Zane Floyd will never be executed. Throw away the key and call it a day.
Guest
Anonymous
February 14, 2022 7:11 pm
Just because the target of an incendiary remark is black, the remark (or the person making it) is not automatically racist. It's incredibly reductionist. She could just be an asshole, not a racist (and there's plenty of those!)
Okay 11:11…let's just ignore centuries of brutal lynching of black people in this country. Whatever. The cultural defense doesn't cut it in criminal court, it doesn't cut it in the court of public opinion either.
One point the article did make was that Sigal is unfit from an emotional standpoint. This whole situation supports that premise. What a dumpster fire.
Also, calling a white man a cracker isn't a racially-based insult, it's referring to lack of depth of character, because a cracker is thin. I call the French frogs because they are slimy gits (like a frog), not because of bigoted beliefs regarding their cuisine.
Dude, you can go on and and in order to justify how a remark isn't REALLY about race or national origin, but it's not a good look. And "Hang a [black man]?" Yes, non-Blacks were lawfully executed that way, but an awful lot of Blacks were murdered that way, and nothing about Chattah's use suggests legal use. Aaron Ford isn't a traitor, no matter how much you may dislike his politics or cozy relationship with a certain law firm. Additionally, I'm sorry, but logistically, "hanging from a crane," lawful or not, is a hell of a lot more like a slow torturous lynching than a sudden death. It's not a drop. It's a hoist.
If nothing else, as the article and 11:22 mention, the use of the phrase suggests that she is unfit to serve as Nevada's AG. And I say that fully aware that the office of Nevada AG has not always been filled by the paragons of duty, honor, and professionalism that I'd like it to be.
Sorry, while in marginally poor taste, the comment is far from racist. Its a clear reference to hangings that occur in the middle east. Its a horseshit reference that really had no racial undertones.
For you TV watchers, Think Brody's death in Iran on the show Homeland.
I disagree. Everyone who disagrees with Aaron is de facto and irrefutably racist. And everyone who disagrees with Sigal is an anti-Semite. The science says so. Aaron and Sigal are not individuals but members of groups, and only the group identity matters.
Who is the mental health professional who has the authority to judge someone's well-being? Second of all, it seems likes this profession likes to go after female attorneys as emotional or train wrecks is a common female sexist description. I do not even like Sigal, but the tone of the article is sexist.
Ford needs to sit down and pen a lengthy apology letter. He might benefit from a few hours of CRT training focused on the trials and tribulations of someone belonging to Chattah's group in our ethno- and phallo-centric society. Bigotry cannot be cured but it can be tampered down.
Would it make you feel better if I said Gilbert is as much as dumpster fire as Chattah, and equally unsuited for public office? And that Laxalt was ALSO a dumpster fire? I'm just a humble attorney who dislikes the smell of burning trash. By itself the smell is easily ignored, but when Carson City is awash with it, the fumes cause problems for us poor desert rats.
There is a $1000 donation from a sitting judge under her maiden name listed on Sigal's campaign finance report. As 11:45 pointed out, it is a couple of entries above Pia Zadora.
There is a donation of $1000 on 3/26/21 from von Magdenko and Associates PLLC.
On 3/30/21 an order was entered in D-21-619759-N changing the name of Nadia Von Magdenko to Nadia Krall.
Sarah Ashton-Cirillo posed as Republican to infiltrate the state GOP was involved to some extent in Krall's campaign for judge. https://www.nevadacurrent.com/2021/06/09/dem-who-masqueraded-as-republican-seeks-to-oust-fiore-from-council/
"A Judge or Judicial candidate's donation to a candidate or political organization that is otherwise permitted by state or federal law is not considered a public endorsement of a candidate for political office." https://judicial.nv.gov/Standing/Index/1-Opinions_Index_Home/
While there is probably some interesting backstory missing from the article, Judge Krall's donation is permitted from what I can tell.
I wonder when the Nevada Business magazine started doing the Nevada Legal Elite list? In 2013 Dimopoulos registered the "Legal Elite" trademark [though actually a 'service mark'] with the Nevada Secretary of State claiming usage dating back to 2005.
I think people that tiny should not drive such large RRs. The contrast was remarkable. Query: Why do these guys think that clients want lawyers who have and/or flaunt expensive cars and private jets? Are the clients just star struck by it and failing to make the connection that PI lawyers pay for that stuff with the 50%, 40%, 33% or 25% of the money they take from them in fees?
