That damn UCC!

A Henderson man who goes by the name of "John Theodore:Anderson" has sued a Utah law firm for $38 quadrillion [pinky to mouth]. From freerepublic.com:

The dispute stems from a complaint Anderson originally filed against clients of the law firm of Shumway, Van and Hansen for $918 billion. Shumway said his client, Private Capital Group et al, came into possession of mining property in Southern Utah recently after the original owner of the mine defaulted on a loan. The capital group then tried to sell the property, and Anderson put a $918 billion lien on it. In response, Shumway filed a lawsuit for $10,000 in damages to remove the lien, because he said the property cannot be sold with a cloud on the title.

At least one of the defendant-lawyers seems to be maintaining his composure despite facing the possibility of a judgment for more money than is currently in circulation:

Civil litigation can get redundant, Shumway said, so he said he enjoys getting cases that are off the wall procedurally. He said it provides the firm with experiences that most attorneys never deal with.

"This case, no matter how strange or funny, makes us better at our jobs because you can't just go A to Z," he said. "Mr. Anderson is throwing numbers and smiley faces into my alphabet, and I appreciate that, even though in the end I think he will be sorely disappointed with the result."

Go get 'em, Mr. Crazy Pro Se Litigant.

(FreeRepublic.com; Thanks, Tipster!)

Friday Open Thread

Happy Friday everyone!

Hope you all had a wonderful week. What's going on in the Nevada legal world?

Sidebar: Race to the Advertising Bottom?

Scene: A bikini-clad woman standing on the southeast corner of the Regional Justice Center holding a large sign advertising traffic ticket services for Vegas Ticket Masters.

Discuss.

Appointment v. Election

The LV Sun posted an article yesterday entitled "Judge who? The debate over appointment versus election." As you've probably guessed, the article is about Question 1 on November’s ballot, which would amend the constitution to change how Nevada selects judges. And our girl Liz is, of course, the poster child.

From the LV Sun:

The ballot measure would create a Judicial Selection Commission. Supreme Court nominees would be chosen by the chief justice; four attorneys appointed by the State Bar’s Board of Governors; and four nonattorneys appointed by the governor.

District Court judges would be appointed by the same panel, plus two attorneys who are residents of the judicial district appointed by the State Bar and two lay residents of the district appointed by the governor.

This unquestionably concentrates a lot of the power in the hands of the governor and the State Bar.

But critics of the current process say it’s a better alternative to what is a broken system.

What do you guys think - this may be a "better alternative," but is it the best alternative?

The truly scary part (to us anyway) is the tiny poll off to the side of the article which, at the time of our reading, was about 50/50 for appointed/elected judges. Yikes.

Here's a typical comment on the article:

The answer isn't to punish the voters who go to the trouble to research the candidates by replacing their right to vote with an appointment system. The answer is to devise a system that makes it easier for voters to perform research on the candidates.

Why aren't court opinions et al available on the internet?

As for the District Courts, "Motion denied/granted" would not make for a very insightful read, and we have no idea what "et al" could be. Lunch orders? Hours of operation?

As for the Supremes, we're pretty sure their opinions are made public ... we just wish more people would actually read them.

What is the real problem here and how do we fix it, commenters? Do you think this ballot initiative is the answer?

(LV Sun)

Sidebar: Memory Lane

We were cruising the archives the other day and noticed that the last time we (and by "we," I mean LE) did a Magic Number post was more than two years ago. Some commenters have been screaming for an update, and we've taken the position that in this economy the numbers really matter very little - if you are a first year associate in Las Vegas, you should really take what you can get.

While trying to get ourselves hyped-up to send out another survey (that would go largely ignored), it hit us: wouldn't it be easier just to post the old list and ask for updates? Lazy blogging, FTW.

So, here, ranked in order by highest (or best) "magic number" are the Vegas firms salaries as they stood back in July of 2008. For more information about LE's "Magic Number" methodology, look here.

