- Quickdraw McLaw
- 65 Comments
- 287 Views
The special judicial candidate filing period is now open for Department 9 and Department A in the Clark County District Court. You can find information about filing here. You can view who has already filed here.
For Department 9, these are the candidates who already filed:
- Adam Ganz
- James Dean “Jamie” Leavitt
- Nadine Morton
We’re told that Lynn Hughes has filed for Department A.
The filing period is open until July 21, but who else is or should be running?
I don't know anything about Adam Ganz but Leavitt or Morton would be an absolute nightmare
Ganz for the win.
It's a nightmare either way.
Ganz makes enough money through his wife so it doesn’t really matter. Mediocre and uninvolved attorney. Probably would be the same type of judge.
Morton would be horrible. She doesn't know anything, and her personality is a real negative. But she's a woman, meaning she may win. My guess is that at least six more women get into the race. The women will dominate because Democratic voters vote heavily for women, and Clark County has a lot of Democrats.
Morton is competent and has never been anything but friendly and professional to me as opposing counsel. Can’t speak to her civil experience though.
Lynn Hughes actually has a solid temperament for the F.Ct. bench. I would vote to retain him.
I heard Audrey Beeson is running and Romeo Perez. I don't know too much about them. I would vote for Lynn because Lynn is LDS and has a lot of support.
No Lynn Hughes. Not good
Why not Lynn Hughes? He knows Family Law, is even-tempered, and has been reasonable in every Family Law case I have had with him? I anticipate that he would be very similar to Duckworth on the bench. And that is a very good thing!
Thats exactly what I have been trying to say. AND he always does what he says he will do, keeping your word is paramount to me and far too rare these days.
In order, I'd pick Beeson, then Perez, then Lynn. Beeson is smart and experienced. Romeo has the right temperament for family court and is a genuinely nice person. Lynn has a decent rep as far as temperament and knowledge, but I hold his current employment against him because those two are offensive.
Speaking of "those 2" I am really surprised that Jason Stoffel has not thrown his hat in the ring for this one.
Beeson is quite smart and knowledgeable. On the other hand some people are concerned about ego and temperament issues regarding her. But, on balance, a good, solid choice.
Also, I don't believe her temperament would manifest itself in her berating lawyers and unduly raising her voice. What is more likely is that she might be a little aloof and distant toward viewpoints and attorneys she doesn't agree with. In my view,she wouldn't be a judge to preface a decision with diplomacy such as "we heard real good arguments from both sides…"–unless that was truly the case.
As far as Perez, he would be over his head on more complex financial/business matters, but over 95% of the case he encounters will not deal with anything that complex. He has handled a high volume of cases, representing working class people for very reasonable fees, and he is quite settlement oriented. So, he can correctly assess the settlement value of most cases, and is pretty good at gleaning the true motivations and behavior, and sincerity, of the parties involved. So, a good second choice behind Beeson. Not a legal scholar IMO, but pretty perceptive about human nature.
Now, I have no real complaints about Hughes, and he does appear to have a pretty good temperament. But I don't think he has Beeson's intellectual chops, nor do I think he is as personable and engaging as Perez, who, again, has some real decent insight as to human nature IMO.
So, of the three Beeson looks best on paper, and she does in fact have quite a CV. But I think of the three Perez would come off best in interviews
for the position. Very likeable. Will connect well.
5:23, I agree with much of what you wrote, but you make it sound as if those will be our only three viable choices. Has anyone heard about anyone else decent who may apply for that seat?
5:23 TLDR
5:23-Unfortunately, the relative qualifications of these three(and any others) may matter less than political concerns(including diversity and gender matters, as well as other factors of how applicants are classified and categorized).
And these concerns include whether Sisolak is still in power when the decision is made, or whether Lombardo is Governor by then.
And these issues should be reflected on by those who think that if we convert from judicial elections to judicial appointments, that we somehow remove the politics from the process. In fact, the politics of an appointment process are sometimes more blatant and powerful than what we see in popular elections by a bunch of voters who know nothing of the judicial candidates.
In most judicial appointments that have occurred, it seems that the most qualified applicant loses out to an applicant who, politically speaking, profiles better.
We currently have a system that provides for both appointments and elections. This particular vacancy will be initially filled by appointment.
So, rather than worrying about the relative merits and qualifications of each applicant, it is more practical to ask oneself the political party each applicant belongs to, and the political party of the Governor who will eventually do the appointing.
That said, occasionally a Nevada Governor will appoint a judge from the party other than the one the Governor belongs to. But that is the exception, not the rule.
5:48, in the time it took you to enter that remark you could have glanced at those several paragraphs and at least gleaned the general meaning. Why not do that, or just ignore the post, rather than chastising someone who tried to bring some real analysis to the matter rather than just a glib one liner. Also, for people who practice in Family Court, they probably are interested in these posts.
But perhaps I'm just biased as I prefer much longer, analytical posts, rather than wise one-liners from people who have nothing to say except to dismiss anything that requires more than a few seconds of time, attention and thought.
I agree with a lot of the comments on the Family Court Dept. A position, and believe all three of those prospective applicants would do well.
But I don't feel that way about Dept. 9. I believe what sticks out with those three are that they are ambitious and tend to apply and/or run for judicial office. I recognize their names for that reason, rather than recognizing their name for being highly skilled or experienced attorneys.
Some of them may be skilled and experienced, but all I know of them is that all three seem to really want to be a judge. Not that there is anything wrong with that per se, but that is simply the association I make.
If 5:23 is too long for 5:48 to read, but instead 5:48 takes several minutes to post to tell us 5:23 is too long for him/her to read, 5:48 does not sound like they have the attention span, maturity or intellectual curiosity, I would want in a lawyer.