How was he using the mark in 2005 as a 2007 Bar Admittee?
Guest
Anonymous
February 14, 2022 10:05 pm
Hi, baby lawyer here with a question for the group:
Are my conversations with a client during a "normal" deposition break privileged? Under Coyote Springs it looks like they aren't, but is there any guidance from the discovery commissioner or anything more recent?
Not a simple question, and also depends on if you're a state or federal court. But Coyote Springs it's important to consider if anyone requested a break. If it's truly a "normal" break not in the middle of a line of questioning, then yeah probably. If your client is getting hammered and you demand a break in the middle of a line of questioning then probably not.
If in federal court read the In re Stratosphere decision and a few after citing to that case.
Guest
Anonymous
February 14, 2022 10:39 pm
Funny seeing at least 3 PI ads in the Superbowl yesterday. I'm sure expensive marketing is part of the game, but I'm guessing that was some serious cash. In my experience the PI folks, from the ad folks to the trial folks, don't really pay their people that well. Maybe that is smart business, but at some point it has to be a competitive disadvantage right? I think the starting salary for the quality commercial and defense firms has moved up to around $150K and closer to $175K after bonus. Are PI firms even close to that or do you have to be on your own to make that kind of money?
Guest
Anonymous
February 15, 2022 12:24 am
11:11-you indicate that someone is not necessarily a racist simply because they make an incendiary remark about someone who is black.
That can certainly be true in some contexts. For example, when NFL player Ray Rice was condemned for battering his girlfriend(also black) on an Atlantic City elevator, his critics were generally not accused of racism as the over-riding, engulfing themes were domestic violence, as well as the NFL not taking a meaningful stance against domestic violence by their players, etc.
But to call for the lynching(even though presumably figurative) of a black public official, clearly appears racist. I sincerely doubt one would use the term "lynching" for a white candidate we are displeased with.
The overwhelming majority of lynchings in this country were vigilante hangings of black people. Yes, there were some white, accused cattle rustlers in the 1870's and 1880's West who were lynched. But, mostly, the victims have been black.
So, to urge a black person to be lynched(even if not literally meant, and purely for effect) has clear racial, and even racist overtones.
For the person who uttered this not to be validly considered as having offered a racist remark, I think they need to offer an unqualified, very sincere apology and indicate they should never have used the language they did. But, to try to explain it away, rationalize it or somewhat defend it, does raise legitimate questions of whether the person in question(or their campaign publicists) harbors racist sentiments.
But at the end of the day, it won't matter, as Ford is unlikely to get re-elected for some of the reasons mentioned by 2:59. And an additional reason is that in the mid-terms the results usually swing heavily to the party not currently holding the White House, and this year will certainly be no exception.
She didn't call for a "lynching" which would've more easily been found to be more racist. Read the article again, with a more objective eye and remove the emotional trigger words from your vocabulary.
9:38, seems you are so concerned with pointing out that someone is wrong about what occurred, and you seem to put so much focus on contradicting someone that all you accomplish is to flush out that the "truth" is even a lot worse.
You beat up on the poster and indicate the candidate did not call for the "lynching" of her opponent, and that the poster needs to be far less emotional, and far more accurate, and re-read the article.
Fine, but the actual truth is far worse than the "lynching" situation.
What was said is that he should be have his neck broken, and have a horrible suffocating death, by hanging from a crane, and she compared him to the terrorist leader of Hamas.
And that itself has dramatic racial overtones, albeit if different than the lynching history involving African Americans as victims.
@938 here.
Lynching is historical. Crane (or helicopter) hangings in the middle east is current.
She might be an asshole for wishing this upon Ford (or any other human). But, racist. Not enough evidence thus far, with regard to African Americans.
But thanks for proving my point re: emotional judgments.
12:39-Nope, sorry, IMO you utterly fail at your point as it is not about readers being "too emotional" in how they react to that kind of remark(about hanging from a crane and comparing him to a terrorist leader). The point is about the remark itself.
Caring, intelligent, empathetic people SHOULD have the emotional reaction that you so richly condemn. The focus should be on the fact it is outrageous for the one candidate to make that statement about the other.
So, if we set aside all racial implications of the discussion, plus I assure you I am protecting you from any WOKE pressure, I would hope that with those qualifiers in place you would recognize an outrageous remark when you hear one.
And that remark is most unbecoming(to make a gross understatement) of someone who may be elected A.G.