Name $ per billable (Salary/Min Billable)
Watt, Tieder 73 ($145,000/2000 billables)
DLA Piper 72.5 ($145,000/2000 billables)
Duane Morris 69 ($135,000/1950 billables)
Ballard Spahr 68 ($133,000/1950 billables)
Fox Rothschild 68 ($125,000/1850 billables)
Snell & Wilmer 67 ($120,000/1800 billables) -- [only 1800 billables for 1st yr]
Fennemore Craig 65 ($125,000/1925 billables)
Payne & Fears 64 ($125,000/1950 billables)
Lewis & Roca 63 ($120,000/1900 billables)
Hale Lane 63 ($120,000/1900 billables)-- [incl. 100 required pro bono hrs--67 if excl. pro bono]
Lionel Sawyer 61 ($110,000/1800 billables)
Snell & Wilmer [2] 60 ($120,000/2000 billables)-- [2000 billables after 1st yr]

Greenberg Traurig 59 ($112,000/1900 billables)
Jennings, Strouss 58 ($110,000/1900 billables)
Bullivant Hauser 57 ($105,000/1850 billables)
Downey Brand 57 ($100,000/1750 billables)
Brownstein Hyatt 56 ($110,000/1950 billables)
Jones Vargas 55 ($102,000/1850 billables)
Fisher & Phillips 54 ($100,000/1850 billables)
McDonald Carano Wilson 54 ($100,000/1850 billables)
Santoro, Driggs 53 ($95,000/1800 billables)
Gordon & Silver 53 ($95,000/1800 billables)
Kummer Kaempfer 53 ($100,000/1900 billables)
Morris Pickering 51 ($95,000/1850 billables)
Marquis & Aurbach 50 ($100,000/2000 billables)
McCormick Barstow 46 ($80,000/1750)
Hutchison & Steffen 45 ($86,000/1900 billables)
Lewis Brisbois 43 ($84,000/1950 billables)
Alverson, Taylor 43 ($78,800/1840 billables)
Thorndal, Armstrong 31 ($68,000/2160 billables)

Other--not enough info for magic number:

Boies Schiller ($168,000/???? billables)
Jolley Urga 50 ($92,000/ avg of 1850 billables--no minimum listed)
Gordon & Rees ($????/1850 billables)

So there you have it. If you work for one of these firms and have updated info, please let us know in the comments. We are also interested in information regarding compensation for some of the larger plaintiffs shops.

Friday Open Thread

Happy Friday everyone!

Now that we've got the comments about religion and Shakespeare history lessons out of our systems, what else is going on?

Criminal Charges Likely at Coroner's Inquest Today

We received the following potentially juicy tip regarding the Trevon Cole coroner's inquest today:

David Roger was over to the AG yesterday and asked that they have a representative present at the coroner's inquest Friday.

This request has occurred only once before. The DA and AG have an agreement that the AG will file charges and prosecute any Metro officer found criminally liable by a coroner's inquest.

Our tipster thinks this request means that it is very likely charges will be filed today after the inquest.

The coroner's inquest is made up of a jury of seven who can reach three conclusions regarding a police-involved death: justified, excusable or criminal. In 34 years, only one case was ruled criminal in a coroner's inquest in Clark County.

(Thanks, Tipster!)

Looking for Work?

If you are currently looking for more work, the following offer from Half Price Lawyers may be of interest to you:

We are reaching out to Nevada Lawyers who are looking for more work.

Half Price Lawyers is seeking to collaborate with attorneys with demonstrated expertise in the following areas:
Workers Compensation
Intellectual Property
Landlord Tenant
Estate Planning / Probate
Civil Litigation – Various types
Bank mediation
Loan modification
Debt negotiation
Labor and employment
IRS offers in compromise
Social security disability

Appearance attorneys who are willing to make court appearances when needed.

Interested persons should send an email to adam @ halfpricelawyers.com. Please include “WWL Posting” and the area of practice in the subject. Please also communicate your experience in the specified practice area, number of years practicing and whether you maintain a policy of malpractice insurance. Please also include your bar number and the major cross streets of your current law office. Compensation is generous and cases are plentiful.

[Even if you're not interested in the work, you should visit their website and let tiny Adam Stokes give you a tour.]

Jumping the Wall

Once again showing who runs this town, Mainor Eglet has reeled in a couple of major players to fill that hole left by Cottle: Attorney Artemus Ham (of the Hall), and currently-seated District Court Judge David Wall.

