Friday Open Thread

Happy Friday everyone!

The floor is yours ...

Congratulations February Examinees!

Phew! It's over!

Well, sort of ... you have to wait until April May to find out if it's really over. Congratulations to those of you who made it through the exam, best of luck!

So, how did it go? Did anything interesting happen during the exam? What subjects were tested? If you took the exam this week, please leave us a comment. We want to hear all about it!

Kabins Fails to Get Settlement Sealed ...

Yesterday the show moved from federal court over to Judge Gonzalez's courtroom, where Mark Kabins was attempting to have news of his $800,000 settlement with Dr. Daniel Burkhead (the anesthesiologist Kabins tried to blame for his own malpractice) sealed.

So much for that.

Up to bat for Kabins was local attorney John Spilotro. John is one of the nicest and most intelligent attorneys we have ever seen in practice. His morals are impeccable, and he smells very nice. If you think we're going to say anything bad about him ... fogitaboutit.

You may recognize Spilotro as one of the floats from the original March of the Morons ... though we would never intentionally insinuate that he was a moron. Did we mention how nice he smells? Like potpourri, but more manly.

During his argument to seal, Spilotro stated that the outrageous coverage from Channel 8 in the Medical Mafia case has been so unfair that he would hate for the media to get their hands on the agreement. If that happened, argued Spilotro, it would surely be distorted to put his client in a poor light.

That argument sounds perfectly logical to us ... we'd hate to see Kabins' impeccable reputation tarnished.

Spilotro has apparently been unhappy with Channel 8's coverage of the Medical Mafia case; he referred to George Knapp in court as "that guy who talks to little green men."

Judge Gonzalez declined to seal the case and sent Spilotro and his client back to meet with Burkhead and his attorneys to see if they could come up with a settlement that Kabins wouldn't be embarrassed by. Nice job, Betsy.

Err ... we mean, what's your problem, judge?! Don't you know a good argument when you see it? You keep fightin' that good fight, John!

(LV Now; Thanks, Tipster!)

Gage, a Grammatical Question, and a Posse of One ...

LV Now (along with 90% of our commenters yesterday) reported that Attorney Noel Gage pled (pleaded?) guilty in federal court to obstruction of justice. A copy of the plea agreement is available, here. According to the agreement, Gage is facing a maximum of 20 years (he won't get anywhere near that, and likely will receive no prison time at all), and will pay a mandatory restitution of $702,600 to his former client, Melodie Simon.

We wonder if our State Bar will take the same action our State Medical Board is taking against Mark Kabins ... is that wishful thinking?

Gage's plea is pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, meaning he is admitting the government has enough evidence to convict him were he to go to trial, but he is not admitting that he is actually guilty. Fun Fact: Besides high-profile white collar criminals, Alford pleas are most commonly used by (alleged) pedophiles. Don't be a pussy - just plead guilty.

Now to our grammatical question: "Pled" or "Pleaded" ... which is the proper past tense?

Oh, and we received a fun story (and accompanying photo) from a helpful tipster who was present at yesterday's festivities:

Today at Fed court, Noel Gage, American Hero and defender of your rights, pled guilty for obstruction of justice (felony). On his way out, strangely enough, a familiar figure started approaching my camera, attempting to block my shot of Gage. It reminded me of a certain march of attorneys from 2009 during the indictment of now guilty, Mark Kabins. It’s really too bad for Gage, as the Personal Injury Parade has now dwindled to a Posse of One.

Why does the guy in the pic attached, who happens to work for Mainor, Eglet Cottle according to my sources, feel the need to protect someone so stridently, who has says he’s done nothing wrong. Why would MEC have such a great interest in having this guy at EVERY hearing dealing with Vannah? Either way, he’s fooling himself if he thinks he’s doing much more than digging a deeper hole for his bosses.

Please feel free to share this with your readers.

And share we shall ...

Five WWL points to the first commenter to identify the man in the foreground. One Point each for the men in the background. Bonus five points for identifying the red book the woman on the right is holding (looks like our law school criminal law text ... *shudder*).

(LV Now; Thanks to our on-the-ball commenters and tipsters!)

Good Luck February Examinees!

That time is again upon us ... time to further flood the market with another round of attorneys.

Good luck to all of you early-graduates, out-of-staters and umpteenth-time takers from your friends at WWL.

Feel free to use the comments of this thread to taunt offer encouragement to our fragile, soon-to-be colleagues.

Glen Lerner: Humanitarian.

