Lawyers say “fear,” stress over family led to Vegas restaurant owner’s tax evasion. [RJ]
Woman accused of posing as attorney to be release on her own recognizance. [8NewsNow]
“CCSD lied”: ACLU criticizes district for lack of transparency in Durango High incident. [RJ]
In Vegas-adjacent news, one of our readers notified us that the Goldwater Institute is petitioning the Arizona Supreme Court to “safeguard attorneys’ right to earn a living.” [Goldwater Institute]
First. I saw the Durango High video. The cops didn’t act out of line and the “takedown” wasn’t a “body slam”. These kids are out of control and need to learn respect. Blame the parents of these thugs not the cops.
Honestly, I am tired of everyone having a position on one extreme or the other. The cops aren’t always right, but they’re not always wrong either. I have defended a few cases against cops, and I have sued CCSD and others a time or two as well. Every case is different. Look at the facts and quit generalizing. Yes, some of these kids are little thugs with parents who aren’t any better, if they are even in the picture. Some of the cops suffer from when you’re a hammer then everything looks like a nail syndrome.
First teen in black hoodie detained was because “you wanted my attention now you got it, bud.”
Second teen in blue hoodie continued to walk away. Lt. said “keep walking,” Teen in Red Pants say, “actually I don’t have to, sir.” Red Pants wasn’t even recording then. Lt claims Red Pants is blocking the sidewalk, as if that’s a thing. Red Pants then starts walking away. Lt then walks 15-20 feet away to grab Blue Hoodie and detain him. Red Pants briefly touches Blue Hoodie. Lt takes Blue Hoodie like 20-30 feet back to a car, and hands him off to another officer. Red Pants walks by, recording. Officer asks “You want next? Start walking,” even though Red Pants is already walking away. At the order, Red Pants pauses and says, “no,” then backs away. Lt says “You’re refusing to walk,” and takes Red Pants down.
Lt then gets angry because bystanders, who have seen the entire encounter, are getting upset by his irrational use of force.
So, Red Pant’s crime? Insufficient Kowtow of Cop and Refusing to Walk.
Very well summarized. There were no crimes by the kids. Being disrespectful to an unlawful order does not merit arrest and certainly does not merit grabbing a kid for photographing and slamming him to the ground. Cops do a great job 98% of the time. Even good cops have bad days. I am not commenting on if this is a good cop; however he had a bad day and did inappropriate things on all versions of the video. ACLU unfortunately is going to rightfully have a field day with this.
Guest
Anonymous
January 22, 2024 10:11 am
As for Mrs. Poser lawyer, I cannot believe she gets to be released without bail. Completely ridiculous.
Guest
anonymous
January 22, 2024 10:12 am
Well, it would certainly be a little disconcerting to have the cops show up at your office and arrest your paralegal.
Guest
Anonymous
January 22, 2024 12:14 pm
Well well well. I guess all of the people who have been stating that the state bars have too much power have now an alley of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and a few very relevant non-profit organizations. Are you now going to rail against all of these judicial scholars who have analyzed the situation and find the way the state bars are conducting business are unconstitutional.
For years state bars needed to be challenged and sued for this issue. The Ninth Circuit gave the state bars a pass on this issue because they are afraid that attorneys not paying for bloated state bar budgets and a specific political agenda, and will riot in the streets, our democracy will be destroyed and all things will burn to the ground (instead of defunding their political donations to a cause they choose) and promote in their bar rag. I will not point our similar thinking in other areas however there is a theme that I sense.
Most attorneys are apathetic until they get an unfounded, unjustified and vindictive bar complaints and then it hits them upside their heads like a ton of bricks. If you do not work for a big law firm, this issue is something you should take dead seriously. My opinion.
No to Mandatory membership
I have posted on this topic from time to time over the years. Mandatory bar membership should be abolished. Physicians, contractors, realtor and a host of other “professions” are regulated and disciplined by state agencies, to whom is paid an annual licensing fee. However, these professions have associations promoting the interest of their profession (Ex. Calif. Medical Ass’n).
State Bars membership should be a voluntary association advocating for lawyers, be helpful in our profession, and not waste our money on lavish annual vacations for Board members and staff, or, spend money on the current politically correct fade, such as DEI.
As a victim of an unfounded complaint several years ago, I can support your thoughts. You simply cannot believe it until it happens to you. It wasn’t the client that was wrong as they were just a poor soul suffering but the obc that lied and hid and disregarded the truth. I survived it and built a small successful firm but wow was that crazy.
