Shockingly, the Review-Journal reports that some lawyers believe judges favor local counsel who participate in "pay to play". (Review-Journal). Not familiar with that system? Just ask Plaintiff's super-attorney Robert Vannah about it--he has "five or six judges that will do anything [he] want[s]". Other attorneys see prejudice by jurists on the basis of religion/gender/ethnicity. (Review-Journal)Meanwhile, some attorneys simply think the judges don't know or don't care about the law and procedure argued before them. (Review-Journal). Here are some highlights from the article:
- Several lawyers commented in the evaluation that Judge Lisa Kent often was reluctant to take a position on cases. Judge Kent responded "It's a misconception that I don't know family law because I've practiced it my whole career." She said "I think I do a good job for children and families in Clark County."
- A staggering 84 percent of respondents questioned how District Judge Elizabeth Halverson exercises the law, far and away the poorest rating of any jurist evaluated. [oh but her attorney is sure that's just because they're engaging in a "beauty contest". Why is this woman still on the bench? She is a national (and repetitive) black eye for Nevada law.]
- 59 percent of attorneys said Judge Jesse Walsh was less than adequate in applying the law. She replied "I think my numbers reflect improvement." Her retention ratings have increased from 31 percent in 2004 to 34 percent in 2006 to 41 percent this year.
- 48 percent of respondents said Judge Stefanie Miley was less than adequate in applying the law (the sixth lowest score of any judge in any court surveyed). Some attorneys noted "She appears to be only mildly interested in her job and more interested in furthering her own career." Miley said she has confidence in her ability and aspires to be on the Nevada Supreme Court.
Who's at the top for applying the law? Well, Family Court Judge Gloria Sanchez of course (who also has a 97% retention rating). And, as it should be, the Chief Justice of the Nevada Supreme Court Mark Gibbons. Congratulations to Justice Gibbons and Judge Sanchez for reminding us gossipy bloggers that the bench is also filled with the keenest legal minds.
How about doing some real reporting before you make your sensationlized headlines.
ReplyDeleteYour story forgot to mention that Judge Halverson has only served 5 months before her bogus suspension.
The survery was supposedly responded to by 308 Attorney's who had worked with the Judges.
Now, working in the courts myself, I can know there is no way on God's green earth that 308 attorney's could have gone before any Judge in a 5 month period.
Clearly the survey is based on personal feelings and not any real criteria.
There is FAR more to this Halverson situation than meets the eye.
Do tell about the FAR more to this Halverson situation. Let me guess: she's being framed by a rival personal injury firm. Wait . . . oh that excuse has already been taken.
ReplyDeleteConspiracy driven by Judge Hardcastle? What are we missing?
Dear Mrs. Halverson,
ReplyDeleteYou are not being framed, you were just a horrible judge. That's what happens when you spend 9 years as a professional law clerk instead of working in the real world. It's not because you are fat, that fact just evidences the complete lack of self-control you have in every aspect of your life. Please go away.
Very, truly yours,
The General Public
I keep reading comments about how there couldn't have been 308 attorneys who practiced in front of Halverson. However, on any given morning a Judge's motion calendar will have twenty cases, at least two lawyers on each case = 40 a day?
ReplyDeleteI think it would be quite ease for 308 different attorneys to have argued motions in front of the manatee, er, Halverson.