- Quickdraw McLaw
- 24 Comments
- 257 Views
- Here is an article about the passing of 9th Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt. [Washington Post]
- Here’s a puff piece with Mark Goldstein at Bailey Kennedy. [Vegas Inc.]
- Thanks to Project Real and the Eighth Judicial District Court, some local elementary school kids will get to put Harry Potter on trial this Friday. [Fox5Vegas]
- What did you think about yesterday’s hearing on random trust account audits?
FIRST
Here are my thoughts and predictions regarding the proposal for random audits.
Gene Leverty is probably a nice guy, I've never met him. He seemed woefully unprepared, however, for some fairly obvious blind spots the Justices pointed out. I appreciated Justice Cherry's insistence that these random audits would impose on small firms. I do not know Gene Leverty's background, but he seemed genuinely unfamiliar with how small firms operate.
I am becoming a big fan of Justice Stiglich. She seems to be so thoughtful and able to get right to the heart of matters. She was correct that if the Bar is really motivated by a desire to educate, this proposal probably isn't very effective. It would be better to require 1 CLE per year in accounting. She and Justice Pickering were also dead on when they questioned why the Bar should be doing random audits when it doesn't already to audits where there are red flags (IOLTA notices, bar complaints from clients, re: money, etc).
I predict that what Justices Stiglich and Pickering seemed to suggest will be what is eventually put in place. There won't be random audits, but there will be audits following red flags. I fully support this. Remember that most of this was triggered by Rob Graham. There were, prior to his arrest, dozens of bar complaints against him. If those complaints had been dealt with in a timely manner, and if they had triggered an audit, the losses may have been mitigated.
Justice Hardesty was also correct that before any program can be put in place, there have to be accounting standards adopted to measure conduct against. This is so obvious that I am honestly embarrassed the Bar didn't think about it before hand.
Yesterday's hearing was proof the Bar didn't really think through this. I am also disappointed that the Bar seems to have overstated the number of states that do random audits. As the hearing went on, it became clear that most of the 12 states either don't enforce the rule or don't do random audits at all, but only audits upon a red flag.
9 out of the 12 that the SBN touted as allowing random audits have abandoned them. However it became clear that the decision to have random audits was made and then the SBN went looking for evidence which would support its decision, as opposed to looking at all of the information and then making a decision.
But New Jersey!
And Washington!
Here are links to Leverty's online information. If I am not mistaken, he's also been the longtime chief proponent of mandatory malpractice insurance. Well, what a surprise since he spent 7 years in the 1970's as Chief Deputy Insurance Commissioner of the State of Nevada. Leverty was also a member and then Chair of the State Bar of Nevada Insurance Standing Committee. Besides forcing random audits on us, this officious do-gooder also rides the insurance hobby horse.
http://www.neighborhoodchristianlawyer.com/Profiles/Leverty-Associates-Law-Chartered/Staff/Vernon-E-Gene-Leverty.aspx
https://levertylaw.com/about-us/gene-leverty/
So does that mean the Bar is going to back off the random audits based on how the Justices responded? I need answers people! lol
Not a chance 12:20. Audits are coming.
So what's the procedure from this point forward? Does the State Bar have carte blance to do anything they want to at this point? Are they mandated to take into consideration what the Justices said? Or are these merely strong suggestions that can be merely ignored?
And if the eventual rule is pretty draconian, does the Supreme Court or anyone else have a chance to scuttle it or tone it down?
The BOG is asking the NSC to amend the SCRs to allow random audits. Right now they're not authorized. But Leverty answered questions from one of the justices that the current rules let them audit a trust account in investigating a complaint or grievance.
Did anyone save the streaming of the oral argument and can post it in a drop box? I was unsuccessful in streaming it. The site may have been overloaded. Yes, we do need instructions on how to send comments to the Supreme Court.
That light up Bailey Kennedy sign is something. Like something you might see in a seedy casino or strip club.
Does anyone have the information on Judge Earl's services, or have I already missed it?
It is this Saturday at 10 am. I am not sure where.
here is the address: LDS Chapel 4340 W. Warm Springs Road. I think there is a viewing before that morning with the service starting at 10 am.
Thank you!
https://lasvegassun.com/news/2018/apr/03/fraud-investigations-grow-after-nevada-crackdown-o/
What are Bar Counsel and BOG doing to investigate these fraudsters?
We've reported at least three unlicensed document preparers who are clearly giving legal advice to the SOS office, which is supposed to enforce the statute regarding document preparers. We never heard anything back and they still appear to be practicing.
So the answer is that nobody is doing anything about it because it victimizes poor people and so neither the state nor the Bar care about it.
(I'm feeling especially grumpy and cynical today.)
Many of the judges don't care about people practicing law without a license.
Your BOGS don't care either
Better smoke that bong. Your bar dues will now be $1k so the bar can allow more idiots in. You also will be audited every e years, except for Ryan Russell.
Sorry for the typos
Quite all right. It was clearly past beer-thirty.
Anybody know what's up with David Otto? He still has his website up but doesn't answer his phone. Any sightings?