Someone by the name of Elizabeth Halverson (Get this: she claims to be a former judge ... can you imagine anyone actually voting for that lady?!) just lost a defamation suit brought by her former assistant, Ileen Spoor. From the LVRJ:Spoor sued Halverson in 2007 for defamation and placing someone in false light, alleging that the judge lied about her to the media by saying Spoor illegally fixed tickets and took Spoor’s Rolodex and files.
A jury trial was scheduled for late October, but Judge David Wall granted summary judgment in favor Spoor on Thursday.
Wait ... summary judgment? Well, look at the big balls on Wall! Good for you, Judge. We thought summary judgment was just one of those law school myths, like the Rules of Professional Conduct.
As for damages, they are still being "calculated." Good luck Ileen, can't imagine she's got a whole lot in the bank. Of course, you could always try to garnish her lunch money.
Nice of you to visit, Liz, now please go away.
(LVRJ)
Someone needs to take a stand against all this Halverson bashing.
ReplyDeleteSo go ahead, someone...
Halverson is a perfect example of why experienced trial attorneys should be the only people considered for judges. Trial attorneys know the rules of evidence, civil procedure, and the nuances for trial. She was a law clerk for 10 years. Just because you read documents doesn't mean that you know how to draft them or how to argue them.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with 9:15 regarding ONLY trial attorneys being considered for judges. Every attorney should know the rules of evidence, civil procedure, and how to handle a trial on some level. If an attorney does not have knowledge of these basic things then they are shortchanging themselves and their clients. However, an attorney who can effectively communicate with their writing should be more likely to actually read the motions before them and, hopefully, dispose of some issues without resorting to unnecessary hearings. Although trial attorneys usually have the requisite verbal communication skills to be a good judge, there are numerous trial attorneys who depend solely on their verbal communication skills to essentially B.S. their way through something, and the last thing we want is a judge B.S.-ing their way through legal issues.
ReplyDeleteHow did that happen? Did Halverson forget to file an opposition?
ReplyDeleteHalverson's election was a very clear demonstration of just how stupid and ill-informed the overall electorate of Clark County truly is.
ReplyDeleteHer candidacy was a very clear demonstration of just how poor the quality of judicial prospects in Clark County truly is.
Do any GOOD lawyers want to become judges in Clark County? You know; ethical lawyers, smart lawyers, experienced lawyers, sane lawyers? Or are there so few who posess those qualities in Clark County that we need to settle for the likes of Halverson, Miley, Vega, Williams, Mosely, Leavitt, Corey, Walsh, et al?
Is there a judge on the Clark County bench today who is reasonably well-qualified with regard to each category - ethics, intelligence, experience, and sanity? I can think of maybe two (but I'm unfamiliar with family court).
@ 9:42.
ReplyDeleteYes, you're right. Trial attorneys who actually have effective writing skills are extremely important. Generally, that also means they understand how to research.
And I agree that there are far too many attorneys who depend on their oral advocacy to save them.
Looks like a failure to serve RFA responses.
ReplyDeleteHalverson failed to respond to requests for admissions so they were deemed admitted. So SJ was pretty much a must. If it had been denied Spoor would have won a default judgment since Halverson's answer had been stricken but the order hadn't come in yet.
ReplyDeleteEpic fail
ReplyDelete"Is there a judge on the Clark County bench today who is reasonably well-qualified with regard to each category - ethics, intelligence, experience, and sanity?"
ReplyDeleteYes, Barker. All those things plus no monster ego to stand in the way of admitting when he's wrong.
There are several other conscientious, decent judges. Wall, Adair, Herndon, Togliatti ... 5/25 ain't too bad.
1:44 PM: Agreed.
ReplyDelete5/25 is attrocious - that means that 4 out of 5 times you get someone who's some combination of corrupt, stupid, inexperienced, or insane.
ReplyDeleteAgree with the 5 judges cited, esp Herndon and Barker. I'm pretty sure Togs, Herndon, and Wall all came from the DA's, right? Where were Barker and Adair before the 8thJD?
ReplyDeleteAgree that those five are decent judges (Wall can be a bit of a prick - but he's fair and reasonably smart). They are, however, exceptions to the rule. It's unfortunate that we are four times more likely to draw a bad judge as we are to draw a good one.
ReplyDeleteThis article was originally about Halverson - it still boggles the mind to try and figure out how she ever became a judge. But one could say the same about Miley and several others.
I'm pretty sure Wall worked in civil litigation as well.
ReplyDelete@4:05 - Barker = DA
ReplyDeleteI have a far more important question: Why the heck are we letting the court administration get away with closing off the south entrance of the courthouse??
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't enough that the thing was overbudget.
Or that it was way late.
Or that it has half as many elevators as it needs at peak time.
Now, on top of this, and a host of other defects, they reduce accessibility by 50%!!!!! WTF! Is this a bannana republic, where robed masters use private entry ways gilded in gold while peasants crowd around one narrow entrance to the temple????
4:05 pm- Adair was at the DA's office.
ReplyDelete10:57 pm- the court doesnt have the staff due to budget cuts to staff both sides.
Someone in the LVRJ article commented tha Halverson is still drawing State disability. Can anyone confirm that?
ReplyDeleteThe opposing comments of 9:15 AM and 9:42 AM bring up some good points of discussion. In general I think the Halverson case in a good example in support of ending open challenge judicial elections. The specific issue raised by 9:15 and 9:42 touches on what society should look for in a judge. I think there's some argument that in American jurisprudence the judge's primary role is that of a referee. How you archive that experience is another question. There are those who suggest that there's some merit to the French system, where some newly graduated law school students go directly into a judicial career track, starting with being the equivalent of hearing officers and administrative law judges, then working their way up the system to higher courts. I'm not certain that's the best solution, but I do think that transactional experience alone is inadequate to sit on the bench.
ReplyDeleteAvoiding a Halverson type of result requires minimum competence on the part of the electorate. Clark County's electorate essentially proved, by electing Halverson, that it has no business selecting jurists.
ReplyDeleteThe electorate was assisted in its demonstrated incompetence by the unforgivable and unabashed pimping of Halverson by the RJ during the election. They took every opportunity to place her in a positive light, painting any criticism of her as a playground bully picking on a crippled kid.
ReplyDeleteLVRJ = Fish Wrap
ReplyDeleteHmm - I wonder how many voters base their electoral decision-making on the prodding of the decidedly low-brow LVRJ. It's even worse when voting decisions are based on which candidate places the most and largest campaign signs on some garbage-covered vacant lot.
ReplyDeleteI like the perennial candidates who just take their signs out of storage. If anything, history shows that if you keep trying hard enough, you'll eventually make it in.
ReplyDeleteIf that was true, Ron Israel would be a judge. Oh, wait . . . .
ReplyDelete