Nevada Supreme Court has adopted a new rule that requires lawyers to disclose if they have had any past disciplinary sanctions, including private reprimands.
Each attorney will be required to detail biographical information, training and area of specialization and reprimands imposed after March 1, 2007 or any public discipline regardless of the date.
The court is also ordered as part of the new rule that lawyers in private practice to reveal if they have malpractice insurance and the name and address of the insurance company. The rule becomes effective in 30 days.
How are we going to keep our usual cast of disreputable, inept attorneys employed if they have to disclose to clients how they have been sanctioned in the past for their unethical conduct? I say we vote off all the Justices in order to keep this state's bar the national embarrassment that it is!
Does anyone know where I could get a copy of the new rule? The insurance thing was already required by the NV Supreme Court to get licensed (at least back in April '08) and is already listed on the www.nvbar.org website under Attorney Search.
ReplyDeleteI know a lot of older attorneys who still practice law like they did in the good 'ol days when Las Vegas was a small, western town. The rules weren't enforced, pleadings and other court formalities were lax, and legal research was nonexistent. Incompetence and laziness therefore set in, and as a result they were sanctioned, suspended, reprimanded, and even disbarred.
ReplyDeleteSo I do see the need for some attorneys to disclose their yellow badges of cowardice to unsuspecting potential clients. Would you go to a doctor if you knew that he or she didn’t have malpractice insurance? Perhaps there won't be a need to disclose the yellow badges of cowardice when these old soldiers retire.
Great day on Wild Wild Law, thanks for the updates Legal Eagle.
ReplyDelete