Agreed. You don’t think it’s a big deal until some disgruntled client or butt hurt opposing counsel targets you and OBC takes up the cause. Current leadership at the bar has lost control. The Supreme Court has hinted that they need to take a step back and OBC chooses to charge ahead. They need to be checked.
Incidentally whatever happened with the Rules Changes proposed by Bar Counsel. Were they ever adopted, modified or left to languish by the Supreme Court. Does anyone know. Have not heard.
I scanned through them, and saw significant alterations to two rules:
Rule 101 – OBC wanted to raise ambiguous “any other rules of this jurisdiction regarding professional conduct of attorneys” to the level of RPC, as well as expressly state that intentionally failing to comply is a violation. SCT didn’t buy it, and deleted that proposed amendment.
102 – OBC wanted limitations on stays of execution-er, I mean, stays of suspension limited to 2 years. SCT said no, we’ll do what we want. Also, OBC wanted to only allow screening panels to issue Admonitions. If it went to formal hearing, they wanted to remove that option. As in above, the SCT said, “no, we’ll do what we want,” and included the option for an admonition to be imposed by the screening panel with the consent of the attorney, the hearing panel or the Court.
Someone make family court make sense. Guy rapes one kid. Mom divorces him. In the course of the divorce the judge gives dad unsupervised visitation with the other kid. How many kids does a dude have to rape before the brain trust at family court stops letting him be around children? Make it make sense.
100%, if Dad has reasonably based allegations against him for child rape, he ain’t getting ANY visitation, let alone unsupervised. Shit, if I am wearing that robe, I might terminate his parental rights sua sponte.
OP here. That seems the most reasonable course of action to me. I don’t get family court at all. That Patterson killed those kids just a few months ago. He was facing child rape charges too. I don’t see how any judge would let a convicted sex offender especially one who raped a kid have unsupervised contact or any contact with the sibling. Seems insane.
First. I saw the Durango High video. The cops didn’t act out of line and the “takedown” wasn’t a “body slam”. These kids are out of control and need to learn respect. Blame the parents of these thugs not the cops.
Didn’t you hear? All the cops are criminals and all the criminals are victims. Those are the new rules. Better learn them.
If you didn’t watch the cop’s bodycam, just say so. The Lt. was out of control from the moment he got out of the car.
Honestly, I am tired of everyone having a position on one extreme or the other. The cops aren’t always right, but they’re not always wrong either. I have defended a few cases against cops, and I have sued CCSD and others a time or two as well. Every case is different. Look at the facts and quit generalizing. Yes, some of these kids are little thugs with parents who aren’t any better, if they are even in the picture. Some of the cops suffer from when you’re a hammer then everything looks like a nail syndrome.
First teen in black hoodie detained was because “you wanted my attention now you got it, bud.”
Second teen in blue hoodie continued to walk away. Lt. said “keep walking,” Teen in Red Pants say, “actually I don’t have to, sir.” Red Pants wasn’t even recording then. Lt claims Red Pants is blocking the sidewalk, as if that’s a thing. Red Pants then starts walking away. Lt then walks 15-20 feet away to grab Blue Hoodie and detain him. Red Pants briefly touches Blue Hoodie. Lt takes Blue Hoodie like 20-30 feet back to a car, and hands him off to another officer. Red Pants walks by, recording. Officer asks “You want next? Start walking,” even though Red Pants is already walking away. At the order, Red Pants pauses and says, “no,” then backs away. Lt says “You’re refusing to walk,” and takes Red Pants down.
Lt then gets angry because bystanders, who have seen the entire encounter, are getting upset by his irrational use of force.
So, Red Pant’s crime? Insufficient Kowtow of Cop and Refusing to Walk.
Oh, and Red Pant’s Mother? “She’s about to talk herself into handcuffs, too.”
Very well summarized. There were no crimes by the kids. Being disrespectful to an unlawful order does not merit arrest and certainly does not merit grabbing a kid for photographing and slamming him to the ground. Cops do a great job 98% of the time. Even good cops have bad days. I am not commenting on if this is a good cop; however he had a bad day and did inappropriate things on all versions of the video. ACLU unfortunately is going to rightfully have a field day with this.
As for Mrs. Poser lawyer, I cannot believe she gets to be released without bail. Completely ridiculous.
Well, it would certainly be a little disconcerting to have the cops show up at your office and arrest your paralegal.