Let me clarify for you. Unfounded emotional judgments are the target of my explanation and which are sought from the OP by using the term "lynching" which Sigal did not use. And you make my point by pointing out that the comment itself is "asshole". Like I said…..Being an asshole is NOT the same thing as being racist. These days, calling everything racist, makes nothing actually racist. You and the OP are the problem.
1:25-So, I'm the "problem" and cause of all the dissension, and riots, with BLM on one side and the Law and Order contingents on the other side?
I'm extremely flattered that you find me so influential that I can cause this level of national turmoil.
Oh..I spoke too soon. You didn't give me or the blame(or all the "credit" depending on how one views it). I need to share the blame or credit with OP.
But still, you assign to me quite a bit of effectiveness as a mover and shaker, so thank you.
BTW, since you are so fond of telling people to read more carefully, I would advise you that you might find the same task effective. You would then learn that, any racial implications aside, I am chiefly disturbed about the remark as it is outrageous.
Political rhetoric has always been quite disturbing, and we are accustomed to character assassination. But actually wishing(or at least envisioning and relishing) such a horrific, vivid death upon an opponent is really beyond the pale. I wish you could at least acknowledge that much.
Now if you support the candidate who made this statement, you may be in luck, as Mid Term Elections usually swing violently against the party currently occupying the White House.
Guest
Anonymous
February 15, 2022 12:31 am
4:24,I think the important part of your somewhat lengthy post is that we should not only look at the remark itself(in determining if it is racist) but whether the individual owns it and takes responsibility.
Apologizing profusely, for a lapse of taste, and insisting one did not mean it that way, and deeply regrets it, is the way to go, and could create a benefit of the doubt option.
But to simply defend (lynching your black opponent) as not being racist, provides no plausible deniability.
Guest
Anonymous
February 15, 2022 12:52 am
The posts by 4:24 and 4:31 lead us to another issue beyond the racism question.
That is that with instantaneous electronic communication, usually by the candidate themselves without consulting advisers or publicists, we see a much different political/campaign environment than 20 or so years ago.
Back then most remarks or statements released for public consumption were carefully crafted by the publicists and advisers, until the statements were very generic, totally bland and safe, and of no real help or meaning to the voting public. Everything was reduced to vague platitudes. The only exceptions were during live interviews or debates of candidates where they occasionally said something stupid or outrageous.
But these days, we have seen many examples(quite notably Trump in 2016, but in other races as well) of the candidate speaking directly and instantaneously to the public via current technology and electronic means, with no hesitation, no preparation, no filter, no advice heeded from any publicist or advisers, etc.
Whether this phenomenon is a change for the better or worse can be debated, but there is no doubt that these changes, in the campaign landscape, have dramatically occurred.
A couple decades ago we NEVER would have seen an eventual formal press release from this candidate's office calling for the lynching of her black opponent-who also happens to be the sitting A.G. And we would never see that today either. But with instantaneous forms of electronic communication directly available to the candidates, they often send something out without consulting with their staff about an eventual press release on the issue or topic at hand..
It could only happen in today's electronic, far higher tech., climate
Guest
Anonymous
February 15, 2022 5:46 am
I have a general question for any and everyone that might know. What are the lowest insurance defense rates currently? Back in early to mid 2000's I know the construction defect ID rates were as low as $130 for associates and $140 for partners. More recently, I've heard that some insurers are still paying as low as $195 for partners. I'm talking rates for run of the mill car accidents and slip and falls. I suppose CD defense rates might be interesting too, but so many of the insurers have in house lawyers now that there's a lot less of this kind of work. Any insight I would appreciate in advance.
Possibly worse are the flat fee cases that carriers are doing. Great way to end up spending hundreds of hours for a few grand (applies to potentially any practice area though)
Zane Floyd will never be executed. Throw away the key and call it a day.
Just because the target of an incendiary remark is black, the remark (or the person making it) is not automatically racist. It's incredibly reductionist. She could just be an asshole, not a racist (and there's plenty of those!)
Okay 11:11…let's just ignore centuries of brutal lynching of black people in this country. Whatever. The cultural defense doesn't cut it in criminal court, it doesn't cut it in the court of public opinion either.
One point the article did make was that Sigal is unfit from an emotional standpoint. This whole situation supports that premise. What a dumpster fire.
Also, calling a white man a cracker isn't a racially-based insult, it's referring to lack of depth of character, because a cracker is thin. I call the French frogs because they are slimy gits (like a frog), not because of bigoted beliefs regarding their cuisine.