Whilst poking around for interesting legal stories, we came across an intriguing headline that simply read: "Las Vegas Personal Injury Attorney Glen Lerner Helps Victims Salvage Their Lives."

Wow, we thought ... what could our little friend be up to? Is he donating a portion of his earnings to victims in Haiti? Is he giving time to help local families devastated by the plunging economy? Teaching free legal education classes?

We were sorely disappointed. See, Heavy Hitter has no time to pursue such endeavors, because he has much more important work to tend to. Lerner's big humanitarian effort - helping accident victims.

That's right, Lerner, the King of lawyer advertising jingles, sent out a press release to announce that he helps accident victims. The release is available here and here.

We wouldn't deny you all the pleasure of reading the ridiculous release for yourselves (we find it's better if you let your inner voice take on his Bostonian accent), but here are two of our favorite quotes:

• "Glen Lerner is the most Popular Personal Injury Lawyer in Las Vegas and has had the ability to help dozens of Las Vegas and Nevada residents in the litigation of their personal injury cases." Ohhhh ... Mr. Popular!


• "Currently, Glen Lerner & Associates are looking to work with other accident and injury victims and are encouraging those who believe they were injured or have suffered at the hands of another party to come forward and contact an associate of the firm to discuss their potential case." We like reading this one in Sally Struthers' voice.
  

Yeah, in case you weren't aware - the guy's an ass. Or his firm is being run by an ass (Lerner himself may have transitioned into selling beauty products). Or his PR company is full of asses, and he's an ass for hiring them. We think it's pretty shady for Lerner to be putting out these "press releases" in a time where people are actually suffering. Who knew that 4'10" Lerner could sink lower?

And we're aware that Lerner isn't the only one pulling this crap, it's just extra asinine for him to do it because of the seemingly endless radio and television advertising he already does. But the rest of you should knock it off as well - it makes all of us look bad. Just buy a billboard and try to look your angriest on it, like Libo. Or better yet, do good work and let word-of-mouth do the advertising for you.

We long for the good old days, when Lerner's hyperbole was restricted to television ads depicting him as a chubby pre-pubescent:

Bonus: (Fake?) Glen responds in the comments to our silly little blog and contests 4'10" claim. We're gonna need a picture of you barefoot next to a yard stick, friend ... and none of this.

Judicial Interviews

First, a big thank you to the judicial candidates who have already answered their interview questions.

Second, I know that I said we'd start posting this week; however, I'd like some additional time to get everything organized. We'll start posting the responses on Monday 2/28.

Thanks for your patience!

Further Details About Federal Courthouse Shooting

A coroner's jury ruled Friday that officers were justified in using deadly force on Johnny Lee Wicks, the psycho who shot up the federal courthouse and killed security officer Stanley Cooper. These so-called "coroner's inquests" are necessary whenever an officer-involved shooting ends in a death.

The doctor who performed Wicks' autopsy testified that out of the 81 shots fired by officers, Wicks was struck 14 times. Police and the FBI have said Wicks, 66, acted alone and was angry about losing a government lawsuit challenging a cut in his monthly Social Security benefits.

The LV Sun has some good pictures of the inquest, including a still of the video surveillance. Scary stuff, but it should serve as a reminder as to why security is so important.

(LV Sun)

Friday Open Thread

It's baaaaaaaaaaack!

Happy Friday everyone! What's the latest?

WTF? C U N CRT!

Enough said. Text Ed.

After you've been in an accident, you really don't feel like talking to anybody. Ed Bernstein feels your pain, and he's here to help. Now, you can just text Ed when you get in trouble ... kind of like a bat signal for the lazy and litigious.

When you text Ed's number, 24000, you'll get an instant response, giving you options for your reply:

*SPK to speak to a live rep
*ESP para espanol
*ASK to ask a question
*APP to schedule an appointment
*TIP for accident scene advice

*ASS to tell Ed you feel like an asshat and would rather dial that number from the radio jingle

*MAL to notify Ed of your pending malpractice lawsuit*

We wonder if Ed accepts MMS messages as well. Could we take a picture of our "bulging disc" and get instant feedback on how much our case will settle for?

Ed reportedly spent $50,000 getting this new service up and running because he had to sign separate agreements with all the cell phone carriers to use his extra-special numerical text address. We can't wait for the first firm that allows us to tweet our "injuries" to the world. Isn't the future awesome?!

(LawMarketing.com; Thanks, Tipster!)

*Okay, we may have made those last two up (but we'd love to see your suggestions).

