- Quickdraw McLaw
- 39 Comments
- 189 Views
The first week of May is Well-Being Week in Law. The Nevada Bar has been participating. It’s an idea put forth by the Institute for Well-Being in Law. Have you participated in any of the events made available for you this week? How do you feel about well-being in the law? Is any of it getting better? How is your own well-being? Any questions than any of our readers can help you with? We know that some of you don’t trust the resources being made available by the bar, but mental health is a serious issue and there is help available in some form or another if you reach out.
I would feel a lot better if the Bar would stop spending our dues on this kind of PC crap.
If you are in a "well-being" mood, go cry to your mother or therapist.
Agreed re a waste of money. I am pretty sure I could cut bar dues by a $100 a year by getting rid of crap.
Get rid of Lawyers Concerning Lawyers. It is being misused and is an information gathering for the Bar. Be careful. Get help from mental health professionals.
The NSB cares about our happiness and well-being? Really??
The free CLE presented yesterday was helpful and appreciated.
Out of curiosity, what was the topic? What's your practice area(s)? How long in practice? Solo or firm size?
I would never call LCL myself, but I do like the CLE's they've put on over the years, including yesterday. They are very pragmatic and helpful, some of the most useful CLE's I've attended. I hope they keep doing them.
As far as the Bar spending money on PR crap, it was far worse years ago.
There was one year where they spent an enormous amount of money promoting some utterly nonsensical PR Campaign "Nevada State Bar: Making The Law Work For Everyone."
I remember a prominent attorney writing a column stressing what an absurd, misleading slogan that was, and what a gross waste of money it was.
The slogan implied the Law is designed to make everyone happy and that the State Bar is thus some sort of public agency that provides free benefits and services, etc.
Obviously, a far more accurate description would be that the Law and the courts exist as a forum to resolve legal disputes. To represent that the State Bar, and by extension our court system, is designed to "make the law work for everyone" implies that everyone is entitled to emerge delighted and victorious from every case.
It was pointed out that such is as ludicrous as a slogan "Nevada Casinos: Making Gaming Work For Everyone."
The money they spent on promoting that preposterous slogan ate up a large part of their budget–our dues. If they truly wanted to help people, they could have sponsored seminars or classes to assist lower income people with matters such as landlord/tenant, child support enforcement, and a gazzillion other matters which people need help on.
But instead, the money was put into promoting the idiotic, and hugely false and misleading, slogan of "Nevada State Bar: Making The Law Work For Everyone."
Fortunately, everyone in Bar leadership during that period is long since gone, so hopefully no one on the current roster is capable of such inane pap as "Making The Law Work For Everyone."
It's startling enough that someone in leadership felt compelled and inspired to suggest something so asinine, and even worse that others thought it was such a grand idea that it justified spending six figures to promote it.
My favorite hubris from the Bar moment was the edition of Nevada Lawyer when Polsenberg put a full color picture of himself on the cover….nothing else.
Attorney Chuck Gardner, actually sued the State Bar of Nevada over the program called, “Making the Law Work for Everyone.” Gardner tried to enjoin the campaign, alleging that it violated his rights of freedom of speech and association.   He also claimed that the campaign was beyond the authority of the State Bar, while being designed to enhance the prestige of its incumbent governors.
It turned out that $200,000.00 had been budgeted for the campaign, and Chuck Gardner took note that his bar dues were used to fund the campaign.
In, GARDNER v. STATE BAR OF NEVADA, a U.S. District Court judge granted the State Bar's motion to dismiss Gardner’s complaint.
On Appeal the Ninth Circuit found that lawyers “are a blessing.” Yes, you read that correctly. The court actually stated:
“The public needs to know that often there are two, or more, sides to a story or a situation.   More's Utopia has no lawyers, but in our real world, lawyers are not merely a necessity but a blessing.   If the public doesn't understand that-and the State Bar had reason to think many members of the public did not-the justice system itself will wither.”
So remember, at all times, that we need to educate the public to the fact that we are truly “a blessing” to them.
 
Every day I wake up and tell myself I'm a blessing. Good to know the 9th agrees with me.
The NSB is a corrupt, incestuous bunch of never-beens who use any and all information to protect their ass-licking, anal-reaming big law firm conspirators. And before you start ripping on my post, yes, there is a difference between licking and reaming. However, they have all mastered both. Just look at that child with almost zero experience they hired for Bar Counsel hahaha, what a fucking joke …. oh well, back to work.