Dude, you can go on and and in order to justify how a remark isn't REALLY about race or national origin, but it's not a good look. And "Hang a [black man]?" Yes, non-Blacks were lawfully executed that way, but an awful lot of Blacks were murdered that way, and nothing about Chattah's use suggests legal use. Aaron Ford isn't a traitor, no matter how much you may dislike his politics or cozy relationship with a certain law firm. Additionally, I'm sorry, but logistically, "hanging from a crane," lawful or not, is a hell of a lot more like a slow torturous lynching than a sudden death. It's not a drop. It's a hoist.
If nothing else, as the article and 11:22 mention, the use of the phrase suggests that she is unfit to serve as Nevada's AG. And I say that fully aware that the office of Nevada AG has not always been filled by the paragons of duty, honor, and professionalism that I'd like it to be.
Sorry, while in marginally poor taste, the comment is far from racist. Its a clear reference to hangings that occur in the middle east. Its a horseshit reference that really had no racial undertones.
For you TV watchers, Think Brody's death in Iran on the show Homeland.
I disagree. Everyone who disagrees with Aaron is de facto and irrefutably racist. And everyone who disagrees with Sigal is an anti-Semite. The science says so. Aaron and Sigal are not individuals but members of groups, and only the group identity matters.
Who is the mental health professional who has the authority to judge someone's well-being? Second of all, it seems likes this profession likes to go after female attorneys as emotional or train wrecks is a common female sexist description. I do not even like Sigal, but the tone of the article is sexist.
I'm taking time away from an engrossing discovery motion to calculate the correct outcome.
Chattah:
Female: 10 pts.
Older frumpy woman past her child-bearing years: 20 pts.
Jewish: 25 pts.
Total: 55 pts.
Ford:
Male: (-60 pts.)
Tall, handsome, and virile: (-30 pts.)
African American: 20 pts.
Total: (-70 pts.)
Winner: Sigal Chattah by K.O.
Ford needs to sit down and pen a lengthy apology letter. He might benefit from a few hours of CRT training focused on the trials and tribulations of someone belonging to Chattah's group in our ethno- and phallo-centric society. Bigotry cannot be cured but it can be tampered down.
2:06,
Would it make you feel better if I said Gilbert is as much as dumpster fire as Chattah, and equally unsuited for public office? And that Laxalt was ALSO a dumpster fire? I'm just a humble attorney who dislikes the smell of burning trash. By itself the smell is easily ignored, but when Carson City is awash with it, the fumes cause problems for us poor desert rats.
2:59 44 is old? You are disgusting.
Who is Gilbert? I still think political officials should not be endorsing Bonnie Bulla.
I am 50 years old and pregnant. I guess I should be shottoo by this Republican male pig.
Congratulations!
Why would a sitting judge, using her maiden name and former law firm's accounts, donate to Chattah for AG?
Dish…
Never mind. I figured it out. A little bit above Pia Zadora.
Huh? I'm lost.
Doesn't the text leaker have a link to a sitting judge or two as well?
Original poster is ilost.
There is a $1000 donation from a sitting judge under her maiden name listed on Sigal's campaign finance report. As 11:45 pointed out, it is a couple of entries above Pia Zadora.
We are getting Punked. Pia Zadora, isn't she in jail for spousal abuse? Ross Miller, a commissioner, endorsed Bulla. Is that allowed?
@2:51, yes that is allowed because Ross Miller is not a member of the judiciary and is not bound by the code of judicial ethics.
There is a donation of $1000 on 3/26/21 from von Magdenko and Associates PLLC.
On 3/30/21 an order was entered in D-21-619759-N changing the name of Nadia Von Magdenko to Nadia Krall.
Sarah Ashton-Cirillo posed as Republican to infiltrate the state GOP was involved to some extent in Krall's campaign for judge. https://www.nevadacurrent.com/2021/06/09/dem-who-masqueraded-as-republican-seeks-to-oust-fiore-from-council/
"A Judge or Judicial candidate's donation to a candidate or political organization that is otherwise permitted by state or federal law is not considered a public endorsement of a candidate for political office." https://judicial.nv.gov/Standing/Index/1-Opinions_Index_Home/
While there is probably some interesting backstory missing from the article, Judge Krall's donation is permitted from what I can tell.
Bulla has hundreds of endorsements from serious people in our community. Haters — live with it!
Laughing.