Judge Wall's decision to leave the bench, effective August 27th (!), is certainly the shocker here. Wall is, in our humble opinion, the best judge currently sitting on the EJDC bench, and his absence will certainly be felt. We are clearly not alone in our respect for him - Wall was one of two judges (David Barker being the other) who scored a 91% retention rating in the latest Judging the Judges poll.

Which brings up an interesting issue (to us, anyway): Does an elected judge have a duty to the public that elected him to stay on the bench for his entire term? Wall's 6-year term does not expire until 2014. Assuming the world doesn't end in 2012, he's skipping out on the voting public (who - let's be honest - likely picked his name on the ballot because it's also a noun) a bit early.

What do you think, commenters? Should we hogtie Wall to the bench and force him to continue to make rational, informed decisions for the next 3.5 years? We know there's (apparently) no legal basis for making him finish out his term, but as an elected judge, should there be?

(News 3; Thanks, Tipsters!)

Friday Open Thread

Happy Friday everyone!

We're still looking for tips re: the ticket-busting spammer. What else is going on?

APB for the RJC Cell Phone Spammer Firm

Looks like that bomb scare/lawyer advertising rumor turned out to be true, although it turns out that the the "advertising" was a bit more nefarious than our tipster originally reported. From LV Now:

The evacuation of the Regional Justice Center last week may have been the result of a misguided advertising campaign.

Court marshals and Las Vegas police cleared the downtown courthouse for several hours last Tuesday to investigate a suspicious package found across the street. The package was a car battery with jumper cables used to power an electronic transmitter.

The device, according to knowledgeable sources, was being used to track email IP addresses from nearby cell phones.

The man who claims he planted it told investigators he needed the information to send email advertisements for a local traffic law firm. But sources say the man would not reveal the name of the attorney who hired him.

LV Now also has the police incident report, here.

One of the comments on the story is a bit scary:

Hiding transmitters have been going on for awhile. They just carried out this time very amateurish. What were they thinking that no one would see this package sitting on the ground, or just ignore it. Usually the people hiding the transmitter, pose as air conditioner personnel and hide the device on the roof, they get better range, and out of sight out of mind. Then they go back later and take their device down and down load the information and start making their calls for wiping out the traffic tickets for a small fee. Anything to make a buck. This practice isn't new, just stupid if it isn't done right.

Great, so people have just been leaving these devices on rooftops and gathering private data. Seems like the FCC should be looking into this.

Okay, we just know that one of our wonderful commenters knows what firm was attempting to steal cell phone numbers for advertising purposes. If you know which firm is pulling this crap, PLEASE out them in the comments - 100 WWL points* to the first Anon to identify the offending firm.

*Remember - 10,000 WWL points gets you a genuine (read, "plastic") WWL collector's spoon ... possibly used by Elle to eat her yogurt.

(LV Now; Thanks, Tipster!)

Jobs!

Marquis & Aurbach is looking for attorneys (yes, plural) with 1-3 years of experience. Resumes, cover letters, and writing samples should be sent to: fflansburg at marquisaurbach.com

According to our tipster, the selling points are "competitive pay, very generous and predictable bonus structure."

Rumor Tuesday

We have a few rumors to start off your week ... let us know if you have any details in the comments.

• Craig Rankin, head of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith's Las Vegas construction group, is reportedly being forced out of the firm a month ahead of a major trial dealing with yellow brass plumbing fittings with millions in exposure.


• Our old friends at ATMS may be at it again, a helpful tipster sent us the following note:

Word has it that ATMS has again changed its attorney compensation structure. We all know that the attorneys there are basically hourly employees and only get paid by the billable hour. But now they are allegedly getting docked pay for any time that isn't paid for by the client. Most of the insurance carriers I've dealt with have a policy of docking 20% of the billable hours submitted no matter what, which would have a horrible effect on an ATMS attorney's paycheck...

• And finally, we received this funny-if-true tidbit from a tipster:

Remember when the RJC was on lockdown last week? Well, word on the street has it that the entire thing was started by a "ticket busting" firm's failed attempt at advertising. Apparently, the firm hooked up a car battery to an alarm/speaker and left it across the street from the north entrance to the RJC. The plan was to have the speaker blast the firm's advertisement to the public waiting outside.

