Here’s a profile piece on the three candidates for Justice Court Department 9. [Nevada Current]
Olivia Wilde was served with custody papers while onstage at CinemaCon in Vegas. [Rolling Stone]
Jury trial begins for father accused in son’s killing, featuring former judicial candidate Jacob Villani for the prosecution and current candidate Jonathan MacArthur for the defense. [RJ]
Remember when Superintendent Jara was fired and then made a big demand and then got his job back–well, according to this article, he is still seeking a payout plus a contract extension. [Nevada Current]
A reader wants to know what your preferred digital devices is for depositions/mediations, etc. Laptop, tablet, what brand?
Combo of iPad Pro, pen, and paper. Sometimes I throw the MBP into the mix too.
Guest
Anonymous
April 28, 2022 7:22 pm
Serious question: I'm a Family Law lawyer (almost 20 years) and I would like to do some civil litigation as I truly detest divorce law at this point. I'm too old to join a firm and get some real-world experience. I've been watching this Depp trial and it seems it is very in-depth and presumably with great lawyers. My question: To what extent can I brush up on civil law by watching these YouTube trials? Or is there a better way? I can tell you what I've seen there is nothing like the screaming matches we have down at Family Court – no following Rules of Evidence, etc.
I did family law briefly and really liked it. But I got out of it just because it felt icky sometimes (probably due to who I worked with/for) and felt like it had a bad reputation and did not want to get stuck there or something and get too old to do anything else. But I really liked it, idk why.
OP back – thanks for the input – 1:57 help is available and you don't have to walk that lonely path of insanity alone haha just kidding – in truth I liked it for many years it just seems to have a burn out rate for many people of around 10 years
Although you say you're too old to join a firm, I would say that you should still try. Join a small firm or see if you can work with an experienced litigator somehow. Make sure they are not just experienced, but actually good at it. I know a fair number of "experienced" litigators who are just… well, not good.
Civil litigation is not easy and there are a million ways to screw it up. Also, because we all produce insane amounts of data and records now, civil litigation is very document intensive and you may well need staff, professional ediscovery software, etc., just to handle a relatively "simple" case.
What you see in the trial is the product of hundreds or thousands of hours of work behind the scenes. And since most cases don't go to trial, there is a lot of technique and strategy that you will never see in videos.
That said, watching the videos probably doesn't hurt. Watch videos of depositions also. Those are probably more helpful actually, because you will do far more depositions than you will do trials.
12:20-I can understand why you would want to get out of Family Law after 20 years. But if you are interested in attracting significant civil litigation cases, but don't wish to join a firm that already has the connections and referral flow, it could be very difficult. You are apparently a solo, and simply deciding that you now wish to practice significant civil litigation is probably unrealistic unless you have very successful colleagues who are willing to refer solid cases to you, and you would also need great networking skills and connections. It appears at this point in your career you do not wish to hustle hard to develop such connections and networking.
OP back – I sincerely thank you for your ideas and insights. I will also note that it is so refreshing to not have a polite conversation get into politics somehow. My extremely tentative plan at this point might be to partner somehow with a small firm that wants to add a small family law practice and sort of "trade" to let me work on some cases while I teach what I have learned. Also, since I have quite a few friends and a pretty good client base and reputation, I think that might work. Thanks again!
4:47 makes a very good point. Good civil litigation cases are not easy to get. By "good," I mean typically business-related cases. And with sane clients that can and will pay by the hour, even when you're hundreds of hours into the case. Typically those clients don't hire solos. Often they WANT to hire the big firms (even if it means an inexperienced associate will do most of the work), if nothing else to have a "big gun" on the pleadings.
If you're thinking you will get by on referrals, keep in mind that most other firms / lawyers will keep the good cases for themselves and refer to you the sketchy / bad ones.
Guest
Anonymous
April 28, 2022 9:42 pm
This is fascinating in the Dept 9 story. "[Chio] has raised $99,641 and spent a third of that" Bonaventure has raised $12,000. Sensing a 2020 tidal wave coming again.
