- Quickdraw McLaw
- 16 Comments
- 89 Views
- Steve Wynn stepped down. [TNI]
- Judge Elizabeth Gonzalez is allowing claims against the Wynn board in the Okada case. [Bloomberg]
- You’ll be able to vote at any polling location in Clark County this fall. [Las Vegas Sun]
- Any more thoughts on the ADKT process discussed in the comments yesterday?
Here's a question specifically on lawyer advertising that I'm hoping somebody who remembers Con Law better than I do can respond to: At what point do the bar's restrictions on lawyer advertising start to infringe on the lawyers' First Amendment rights? I know commercial speech isn't as protected, but it seems like the scales are tipping way too far in favor of the bar.
My understanding is they can make you report or even preclear so long as they're just making sure there's nothing false or misleading. Has anyone had a rejection or discipline for advertising based on something other than failure to report or being false/misleading?
Well, before these new changes, you had a safe harbor provision – if the committee thought the advertisement didn't comply, they just ask you to take it down, and OBC couldn't pursue discipline if you did. The Safe Harbor provisions are getting the axe. Because of course they are.
The ADKT Process is a joke and sham.
The new advertising rules are right up with mandatory audits as expensive boondoggles where the State Bar wants to strap the onerous burden on the backs of attorneys. As if the SBN/NSC bureaucracy was not slow and onerous enough. Seriously next candidate who runs for the BoG who says that they are ready to burn it down and start over I will campaign actively for.
Hmm… it looks like they're removing the reference to ads published before September 1, 2007. Does that constitute an ex post facto regulation against Frank Sorrentino's ads?
Blog has been a bit boring lately. I wonder if that's because everyone is super busy or if its because people have run out of provocative things to say anonymously this year – or something else.
Here's an anonymous and provocative thing: you're a tool.
By the numbers: Roughly 9000 NV Bar members paying $450/yr, putting over $4 million in the pockets of the NV Bar, funding maybe 50 to 100 Bar employees who beat up its members INSTEAD of PROACTIVELY protecting the public and all NV lawyers want to do is complain on this blog?
It is a travesty. What would you recommend?
1. File a rule petition with the court to force greater transparency and enhanced due process requirements concerning the petitioning and adoption of supreme court rule amendments affecting Nevada Bar members. The same petition should also ask for improved ease of comments' filings. The court, whether absentmindedly, retrogressively or intentionally, makes it burdensome to file written comments from the bench, bar, and public. Assuming anyone even hears about proposed changes submitted by the state bar under-the-radar, commenters have to then submit written comments in hard copy format, i.e., an original document and 8 copies of written comments to the Clerk of the Supreme Court. I guess we only believe in e-filing just to a point?
2. Secondarily, a petition from a broad number of members should be sent to the bar board of governors demanding more transparency. At the very least, board meeting minutes must be regularly published with sufficient detail in the bar magazine. Proposed changes to the rules, especially those having an adverse effect on members, e.g., increasing mandatory CLE hours; increasing dues; imposing random mandatory audits; and considerations in favor of mandatory malpractice insurance, must be noticed to members via blast emails WELL AHEAD OF ANY IMPLEMENTATION or submittal to the court via rule petition so that members are accorded timely due process.
3. Bifurcate the state bar so that like California last year and Nebraska in 2014, the regulatory functions are separated from the non-regulatory 'trade association' role. This will eliminate mission creep; unbridled bureaucratic expansion; waste on expensive boondoggles like out-of-state annual conventions; and will force financial transparency on bar management since it will necessitate budget oversight on what constitutes regulatory functions vs. non-regulatory activities. Bifurcation will also enhance public protection by eliminating the current conflict of interest between a regulator purporting to protect consumers while also acting as a trade association for lawyers.
Let me add to the bifurcation thought (no I'm not 1130). Take Discipline Hearings away from the SBN as tribunal entirely. The OBC can be an arm under the Supreme Court but discipline is handled by a Presiding Disciplinary Judge. The Supremes tell us they are too busy to handle it; then give up the authority.
The ABA published (publishes) studies on how long discipline/reinstantement cases take. Nevada fudged its numbers in 2013 (they were fake), and even the fake numbers were ridiculously long compared to sister states. Nevada didn't even report in 2015. States such as Arizona which has a PDJ system are remarkably efficient, taking weeks to months for what takes Nevada multiple years. Look at the Kirk-Hughes case. It has been pending for YEARS. Compare it to the Wommer case where the Nevada Supreme Court is so inefficient that they sanctioned him 7 months after his suspension was over.
Yes, Nevada like many jurisdiction's — most notably California's – – has had a problem dealing with its lawyer discipline case backlog. As for Arizona, I wouldn't be crowing about that state as any example of disciplinary fairness under a PDJ with a reputation for harshness. Be careful what you wish for. It matters who and how the PDJ is selected and what measures are effectuated to make operations transparent and accountable.
Not long ago, the AZ PDJ filed a petition asking the state supreme court for authority to exact permanent disbarments. The petition was for now denied. But no matter since when sentences are imposed requiring substantial repayments, the sanctioned attorney bereft of the means to earn a living as a lawyer finds herself in no position to pay fines or make restitution. Consequently, even a short term suspension can be tantamount to a disbarment.
Moreover, the PDJ is supposedly accountable to the state supreme court but in reality pretty much runs his own show without any semblance of meaningful accountability, see for instance, https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/2014/04/16/divorce-case-stirs-ethics-allegations-judge/7765749/
There was no fallout other than temporary bad press.
Can someone decent run for board of governors? Or am I naive in thinking that will make a difference? I'm not sure if the perception is reality, but what I read on this blog makes me feel like we're all under attack from OBC. Meanwhile Kirk-Hughes only loses her license for a couple years….
We are. Our judiciary is a joke too. Very few if any incumbents for me. Lost my vote.
Kirk-Hughes is disciplined for the umpteenth time and gets 4 years. Harvey Whittemore donates money to a political candidate in violation of a law that gets repealed and gets 4 years. Gabriel Ginapp gets a disbarment decision on a case that ultimately is so flimsy that it is dismissed. Yet the OBC has time to push mandatory audits, mandatory malpractice insurance, advertising as a disciplinary offense. And this is just the OBC arm of the State Bar. This does not mention the fecesfest that is the remainder of the State Bar. But feel free to watch a BoG Meeting and see how smarmily happy the Governors are thinking that all is well as Rome burns.
Thanks for "fecesfest." I'll be adopting that as my own.