If the allegations have no merit, the profession and public need to know and OBC exonerated. If the allegations do have merit, it seems like some kind of corrective action needs to be taken. The profession and public need to know that the State Bar follows the rules it enforces. I hope that NVSC does more than offer a conclusory statement, either way.
The SBN’s argument is that the grievance files (including everything disclosed by the attorney) are public records once the complaint is filed, subject to public record requests. I don’t like it, but SCR 121(11) seems to support that argument.
“What becomes public. Once a matter has become public pursuant to this rule, all records of the attorney discipline agency shall become public except bar counsel’s work product, the panel’s deliberations, and all documents related to any diversion or mentoring agreements governed by SCR 105.5.”
There is a provision for seeking a protective order under SCR 121(17). I have no idea if that happened or didn’t happen here, because I’ve got stuff to do before the holiday and I don’t know the attorney in question, so I’m not invested in this case.
The SBN’s whole purpose is allegedly to serve the public. So how does it serve the public to have a client’s private information all over the internet and OBC hiding behind some technicality? On public policy alone, the supreme court should bench slap the hell out of OBC.
Also, this isn’t the first time OBC has pulled some bullshit. Not too long ago OBC missed an appeal deadline. They went ahead and filed the appeal late and argued they should be allowed to appeal decisions late. Nothing ever happened to them. The supreme court correctly dismissed the untimely appeal, but that attorney still had to pay to defend the action. It’s bullshit.
You won’t get any argument from me that OBC likes to play fast and loose. But “the public” is greater than any given single client. So while a particular client and a particular lawyer is definitely disserved by public access to these records, there’s a greater good of the public’s right to know. You might disagree, and I might disagree, but the way SCR 121 reads right now, the access outweighs other considerations unless a specific protective order is imposed.
So attorney client privilege goes out the window if your attorney happens to get grievance against them by OBC? That’s an insane outcome. And what “greater good” is there in exposing a client’s private medical information? That has nothing to do with attorney discipline. There’s no public interest there and no amount of playing devil’s advocate will change that.
You can keep arguing that, but how would the client know their private medical information was going to get released to the public? How would the client know to file for a protective order? Or even HOW to file for one?
You can keep being glib about it, but you clearly need a refresher course in statutory construction. OBC is wrong for what they did and they should not be allowed to hide behind some technicality. It is a ridiculous result to have so many rules regarding attorney-client privilege and attorney obligations (enforced by OBC) regarding a client’s private information to go out the window because OBC (the same agency charged with enforcing the rules re privilege) decides to add an irrelevant pile of medical records and communications to a disciplinary action.
Here is the problem with NRPC 1.6(5)– that gives the lawyer the right to control the release of information to the extent that the lawyer deems it necessary. There was no voluntary disclosure in the Van case. OBC compelled the information to be turned over and then did nothing to protect the information once compelled.
SCR 110 states that documents produced pursuant thereto are confidential and that it is contempt of the supreme court to breach the confidentiality of an investigation.
You are correct that SCR 121(17) allows protective orders to protect the interests of a complainant, witness, third party, or respondent attorney and to ensure that the proceedings be conducted so as to implement the order, including requiring that the hearing be conducted in such a way as to preserve the confidentiality of the information that is the subject of the application. The Panel Chair’s Order seems to imply that that occurred and that OBC flagrantly violated the confidentiality of the proceedings.
Here is the other problem: It becomes public once the Complaint is filed. The Opening Brief states that all 2200 pages were disclosed before the Complaint was filed.
Pretty sure “proceedings” means something akin to what we see in district court (i.e., publicly filed briefs and open hearings).
Guest
Anonymous
November 26, 2024 1:26 pm
Board of Governors latest email says that the Bar is now going to charge a licensing fee to bar prep companies to use old bar exam questions. Fuck them. Law students graduate with an incredible amount of debt. BarBri and Kaplan and whoever else isn’t going to just eat that cost. They’re going to pass it on to law students who are desperate to pass the bar so they can start paying on their mountain of debt. Good news is that the bar is operating with a surplus though which totally justifies this nonsense.
SBN is just another government bureaucracy that seeks only to widen its power base and justify its existence. This licensing fee is just another ploy in this endeavor and we are never going to see this agency return this benefit to its members.
Yes, it could change. Example: The state regulates licensing of physicians, while physicians have their own group to advocate for physicians. Moving back to @3:31’s comment, SBN should become an agency, maybe under the SoS, to license attorneys. The new bar admittance exam will lower the bar so far that it will not be anything much different that getting barber’s license or real estate license.
We, meaning us, form an entity that actively represents the interest of, and advocate for, attorneys.