Guest
Anonymous
April 28, 2022 9:57 pm
As to the Bonaventure race, whenever a challenger has a chance at free publicity against a well-entrenched incumbent, they should take every advantage of it.
But these two challengers, in my view, really blew the opportunity, which makes me question the level and competency of any campaign advice they are receiving. The one opponent questioned that the judge did not have a lot of legal experience when he first took the bench. That's true, but that matters very little at this point as he has been on the bench for 17 or 18 years. So, the focus should be on how is he performing his job for those 17 or 18 years.
As for the other opponent, her insisting that she was too busy with a case to speak to the interviewer for a few minutes suggests that her political instincts may not be that well-developed. For the sake of her campaign, she should not blow off further media opportunities.
To be fair, I have garnered much enjoyment and psyops advantage by HOW and WHERE a party is served. However, I would never do it without my clients permission. For what its worth, I don't believe that Sudeikis didn't know what was happening, like he claims.
Guest
Anonymous
April 29, 2022 12:09 am
2:57, yes they handled it very poorly. The prosecutor said she's was too busy to respond, and the PPD handled it even worse. First, she says she has immense respect for both her opponents, including the sitting judge. How does a challenger expect the public to turn out a sitting judge if even the challenger gives them no reason to do so, and in fact compounds matters even far more by saying how great and worthy of immense respect the judge is? And then she adds that the only reason she chose to target him was that her PD buddies were running in different JP races, so this was all that was left for her. And then she dismisses her other opponent as a "career prosecutor." Problem is people love to vote for career prosecutors in judicial elections and don't like voting for PDs or other criminal defense attorneys.(although that admittedly is now changing to some extent).
Guest
Anonymous
April 29, 2022 12:42 am
Plenty of demand for civil litigation attorneys and plenty of work. 20 years of family law is useful experience.
Even most business and property litigation is emotional for the clients and they make bad decisions. It is just a slightly new lingo and law.
Just reach out to friends and maybe explore a "of counsel" position and gradually work into civil litigation and easing out of domestic.
There's something about pen and paper that, as much as I love digital, it's hard to get away from.
That said, iPad > every other tablet. Bonus points that you can connect it to your laptop and use it as a second monitor.
iPad for me. With a strategically placed corner / end of the table chair so that no one can see my playing Candy Crush / Angry Birds.
Combo of iPad Pro, pen, and paper. Sometimes I throw the MBP into the mix too.
Serious question: I'm a Family Law lawyer (almost 20 years) and I would like to do some civil litigation as I truly detest divorce law at this point. I'm too old to join a firm and get some real-world experience. I've been watching this Depp trial and it seems it is very in-depth and presumably with great lawyers. My question: To what extent can I brush up on civil law by watching these YouTube trials? Or is there a better way? I can tell you what I've seen there is nothing like the screaming matches we have down at Family Court – no following Rules of Evidence, etc.
I did family law briefly and really liked it. But I got out of it just because it felt icky sometimes (probably due to who I worked with/for) and felt like it had a bad reputation and did not want to get stuck there or something and get too old to do anything else. But I really liked it, idk why.
Purchase a Civil Practice Manual and pull the trigger.
OP back – thanks for the input – 1:57 help is available and you don't have to walk that lonely path of insanity alone haha just kidding – in truth I liked it for many years it just seems to have a burn out rate for many people of around 10 years
https://store.lexisnexis.com/products/nevada-civil-practice-manual-skuusSku7700
That's the one I've seen in every firm I've worked for. And it's actually really really good.
I have used it for over 20 years.
And no, it is not available as a torrent. Not that I would have checked or anything.
Although you say you're too old to join a firm, I would say that you should still try. Join a small firm or see if you can work with an experienced litigator somehow. Make sure they are not just experienced, but actually good at it. I know a fair number of "experienced" litigators who are just… well, not good.
Civil litigation is not easy and there are a million ways to screw it up. Also, because we all produce insane amounts of data and records now, civil litigation is very document intensive and you may well need staff, professional ediscovery software, etc., just to handle a relatively "simple" case.