All didn't go as planned, because when the morons left, the "device" was noticed by someone and reported as suspicious. The "threat" became "credible" when police ran the plates of cars parked outside the RJC and noticed that two of them did not match the cars they were attached to.

That last one made us chuckle ... can anybody confirm?

(Thanks, Tipsters!)

Friday Open Thread

Happy Friday everyone!

Now that we've got all the "douchebag" variations out of our system (we counted 27), what else is going on?

Mazzeo vs. Gibbons Suit Makes Us Fall In Love With A Judge

United States Magistrate Judge Peggy Leen issued a bench slap in the Chrissy Mazzeo case scolding attorneys Walter Cannon and Robert Kossack, and it's a doosey.

Plaintiff filed a motion seeking an order prohibiting Cannon from "making improper speaking, argumentative, suggestive, and coaching objections during depositions." The opinion started out with Judge Leen expressing her frustration with the motion being filed on an "emergency" basis:

I am not the Maytag repairman of federal judges desperately hoping for something to do. Nevertheless, the motion remains on my docket until an order is entered, and Plaintiff’s counsel seeks sanctions.

When you get a quote like that early in the opinion, you know you're in for a treat. Her Honor went on to summarize the back-and-forth motions practice engaged in by the attorneys, wherein they accused each other of violating various procedural and ethical rules. Leen finally gave up and decided to give a law student a glimpse at his future:

To ensure that reading the 185 pages of these exchanges was not a complete waste of time, I assigned this motion to a law student extern to prepare a legal memorandum to further his education. In a short period of time he was able to prepare a well-written, concise memo which identified a large number of state and federal cases throughout the country articulating the standards for making deposition objections and identifying improper conduct for which lawyers have been admonished or sanctioned. He correctly concluded that both lawyers engaged in misconduct which violated Rule 30(c)(2).

Then she dropped the hammer:

The exchanges related in excruciating, repetitive detail in the moving and responsive papers and their attachments were painful to read. If I was an elementary school teacher instead of a judge I would require both counsel to write the following clearly established legal rules on a blackboard 500 times:

"I will not make speaking, coaching, suggestive objections which violate Rule 30(c)(2). I am an experienced lawyer and know that objections must be concise, non- argumentative and non-suggestive. I understand that the purpose of a deposition is to find out what the witness thinks, saw, heard or did. I know that lawyers are not supposed to coach or change the witness’s own words to form a legally convenient record. I know I am prohibited from frustrating or impeding the fair examination of a deponent during the deposition. I know that constant objections and unnecessary remarks are unwarranted and frustrate opposing counsel’s right to fair examination. I know that speaking objections such as “if you remember,” “if you know,” “don’t guess,” “you’ve answered the question,” and “do you understand the question” are designed to coach the witness and are improper. I also know that counsel’s interjection that he or she does not understand the question is not a proper objection, and that if a witness needs clarification of a question, the witness may ask for the clarification."

Hear that boys and girls? “If you remember,” “if you know,” “don’t guess,” “you’ve answered the question,” “do you understand the question” ... all improper objections in a depo!

As for Judge Leen's ultimate decision ... lashes all around:

IT IS ORDERED Plaintiff’s “Emergency Motion” (Dkt. #218) is GRANTED to the extent that Mr. Kossack and Mr. Cannon are admonished. Sanctions in the form of memorializing their misconduct in this order are imposed.

Oh, and ATL, the ABA Journal, and WWL will publish it as well. We heart you, Judge Leen.

(Full Opinion - PDF)

Sidebar: Fair Use

Discuss.

(Photo courtesy LV Sun ... please don't sue us)

J.W.B.

Above the Law and the ABA Journal picked up on a story about an ongoing lawsuit from an incident back in February 2008 regarding an altercation between attorney David Lee Phillips and Metro police officers.

Apparently, Phillips was out jogging at 11:00 at night wearing a sweatsuit and carrying a golf club to "fend off stray dogs" as he ran through the Bonanza Village subdivision ... Phillips likes to live life on the edge.

According to Phillips, as he crossed at the light heading North on Vegas Drive, he waived at Metro Sgt. Raymond Reyes who was stopped at the light, and who apparently doesn't like being waived at. From the RJ:

"He gave me a real hard look," said Phillips.