I think its absolutely hilarious it was in La Jolla too. Issuing decisions which hurt law students by saying we need more money for the questions we create while making the decision from a 5 star hotel is so oxymoronic
Guest
Anonymous
November 26, 2024 3:33 pm
On the Uber driver getting shot on the strip – I’m seeing a bunch of commentary online alleging that the fact that the shooter left the scene hurts her self defense argument. I don’t practice any criminal law but I don’t understand how that would be the case. Why would you only be able to make a self defense argument when you stay at the scene? The article says the victim had a gun too, is she just supposed to wait there while he’s on the ground bleeding out? If she’s really scared for her life, is it somehow better for her argument to get out of her car and double tap the guy? That way she can stay without being scared? But what if someone in the guy’s car also has a gun? There are so many reasons why she would leave. It’s unreasonable to expect that someone who just shot another person because they were scared would simply sit there and wait.
Would the prosecution be able to use evidence that the shooter left the scene to fight a self defense argument? If so, how successful could it be?
The prosecution will argue that even if she were afraid, she could have driven somewhere safe and turned herself in to Metro at the first opportunity. The theory being that an innocent person would immediately report their use of a weapon in self-defense. The reality is that people panic in extreme situations and don’t always behave in the way prosecutors and cops want them to respond.
The Trey Songz link is also to the Justin Jones article. It looks like the insane damages number is because the court entered a default judgment. https://www.stereogum.com/2288843/trey-songz-ordered-to-pay-11m-to-cop-allegedly-assaulted-in-las-vegas/news/
Re: 88974
From the Attorney Opening Brief: “Ms. Van became aware that the State Bar breached confidentiality by sharing her investigative file, which contained privileged information, to those inside and outside of the investigation. She therefore moved to dismiss the Complaint for the
clear violation of her due process rights and blatant disregard of the SCR 121. ROA
Vol. I, 32-105. The Chair of the Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board, Dana Oswalt, took Ms. Van’s allegations of breaches of confidentiality “very seriously” in evaluating the request for dismissal and issuing her Order. ROA Vol. I, 143-173. Chair Oswalt’s findings, which should be undisturbed here, included that the State Bar violated SCR 121 when it provided Ms. Van’s grievance responses to Mr. Dimopoulos. ROA Vol. I, 146-150
“Chair Oswalt also found evidence of confidentiality breaches due to approximately two thousand two hundred (2,200) pages consisting of Ms. Van’s grievance responses being disclosed by another law firm (Resnick & Louis) during discovery in an unrelated personal injury case for one of Ms. Van’s clients who was wholly unconnected to the grievances at issue. ROA Vol. I, 148. This information included “attorney client privileged information, including but not limited to case management software data entries, communication between attorneys, internal
memoranda, medical and billing records for clients, billing ledgers, and more.” Id. ”
******************************
These seem like pretty serious allegations. OBC denies they did anything wrong. I hope that NVSC addresses them directly. If the allegations have no merit, the profession and public need to know and OBC exonerated. If the allegations do have merit, it seems like some kind of corrective action needs to be taken. The profession and public need to know that the State Bar follows the rules it enforces. I hope that NVSC does more than offer a conclusory statement, either way.
The SBN’s argument is that the grievance files (including everything disclosed by the attorney) are public records once the complaint is filed, subject to public record requests. I don’t like it, but SCR 121(11) seems to support that argument.
“What becomes public. Once a matter has become public pursuant to this rule, all records of the attorney discipline agency shall become public except bar counsel’s work product, the panel’s deliberations, and all documents related to any diversion or mentoring agreements governed by SCR 105.5.”
There is a provision for seeking a protective order under SCR 121(17). I have no idea if that happened or didn’t happen here, because I’ve got stuff to do before the holiday and I don’t know the attorney in question, so I’m not invested in this case.
The SBN’s whole purpose is allegedly to serve the public. So how does it serve the public to have a client’s private information all over the internet and OBC hiding behind some technicality? On public policy alone, the supreme court should bench slap the hell out of OBC.
Also, this isn’t the first time OBC has pulled some bullshit. Not too long ago OBC missed an appeal deadline. They went ahead and filed the appeal late and argued they should be allowed to appeal decisions late. Nothing ever happened to them. The supreme court correctly dismissed the untimely appeal, but that attorney still had to pay to defend the action. It’s bullshit.
You won’t get any argument from me that OBC likes to play fast and loose. But “the public” is greater than any given single client. So while a particular client and a particular lawyer is definitely disserved by public access to these records, there’s a greater good of the public’s right to know. You might disagree, and I might disagree, but the way SCR 121 reads right now, the access outweighs other considerations unless a specific protective order is imposed.