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Larry David crypto commercial was the best. The Dimopoulos ad was….something.
11x voted Las Vegas' Best Hair Dye job.
non-lawyer in my party laughed at the Lerner one and was disgusted by Dimopoulus' ad.
Ya'll jelly, no double R? Cash me outside.
I wonder when the Nevada Business magazine started doing the Nevada Legal Elite list? In 2013 Dimopoulos registered the "Legal Elite" trademark [though actually a 'service mark'] with the Nevada Secretary of State claiming usage dating back to 2005.
I think people that tiny should not drive such large RRs. The contrast was remarkable. Query: Why do these guys think that clients want lawyers who have and/or flaunt expensive cars and private jets? Are the clients just star struck by it and failing to make the connection that PI lawyers pay for that stuff with the 50%, 40%, 33% or 25% of the money they take from them in fees?
I would argue that "Legal Elite" is too generic to act as a trademark or service mark, regardless of how long they've used it.
How was he using the mark in 2005 as a 2007 Bar Admittee?
Hi, baby lawyer here with a question for the group:
Are my conversations with a client during a "normal" deposition break privileged? Under Coyote Springs it looks like they aren't, but is there any guidance from the discovery commissioner or anything more recent?
Not a simple question, and also depends on if you're a state or federal court. But Coyote Springs it's important to consider if anyone requested a break. If it's truly a "normal" break not in the middle of a line of questioning, then yeah probably. If your client is getting hammered and you demand a break in the middle of a line of questioning then probably not.
If in federal court read the In re Stratosphere decision and a few after citing to that case.
Funny seeing at least 3 PI ads in the Superbowl yesterday. I'm sure expensive marketing is part of the game, but I'm guessing that was some serious cash. In my experience the PI folks, from the ad folks to the trial folks, don't really pay their people that well. Maybe that is smart business, but at some point it has to be a competitive disadvantage right? I think the starting salary for the quality commercial and defense firms has moved up to around $150K and closer to $175K after bonus. Are PI firms even close to that or do you have to be on your own to make that kind of money?
11:11-you indicate that someone is not necessarily a racist simply because they make an incendiary remark about someone who is black.
That can certainly be true in some contexts. For example, when NFL player Ray Rice was condemned for battering his girlfriend(also black) on an Atlantic City elevator, his critics were generally not accused of racism as the over-riding, engulfing themes were domestic violence, as well as the NFL not taking a meaningful stance against domestic violence by their players, etc.
But to call for the lynching(even though presumably figurative) of a black public official, clearly appears racist. I sincerely doubt one would use the term "lynching" for a white candidate we are displeased with.
The overwhelming majority of lynchings in this country were vigilante hangings of black people. Yes, there were some white, accused cattle rustlers in the 1870's and 1880's West who were lynched. But, mostly, the victims have been black.
So, to urge a black person to be lynched(even if not literally meant, and purely for effect) has clear racial, and even racist overtones.
For the person who uttered this not to be validly considered as having offered a racist remark, I think they need to offer an unqualified, very sincere apology and indicate they should never have used the language they did. But, to try to explain it away, rationalize it or somewhat defend it, does raise legitimate questions of whether the person in question(or their campaign publicists) harbors racist sentiments.
But at the end of the day, it won't matter, as Ford is unlikely to get re-elected for some of the reasons mentioned by 2:59. And an additional reason is that in the mid-terms the results usually swing heavily to the party not currently holding the White House, and this year will certainly be no exception.
She didn't call for a "lynching" which would've more easily been found to be more racist. Read the article again, with a more objective eye and remove the emotional trigger words from your vocabulary.
9:38, seems you are so concerned with pointing out that someone is wrong about what occurred, and you seem to put so much focus on contradicting someone that all you accomplish is to flush out that the "truth" is even a lot worse.
You beat up on the poster and indicate the candidate did not call for the "lynching" of her opponent, and that the poster needs to be far less emotional, and far more accurate, and re-read the article.
Fine, but the actual truth is far worse than the "lynching" situation.
What was said is that he should be have his neck broken, and have a horrible suffocating death, by hanging from a crane, and she compared him to the terrorist leader of Hamas.
And that itself has dramatic racial overtones, albeit if different than the lynching history involving African Americans as victims.
@938 here.
Lynching is historical. Crane (or helicopter) hangings in the middle east is current.
She might be an asshole for wishing this upon Ford (or any other human). But, racist. Not enough evidence thus far, with regard to African Americans.