What you see in the trial is the product of hundreds or thousands of hours of work behind the scenes. And since most cases don't go to trial, there is a lot of technique and strategy that you will never see in videos.
That said, watching the videos probably doesn't hurt. Watch videos of depositions also. Those are probably more helpful actually, because you will do far more depositions than you will do trials.
12:20-I can understand why you would want to get out of Family Law after 20 years. But if you are interested in attracting significant civil litigation cases, but don't wish to join a firm that already has the connections and referral flow, it could be very difficult. You are apparently a solo, and simply deciding that you now wish to practice significant civil litigation is probably unrealistic unless you have very successful colleagues who are willing to refer solid cases to you, and you would also need great networking skills and connections. It appears at this point in your career you do not wish to hustle hard to develop such connections and networking.
OP back – I sincerely thank you for your ideas and insights. I will also note that it is so refreshing to not have a polite conversation get into politics somehow. My extremely tentative plan at this point might be to partner somehow with a small firm that wants to add a small family law practice and sort of "trade" to let me work on some cases while I teach what I have learned. Also, since I have quite a few friends and a pretty good client base and reputation, I think that might work. Thanks again!
4:47 makes a very good point. Good civil litigation cases are not easy to get. By "good," I mean typically business-related cases. And with sane clients that can and will pay by the hour, even when you're hundreds of hours into the case. Typically those clients don't hire solos. Often they WANT to hire the big firms (even if it means an inexperienced associate will do most of the work), if nothing else to have a "big gun" on the pleadings.
If you're thinking you will get by on referrals, keep in mind that most other firms / lawyers will keep the good cases for themselves and refer to you the sketchy / bad ones.
This is fascinating in the Dept 9 story. "[Chio] has raised $99,641 and spent a third of that" Bonaventure has raised $12,000. Sensing a 2020 tidal wave coming again.
As to the Bonaventure race, whenever a challenger has a chance at free publicity against a well-entrenched incumbent, they should take every advantage of it.
But these two challengers, in my view, really blew the opportunity, which makes me question the level and competency of any campaign advice they are receiving. The one opponent questioned that the judge did not have a lot of legal experience when he first took the bench. That's true, but that matters very little at this point as he has been on the bench for 17 or 18 years. So, the focus should be on how is he performing his job for those 17 or 18 years.
As for the other opponent, her insisting that she was too busy with a case to speak to the interviewer for a few minutes suggests that her political instincts may not be that well-developed. For the sake of her campaign, she should not blow off further media opportunities.
My analysis was the same re the faux paus'.
Prediction: Bonaventure primaries them both and coasts to reelection.
Bonaventure is a great guy and a great judge. It would be a shame if the bench lost him.
I am supporting Chio I like Joe Bonaventure, but I want change
Watch out where you have your ex served with papers. https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/movies/story/2022-04-28/olivia-wilde-cinemacon-envelope-jason-sudeikis-statement
To be fair, I have garnered much enjoyment and psyops advantage by HOW and WHERE a party is served. However, I would never do it without my clients permission. For what its worth, I don't believe that Sudeikis didn't know what was happening, like he claims.
2:57, yes they handled it very poorly. The prosecutor said she's was too busy to respond, and the PPD handled it even worse. First, she says she has immense respect for both her opponents, including the sitting judge. How does a challenger expect the public to turn out a sitting judge if even the challenger gives them no reason to do so, and in fact compounds matters even far more by saying how great and worthy of immense respect the judge is? And then she adds that the only reason she chose to target him was that her PD buddies were running in different JP races, so this was all that was left for her. And then she dismisses her other opponent as a "career prosecutor." Problem is people love to vote for career prosecutors in judicial elections and don't like voting for PDs or other criminal defense attorneys.(although that admittedly is now changing to some extent).
Plenty of demand for civil litigation attorneys and plenty of work. 20 years of family law is useful experience.
Even most business and property litigation is emotional for the clients and they make bad decisions. It is just a slightly new lingo and law.
Just reach out to friends and maybe explore a "of counsel" position and gradually work into civil litigation and easing out of domestic.
I love Tucker
Ditto