So attorney client privilege goes out the window if your attorney happens to get grievance against them by OBC? That’s an insane outcome. And what “greater good” is there in exposing a client’s private medical information? That has nothing to do with attorney discipline. There’s no public interest there and no amount of playing devil’s advocate will change that.
I mean, yeah? That’s NRPC 1.6(5). Again, if you don’t want it exposed, get a protective order. Literally anyone can ask for one.
You can keep arguing that, but how would the client know their private medical information was going to get released to the public? How would the client know to file for a protective order? Or even HOW to file for one?
You can keep being glib about it, but you clearly need a refresher course in statutory construction. OBC is wrong for what they did and they should not be allowed to hide behind some technicality. It is a ridiculous result to have so many rules regarding attorney-client privilege and attorney obligations (enforced by OBC) regarding a client’s private information to go out the window because OBC (the same agency charged with enforcing the rules re privilege) decides to add an irrelevant pile of medical records and communications to a disciplinary action.
This response hits it. How would a client know that their personal records were disclosed to the State Bar?
Here is the problem with NRPC 1.6(5)– that gives the lawyer the right to control the release of information to the extent that the lawyer deems it necessary. There was no voluntary disclosure in the Van case. OBC compelled the information to be turned over and then did nothing to protect the information once compelled.
SCR 110 states that documents produced pursuant thereto are confidential and that it is contempt of the supreme court to breach the confidentiality of an investigation.
You are correct that SCR 121(17) allows protective orders to protect the interests of a complainant, witness, third party, or respondent attorney and to ensure that the proceedings be conducted so as to implement the order, including requiring that the hearing be conducted in such a way as to preserve the confidentiality of the information that is the subject of the application. The Panel Chair’s Order seems to imply that that occurred and that OBC flagrantly violated the confidentiality of the proceedings.
Here is the other problem: It becomes public once the Complaint is filed. The Opening Brief states that all 2200 pages were disclosed before the Complaint was filed.
All proceedings involving allegations of misconduct by an attorney shall be kept confidential UNTIL THE FILING OF A FORMAL COMPLAINT SCR 121.1.
Pretty sure “proceedings” means something akin to what we see in district court (i.e., publicly filed briefs and open hearings).
Board of Governors latest email says that the Bar is now going to charge a licensing fee to bar prep companies to use old bar exam questions. Fuck them. Law students graduate with an incredible amount of debt. BarBri and Kaplan and whoever else isn’t going to just eat that cost. They’re going to pass it on to law students who are desperate to pass the bar so they can start paying on their mountain of debt. Good news is that the bar is operating with a surplus though which totally justifies this nonsense.
and the NV bar exam is one of the most expensive in the country.
SBN is just another government bureaucracy that seeks only to widen its power base and justify its existence. This licensing fee is just another ploy in this endeavor and we are never going to see this agency return this benefit to its members.
Its never going to change.
Yes, it could change. Example: The state regulates licensing of physicians, while physicians have their own group to advocate for physicians. Moving back to @3:31’s comment, SBN should become an agency, maybe under the SoS, to license attorneys. The new bar admittance exam will lower the bar so far that it will not be anything much different that getting barber’s license or real estate license.
We, meaning us, form an entity that actively represents the interest of, and advocate for, attorneys.
I did not say that there was no path to change.
I said that it would never change.
We need the “Sue the Bar” guy more than ever now.
They are about to make the bar exam a complete joke and a woke s**t s**w. The law school should include bar preparation as part of the tuition.
I think its absolutely hilarious it was in La Jolla too. Issuing decisions which hurt law students by saying we need more money for the questions we create while making the decision from a 5 star hotel is so oxymoronic
On the Uber driver getting shot on the strip – I’m seeing a bunch of commentary online alleging that the fact that the shooter left the scene hurts her self defense argument. I don’t practice any criminal law but I don’t understand how that would be the case. Why would you only be able to make a self defense argument when you stay at the scene? The article says the victim had a gun too, is she just supposed to wait there while he’s on the ground bleeding out? If she’s really scared for her life, is it somehow better for her argument to get out of her car and double tap the guy? That way she can stay without being scared? But what if someone in the guy’s car also has a gun? There are so many reasons why she would leave. It’s unreasonable to expect that someone who just shot another person because they were scared would simply sit there and wait.
Would the prosecution be able to use evidence that the shooter left the scene to fight a self defense argument? If so, how successful could it be?
The prosecution will argue that even if she were afraid, she could have driven somewhere safe and turned herself in to Metro at the first opportunity. The theory being that an innocent person would immediately report their use of a weapon in self-defense. The reality is that people panic in extreme situations and don’t always behave in the way prosecutors and cops want them to respond.