Well well well. I guess all of the people who have been stating that the state bars have too much power have now an alley of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and a few very relevant non-profit organizations. Are you now going to rail against all of these judicial scholars who have analyzed the situation and find the way the state bars are conducting business are unconstitutional.
For years state bars needed to be challenged and sued for this issue. The Ninth Circuit gave the state bars a pass on this issue because they are afraid that attorneys not paying for bloated state bar budgets and a specific political agenda, and will riot in the streets, our democracy will be destroyed and all things will burn to the ground (instead of defunding their political donations to a cause they choose) and promote in their bar rag. I will not point our similar thinking in other areas however there is a theme that I sense.
Most attorneys are apathetic until they get an unfounded, unjustified and vindictive bar complaints and then it hits them upside their heads like a ton of bricks. If you do not work for a big law firm, this issue is something you should take dead seriously. My opinion.
No to Mandatory membership
I have posted on this topic from time to time over the years. Mandatory bar membership should be abolished. Physicians, contractors, realtor and a host of other “professions” are regulated and disciplined by state agencies, to whom is paid an annual licensing fee. However, these professions have associations promoting the interest of their profession (Ex. Calif. Medical Ass’n).
State Bars membership should be a voluntary association advocating for lawyers, be helpful in our profession, and not waste our money on lavish annual vacations for Board members and staff, or, spend money on the current politically correct fade, such as DEI.
Absolutely Agree.
As a victim of an unfounded complaint several years ago, I can support your thoughts. You simply cannot believe it until it happens to you. It wasn’t the client that was wrong as they were just a poor soul suffering but the obc that lied and hid and disregarded the truth. I survived it and built a small successful firm but wow was that crazy.
Agreed. You don’t think it’s a big deal until some disgruntled client or butt hurt opposing counsel targets you and OBC takes up the cause. Current leadership at the bar has lost control. The Supreme Court has hinted that they need to take a step back and OBC chooses to charge ahead. They need to be checked.
You say that, but then the Supreme Court accepts rule changes that give OBC more power. So which is it?
Incidentally whatever happened with the Rules Changes proposed by Bar Counsel. Were they ever adopted, modified or left to languish by the Supreme Court. Does anyone know. Have not heard.
They were adopted, but I’m not sure how much they were changed between the petition and the order amending the rules: https://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseView.do?csIID=65889
I scanned through them, and saw significant alterations to two rules:
Rule 101 – OBC wanted to raise ambiguous “any other rules of this jurisdiction regarding professional conduct of attorneys” to the level of RPC, as well as expressly state that intentionally failing to comply is a violation. SCT didn’t buy it, and deleted that proposed amendment.
102 – OBC wanted limitations on stays of execution-er, I mean, stays of suspension limited to 2 years. SCT said no, we’ll do what we want. Also, OBC wanted to only allow screening panels to issue Admonitions. If it went to formal hearing, they wanted to remove that option. As in above, the SCT said, “no, we’ll do what we want,” and included the option for an admonition to be imposed by the screening panel with the consent of the attorney, the hearing panel or the Court.
If you want to convince people, you might want to tell us what case you’re talking about and what the case actually held.
EJDC selected Zoom as replacement for BlueJeans!
What are the new rules regarding appearances?
Order Amending Supreme Court Rule Part IX-B, (A) Rules Governing Appearance by Telephonic Transmission Equipment for Civil and Family Court Proceedings Rule 4, ADKT 0613, https://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/document/view.do?csNameID=67843&csIID=67843&deLinkID=928208&onBaseDocumentNumber=23-41584
Order Adopting Recommendation of the Commission to Study Best Practices for Virtual Advocacy in Nevada’s Courts, ADKT 0581, https://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/document/view.do?csNameID=61592&csIID=61592&deLinkID=928201&onBaseDocumentNumber=23-41577
Someone make family court make sense. Guy rapes one kid. Mom divorces him. In the course of the divorce the judge gives dad unsupervised visitation with the other kid. How many kids does a dude have to rape before the brain trust at family court stops letting him be around children? Make it make sense.
100%, if Dad has reasonably based allegations against him for child rape, he ain’t getting ANY visitation, let alone unsupervised. Shit, if I am wearing that robe, I might terminate his parental rights sua sponte.
OP here. That seems the most reasonable course of action to me. I don’t get family court at all. That Patterson killed those kids just a few months ago. He was facing child rape charges too. I don’t see how any judge would let a convicted sex offender especially one who raped a kid have unsupervised contact or any contact with the sibling. Seems insane.