@5:57 this is a special election, not an appointment, so the governor will have no say in this, just the voters in November.
Audrey is not running
@ 7:30 Praise Jesus.
Sounds like a couple of have been smashed by Lynn Hughes. His work product is generally solid and competent. But, his demeanor and character seal the deal for me.
Smashed,? Lmmbo. Ah,no. But thanks, Lynn.
Not Lynn, just noting someone who doesnt like him. Likely made to work, or was beaten handily by him. Not exactly a new phenomenon on this blog.
Okay Lynn. Cute
Who is Nadine Morton?
She was a Clark County PD if i recall,, i think struck out on her own maybe 7, 8 years ago? still in Criminal Defense to my knowledge.
Morton is okay. Do not know her as a client. Lynn Hughes,please no. I would be okay with Ganz
I like Nadine Morton. 9:03 is probably right that she was originally hired by the PD for being pretty, but she’s certainly not dumb. She’s thoughtful and has sort of a humble personality with very little personal ego or ideological bent — a good temperament for a judge with low risk of black robe disease. She probably has less trial experience than many straight criminal practitioners such as PDs or DAs, but still significantly more than most civil lawyers. And unlike DAs or PDs, I know she’s litigated a few protracted and complex civil cases.
Out of the choices, she’s clearly the best. Learned Hand isn’t on the ballot. I’d rather deal with a humble judge who is thoughtful, calm and courteous over the typical ego-driven or histrionic judicial personality, regardless of their other qualifications.
good call 10:07 I did forget the had some civil. Without sounding snobby, after clerking and working both areas of law I feel that for the judges the civil side always had a much higher learning curve because generally the issues were so much more widespread.
There is no way in the world that Nadine Morton would have litigated a complex civil case. She's never litigated a complex criminal case, either. If someone disagrees, I would love to see the case number so we can see the pleadings.
Didn’t bother to try to sift through Odyssey, but in PACER, it appears that she represented the plaintiff in a § 1983 wrongful death lawsuit against Metro in 2:17-cv-01886. Defense represented by Lewis Brisbois. Plaintiff prevailed on the MSJ and the case settled immediately afterward. No idea if the settlement was favorable, but the case appears competently litigated at a glance.
This is NOT a murderer's row of choices as it were.
It appears Mr. Leavittt is going for the women's advantage by using Jamie instead of James Dean. Smart move.
Ah, no. "James" gives it away. Under your analysis, someone named Bert "Bertha" Johnson would be catering to the woman's vote as well.
Yeah. It's all fun and games, …….until it works.
His ballot name is just Jamie Leavitt.
He should've done "Jami"
Make to file a notice to appear by video teleconference (bluejeans). I heard a number of attorneys were sanctioned yesterday for appearing via bluejeans without filling the notice.
What a stupid thing to sanction an attorney over. Give people the option. It's no imposition on the court for an attorney to appear by blue jeans for law and motion hearings. "Respect muh authoritah!"
What department? Is this a thing now. I heard some departments aren't allowing bluejeans anymore but haven't actually seen any judge not allow bluejeans.
This would make sense IF I had not appeared in front of judges over the past 3 weeks who are also not in attendance so I am in courtroom and they are in their house.
Let me guess on the sanctions….. Kishner? Susan Johnson?
I appeared in person in Dept. 11 a few weeks ago because the notice specifically said "in person" and was only one of three people there. Everyone else just called in like normal. So it seems enforcement and expectations are all over the map on this one.
So what department was levying sanctions?
@1:52 p.m., you are correct that it is one of those two judges.
So no Maria Gall yet? I thought she was considered a shoe-in for the Department 9 appointment so not sure why she would not have filed for election.
I don't know anything about Maria Gall. If people have views, please share.
I saw a large sign for her downtown, near DI
THHWAAACK!
Hey! Knock it off, poser
–Signed @realthhwwwaaacckkguy
╭∩╮(-_-)╭∩╮ Double Kickstands to your face!
— Signed @originalThhwaaack
Can you put a ring on the middle?
251 can copy and paste. Cool…..
Rob Telles, the poster boy for Boyd 2013!!
https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/embattled-telles-concedes-primary-for-public-administrator-2596677/
This guy is burning it to the ground as he hits the door. How will that work out with him "returning to the practice of probate law" with his biggest rival likely to with the PA position?
@8:00am – The Public Administrator does not have any say in the administration of probate cases, nor is the Public Administrator consulted in determining the probate commissioner's decision in cases. I'm not a fan of how Telles ran the PA one bit, but whether anyone in the PA's office likes him or hates him doesn't change his ability to handle probate cases. The articles about him and his shenanigans would make me question whether I'd hire him if I were a potential client however.
1028 for the win. If the PA is involved in your Estate case, your case is a mess. Telles was terrible as PA; I am facing 3 hearings in the next 30 days involving decisions made by him that are utter head scratchers. His lack of temperament since then in not helping things.
I had a hearing with Judge Craig (Dept 32) yesterday, and she cited the "slightest doubt" standard in multiple cases to deny summary judgment. I guess she is not aware that standard was expressly disavowed recently by the NVSC. (By recently, I of course mean 17 years ago in Wood v. Safeway.
Rookie mistake.
In the long run, people will find that Judge Craig doesn't care much about the law.
Ganz does not have the temperament or impartiality to be on the bench. He’s very intelligent, but an irreparably compromised reptile.
Sounds like someone aka insurance defense clown who got rung up.
Ganz hasn’t won a trial in the last ten years. Nor, a seat on the bench no matter how many times he’s tried.