The NSB's behavior reminds me of an episode of True Blood where Pam describes the nest behavior of vamps who live together for too long. "Vamps who live together and feed on each other's blood become sadistic and crazy"
illustrating the absurdity of SBN resources on this, a quick 30 second Google check finds:
National task force on lawyer well being
Colorado task force on lawyer well being
Lawyer well being toolkit
Lawyer well binging podcast
Legal Wellness Institute – The Family Center
Attorney Wellness- Practicing Law Institute
The National Conference on Lawyer Well-Bing
Center for Wellness Promotion – Georgetown Law
.. on and on
1:45 back … I didn't want to work anyway so I'm going to hang out on the blog … how can the NSB possibly tell us how to improve our well being when there are so many there with narcissistic and sadistic problems? Seriously, I was sitting at the Bar one of only two times I've been there (no, not being disciplined but there helping someone with a meeting setup) and I overheard a Bar Counsel I recognized outside the little room on the left as you walk in the new building (I assume they did not know I was there) laughing that they "overcharged that little prick because he's got no money to fight hahaha." Now maybe the object of their derision deserved it, I don't know, but seemed highly unprofessional to me.
It is a mentality prevalent at the OBC. People who never have done anything in their lives to run a law firm regulating lawyers who run law firms.
Daniel M. Hooge, Bar Counsel
Never ran a law firm.
Kait Flocchini, Assistant Bar Counsel, Reno
Very nice but never ran a law firm.
Gerard Gosioco, Assistant Bar Counsel
Never ran a law firm.
Bruce Hahn, Assistant Bar Counsel, Reno
No information on Bruce.
Phillip Pattee, Assistant Bar Counsel
Been there a long time but never ran a law firm.
Daniel T. Young, Assistant Bar Counsel
Never ran a law firm.
I feel like this career choice was a terrible mistake. Every lawyer I know has either checked out (the first rule) or is miserable with their job. Other lawyers don't make it better (I'm guilty of that). If I had it to do all over again, I would've gone to medical school in the Caribbean.
2:03 pm–legal career terrible mistake. A lot of younger lawyers say that. Young lawyer? Being a lawyer is grunt work. Where did you attend law school may I ask. Boyd or elsewhere? Deeply in debt or manageable debt? Law firm with billables?
I'm not a young lawyer. East coast tier 1 school. Ridiculous debt and I didn't even take out the whole budget on my loans. Undergrad had no loans. No billables.
I hated being a lawyer my first couple of years. It gets a lot better now that I actually know what I'm doing.
1:10,1:42, 1:45, 1:53 all hit on various aspects of the problem.
And what is a particularly absurd about that $200,000.+ ad campaign discussed by 1:10 and 1:42 is that the Bar did not attempt to enhance the public's perception of lawyers by providing pro bono seminars, free or dramatically reduced fee representation, or other no charge services to assist financially impoverished people with necessary legal assistance.
Instead, the Bar attempted to enhance the public's perception of lawyers merely by instructing people of how great lawyers or the Bar are via an idiotic slogan. And the idiotic slogan did not even relay or address the matter. It did not say something "Nevada lawyers–Working For those in Need" or something like that. It was the much more obtuse, obscure "Making the Law work for everyone"–which, to the average person, does not really suggest anything really positive per se about Nevada lawyers and their commitment to public service. No, it is much more general and vague than that–it's only, making the law work for everyone, which is a bit obscure and indirect if the goal is to get people to think differently about lawyers as a specific profession of people.
a
The general public will probably never significantly improve their view of lawyers, but if the image does improve at all it will be based on decades, or even centuries, of a tireless commitment by many in the legal community, as well as the State Br, to arrange and provide free legal services to those truly in need.
But such image will never be enhanced by a slogan based on a hopelessly vague and comical premise(making the law work for everyone), and which does not even specifically mention lawyers of how great they supposedly are.
And, most of us have subscribed to the concept of "don't just tell me, show me"
For example, we don't have an interview with the director of a film that is shown right before the film, wherein the director reminds everyone "Scene 3 is a real scary scene, so please make certain you are sufficiently frightened by it." No, instead, the director will of course let the scene speak for itself and it either achieves the desired effect or it does not.
So, when 1:42 tells us that the Ninth Circuit, rather than demonstrating how supposedly great lawyers are by listing all that they may do gratis for the community, instead announce that lawyers are great because we say so, and you better agree with us.
It's mixed, muddled, senseless messaging, mixed with a suffocating does of arrogance and stupidity.
And 2:17, and all the other posts it mentions, demonstrate an even more general problem–we miseducate the public(and perhaps delude ourselves) about the purpose of the courts.
A few years back the Family Court adopted a slogan like "Clark County Family Court–25 Years Of Service."