When the light changed, Reyes turned left on Vegas Drive at a high rate of speed, made a U-turn, activated his light bar and stopped in front of Phillips, who said he set his golf club against the block wall and walked about 40 feet from it, to where Reyes came to a stop.

Phillips said the officer put his hand on his gun and told Phillips he was going to search him for weapons. Phillips asked him why he would do that and refused to be searched when Reyes couldn't offer legal justification.

Reyes called for backup, said Phillips, and six officers responded immediately.

"They were making fun of me," he said. "Calling me an idiot, laughing at me."

At this point words were exchanged, and people said things they shouldn't have said:

Phillips said that when he told the police his name and gave them his address, one officer noted there was a downtown lawyer by that name. [Don't say it's you ... whatever you do, don't say it's you.] Phillips said that when he said he was indeed that lawyer [DOH!] , the officer responded, "What kind of lawyer would live in a shithole neighborhood like this?"

Note to attorneys - The correct response when an officer recognizes your name as that of an attorney is not, "That's me!" The correct response is: "I hate attorneys ... always getting bad guys off on technicalities and putting them back on the street. Cops are awesome." Got it?

After the comments about his neighborhood, according to Phillips, the harassment started:

The threats came when Reyes ordered Phillips to walk to the back of his patrol car and another cop told him that if he moved he would be shot with a Taser. A third officer, he said, aimed a Taser at him.

"I just kept my hands up and said 'I'm staying right here until you guys decide what you want me to do."

At that point, Reyes attempted to kick Phillips' legs apart but he slipped, and the remaining officers "jumped on me," said Phillips.

Reyes, Phillips said, then demanded that he sign a citation ---- for what violation is unclear ---- and when Phillips refused, the officer threw the wadded up citation in his face and said, "Enjoy a couple nights in jail, asshole."

It was at this point that a metro officer uttered what is, if true, one of the lamest lines ever spoken by by someone who is not Eric Cartman:

"I told Sergeant Reyes his behavior was unprofessional and unnecessary," said Phillips. "He said, 'I'm Metro. We can do whatever we please.'

Somehow we doubt that Phillips used the words "unprofessional and unnecessary," and we need to believe that a Metro cop would not say something like "we can do whatever we please." Would they?

Also, check out Elie's commentary over at ATL, where he believes that this incident was all a case of "jogging while black."

What do you guys think? Anyone know Phillips? Think this sounds like a plausible story?

(LVRJ; Above The Law; ABA Journal)

Bad Service

Local process server On Scene Mediations, run by former Las Vegas police officer Maurice Carroll, is being investigated for allegedly submitting false affidavits claiming that it had served defendants with copies of lawsuits, resulting in default judgments being entered. From the RJ:

Court officials said they don't know how widespread the problem is; Logue estimated thousands of cases could be affected. He said records show that Carroll's company, which was run out of his North Las Vegas home, was doing about $50,000 in business a month, a large volume of work for a company of its kind.

Intelligence detectives raided Carroll's home on July 6, seizing financial and business records.

Detectives are now seeking an arrest warrant for Carroll, 42, who left the police department in 2000 after roughly 10 years of service, on possible charges of perjury and filing false court documents, officials said. Carroll could not be reached for comment.

Las Vegas JPs Melissa Saragosa and Diana Sullivan asked police to investigate after noticing numerous "irregularities." Basically, more than the usual number of defendants were showing up claiming they hadn't been served.

But don't worry, the Nevada Private Investigators License Board is on the case:

Mechele Ray, executive director of the Nevada Private Investigators License Board, confirmed that Carroll's company is not licensed to operate as a process server. She said her agency investigated a complaint against the company brought by Las Vegas justices of the peace, but she would not discuss the probe.

"We've taken what we feel is the appropriate action at this time," she said.

Independent contractors, such as Carroll, face fines of up to $10,000 if they fail to get a license after a warning from the Private Investigators Board, Ray said.

So, Carroll is doing $50,000 a month in business, and he gets "up to" a $10,000 fine after he receives a warning? Just another fine example of the cutthroat regulatory agencies we have in this state. That's sure to teach him.

(LVRJ; Thanks, Tipster!)