But thanks for proving my point re: emotional judgments.
12:39-Nope, sorry, IMO you utterly fail at your point as it is not about readers being "too emotional" in how they react to that kind of remark(about hanging from a crane and comparing him to a terrorist leader). The point is about the remark itself.
Caring, intelligent, empathetic people SHOULD have the emotional reaction that you so richly condemn. The focus should be on the fact it is outrageous for the one candidate to make that statement about the other.
So, if we set aside all racial implications of the discussion, plus I assure you I am protecting you from any WOKE pressure, I would hope that with those qualifiers in place you would recognize an outrageous remark when you hear one.
And that remark is most unbecoming(to make a gross understatement) of someone who may be elected A.G.
Let me clarify for you. Unfounded emotional judgments are the target of my explanation and which are sought from the OP by using the term "lynching" which Sigal did not use. And you make my point by pointing out that the comment itself is "asshole". Like I said…..Being an asshole is NOT the same thing as being racist. These days, calling everything racist, makes nothing actually racist. You and the OP are the problem.
1:25-So, I'm the "problem" and cause of all the dissension, and riots, with BLM on one side and the Law and Order contingents on the other side?
I'm extremely flattered that you find me so influential that I can cause this level of national turmoil.
Oh..I spoke too soon. You didn't give me or the blame(or all the "credit" depending on how one views it). I need to share the blame or credit with OP.
But still, you assign to me quite a bit of effectiveness as a mover and shaker, so thank you.
BTW, since you are so fond of telling people to read more carefully, I would advise you that you might find the same task effective. You would then learn that, any racial implications aside, I am chiefly disturbed about the remark as it is outrageous.
Political rhetoric has always been quite disturbing, and we are accustomed to character assassination. But actually wishing(or at least envisioning and relishing) such a horrific, vivid death upon an opponent is really beyond the pale. I wish you could at least acknowledge that much.
Now if you support the candidate who made this statement, you may be in luck, as Mid Term Elections usually swing violently against the party currently occupying the White House.
4:24,I think the important part of your somewhat lengthy post is that we should not only look at the remark itself(in determining if it is racist) but whether the individual owns it and takes responsibility.
Apologizing profusely, for a lapse of taste, and insisting one did not mean it that way, and deeply regrets it, is the way to go, and could create a benefit of the doubt option.
But to simply defend (lynching your black opponent) as not being racist, provides no plausible deniability.
The posts by 4:24 and 4:31 lead us to another issue beyond the racism question.
That is that with instantaneous electronic communication, usually by the candidate themselves without consulting advisers or publicists, we see a much different political/campaign environment than 20 or so years ago.
Back then most remarks or statements released for public consumption were carefully crafted by the publicists and advisers, until the statements were very generic, totally bland and safe, and of no real help or meaning to the voting public. Everything was reduced to vague platitudes. The only exceptions were during live interviews or debates of candidates where they occasionally said something stupid or outrageous.
But these days, we have seen many examples(quite notably Trump in 2016, but in other races as well) of the candidate speaking directly and instantaneously to the public via current technology and electronic means, with no hesitation, no preparation, no filter, no advice heeded from any publicist or advisers, etc.
Whether this phenomenon is a change for the better or worse can be debated, but there is no doubt that these changes, in the campaign landscape, have dramatically occurred.
A couple decades ago we NEVER would have seen an eventual formal press release from this candidate's office calling for the lynching of her black opponent-who also happens to be the sitting A.G. And we would never see that today either. But with instantaneous forms of electronic communication directly available to the candidates, they often send something out without consulting with their staff about an eventual press release on the issue or topic at hand..
It could only happen in today's electronic, far higher tech., climate
I have a general question for any and everyone that might know. What are the lowest insurance defense rates currently? Back in early to mid 2000's I know the construction defect ID rates were as low as $130 for associates and $140 for partners. More recently, I've heard that some insurers are still paying as low as $195 for partners. I'm talking rates for run of the mill car accidents and slip and falls. I suppose CD defense rates might be interesting too, but so many of the insurers have in house lawyers now that there's a lot less of this kind of work. Any insight I would appreciate in advance.
It's carrier dependent really. At the firm I worked for in 2019, associate rates ranged from $160-215 per hour and partner rates for like $200-$300.
I think the lowest is $150-160ish that I've seen.
Possibly worse are the flat fee cases that carriers are doing. Great way to end up spending hundreds of hours for a few grand (applies to potentially any practice area though)