And on websites for the RJC courts, there are also headings and slogans over the years with the word "service" in their titles.
And yes, there may be aspects or subdivisions of a court system in more recent years which can be viewed as "service." An example could be uniform child support collection courts, which enforce, free of charge, child support orders–often between different states. And matters such as free protective orders, in domestic violence situations, and provided under court auspices, could be viewed as a "service."
So, in more recent decades, there are certain "service" aspects which may be incorporated into a court system–"services" which in years past tended to be provided from outside agencies not directly affiliated with the courts.
But with those qualifiers in place, a court system is not there to primarily "provide services" per se or "make the law work for everyone."
It exists as a mechanism to allow for legal dispute resolution, and anytime you muddle things with nonsense like "making the law work for everyone" is does strongly imply, as some posters have very well pointed out, that free services are at the very center of the court system, and, worse yet, the "…law work for everyone" part clearly dictates that people are entitled, as one poster said, to emerge delighted and totally victorious regardless of their legal dispute or the facts upon which it was based(and, by extension, that their own abhorrent behavior, or the clear frivolous nature of their claim, be damned–they are entitled to be completely victorious and delighted).
And if that wasn't all idiotic enough, but to spend nearly a quarter million dollars of your dues to try to enhance the law's image by announcing "it works for everyone" is quite repulsive.
We all have a much better idea. Don't spend any money with some condescending, elitist messaging of how great we are , directed to the unwashed masses(phrase used for ironic, sarcastic purposes, not a true commentary about the hygienic habits of people who might utilize such services).
Instead, they are far better served just spending half that amount to actually provide some sort of services to people in need.
These posts are all excellent and on target, but could be distilled down to their simplest form.
And once we do so the problem is much more odious than we evr imagined.
The State Bar, and apparently even the court of review, strongly support the premise that rather than actually providing quality, affordable service to those in need, that it is far more preferable, and far more beneficial, as to enhancing our image in the community, if we do not necessarily actually provide any such services, but instead merely keep running commercials about how great we are and everyone better feel the same way about us.
Let's try that in our practices and see how that works for us. Instead of telling our client that they should be pleased because we settled a case for $100,000, that we initially valued at about $85,000.,let's take a different approach.
That approach is tell the client they will receive nothing via way of settlement but that we are great attorneys who "make the law work for everyone."
After all, if we obtained a good settlement, we would have violated our "make the law work for everyone" commitment as the insurance company might not be too pleased about writing such check.
So, tell the client they should be pleased with our integrity, and that when the insurance company is delighted that we did not insist on payment from them, we made "the law work for everyone."
Exactly. As lawyers we are advocates. We hold the Attorney-Client privilege. We keep secrets. Our goal has never been to "Make the Law Work for Everyone". We want it to work for our client.
What Well-being in the Law Week?
I wonder if Mr. Gardner would have sued on the matter if the slogan had been just as useless and meaningless, but not quite so ludicrous and stupid sounding.
After all, if you(the State Bar) spend a huge chunk of the budget(paid for by members dues) by blowing over $200,000. promoting something as laughably absurd as "making the law work for everyone", you are just begging to be hauled into court for such startling idiocy.
Is there anyone else who used to work downtown before the pandemic and is not returning to work there for their well-being? I'd rather make $50 grand less working for a captive insurance defense firm in Henderson or Summerlin than work for one of the big commercial litigation firms downtown.
3:30: Wow, the transparent rationalization in this post is truly depressing. First, I am not aware of any "big commercial litigation firms downtown." Most of them are in…wait for it…Summerlin. Second, I would rather grind my foot off with a cheese grater than work at any ID firm. It seems like you should be posting in the "I shouldn't have gone to law school because I suck at being a lawyer and hate my life" thread above.
Did I miss the post about the woman threatening Caesars lawyers?
https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/courts/woman-convicted-of-threatening-lives-of-caesars-lawyers-2345815/
Damn
The moral of the story is, don't fuck with the USPS
Fennemore
https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/courts/woman-charged-after-allegedly-threatening-lives-of-caesars-entertainment-lawyers-1897676/
A bunch of people I used to know, who worked at Ballard Spahr in Las Vegas, are no longer listed on the firm's website. Anyone know what is going on over there?
Weird timing but nothing nefarious.
Care to elaborate? Why weird timing?
Akerman gutted except Lachman who is running the joint.
So did Akerman then scoop up a bunch of Ballard people?
No, people left for various reasons, none of them went to Ackerman. Just different timing and opportunities for different people. Agree that it wasn't nefarious. It was a great place to work for.
I cannot get a hold of anyone at judicial ethics commission. I'm I being punked?