The Legacy Marches On ...

Years after The Great One's removal, the curse of Department 23 continues.

LV Now is reporting that Liz's former bailiff, Johnnie "Rub My Feet" Jordan, was arrested early Sunday morning and booked into the North Las Vegas Detention Center.

Jordan was charged with two counts of lewdness with a minor under the age of 16 and two counts of sexual assault. His alleged victim is a 14-year-old girl.

Liz herself was kind enough to emerge and comment on the LV Now story ... at least we're pretty sure it's her.

(LV Now)

Secret Security Breach at the RJC

LV Now is reporting (via current Boyd student Colleen McCarty) that after the January 4th federal courthouse shooting began, a crowd of people in the lobby of the RJC pushed their way past the metal detectors without being screened:

Neither Glasper [head of RJC security] nor Clark County Courts Spokesman Michael Sommermeyer discussed the events of January 4th in detail. But, sources tell the I-Team a panicked public, fleeing the sound of gunfire, pushed past the metal detectors at the Regional Justice Center and into the lower level. The security breach was one reason authorities shut down the building. "We took the necessary precautions to protect the public," Glasper said.

It's well known that security at the RJC is under-funded and, as a result, under-staffed. That's been the reason given for the closing of the south entrance. However, what really caught our eye about the LV Now story was Clark County Courts Security Chief Lt. George Glasper's estimate of how many people they actually catch attempting to smuggle weapons into the courthouse:

"We do have probably 10 percent of the folks who are coming in who are actually trying to smuggle a weapon in to do harm."

Ten percent?! As in one in ten people who go through security at the RJC are in possession of a weapon? If that number is even remotely accurate judges, attorneys and court personnel should be absolutely outraged.

While we commend the job that the current security officers are doing, it is inexcusable for the RJC to be under-staffed with a threat level that is so ridiculously high. It's time for the county to step up and take security at the RJC seriously before we have another tragic incident occur.

We'd like to hear your thoughts and comments on this situation. Were any of you in the building when the breach occurred on January 4th? What do you think needs to be done in order to improve this situation? We know the powers-that-be are reading ... let them know how you feel.

(LV Now)

Invasion of the Body [Parts] Snatchers

Our Supremes have a hot new issue on their docket: setting precedent for the mishandling of human remains.

A 29-year-old man from the U.K. flew down to Vegas in 2005 for a bachelor party. It must have been one hell of a party - because he died. Acute cocaine and alcohol intoxication were found to be the cause of death, so at least he went happy.

Anyhoo ... the U.K. man had his autopsy performed by the Clark County coroner's office, and his body was subsequently wrapped and shipped back to the Queen. However, when it arrived it was slightly lighter because the man's body was missing its heart, brain, liver, kidneys and lungs.

The facts sound a little like some overzealous torts professor's res ipsa hypothetical:

The family alleges that the coroner’s office took or lost the organs, falsely claimed to have turned them over to the cremation society, and conspired with that company to conceal the whereabouts of the organs. The family also alleges that cremation employees stuffed a sheet inside the body to conceal the fact that the organs were missing.

The family also alleges that another defendant, coroner employee Monique Beverly, initially completed a release form indicating that the organs were not with the body when they were released to the embalmer. She then corrected the form to indicate that the organs were placed in a bag and transported with the body, the family said.

The coroner's office denied wrongdoing, stating that the form was inadvertently marked stating that the organs were not with the body and later corrected. The coroner also cited a deposition from a mortuary employee who said the organs were placed in the body cavity and “powdered down with a hardening compound.”

The case has been handed to our Supremes by U.S. District Court Judge Phillip Pro. When Judge Pro needed to make rulings based on state law, he discovered (shockingly) that Nevada had none. Therefore, Pro asked our Supremes to hear arguments from all parties involved so that it could establish a legal precedent.

We look forward to the explanation of Nevada's new judicially-mandated organ tracking procedure.

(LV Sun)

Six F***ing Dollars?!

Welcome to the future.

In the future (which apparently began early this month) there is no need to "file" a physical pleading down at the courthouse. Instead, there is a magical force known as "e-filing." By e-filing documents, we are finally able to force those attorneys who still insist on drafting their pleadings using typewriters straight into retirement.

However, the future is not without its problems. A small but vocal group of attorneys is beginning to voice their concerns about the cost of e-filing, which is $6 per document plus an additional $4 for "e-serving" (which presumably involves a T-1000 effectuating service for you) - the future is AWESOME!

So, counsel - now you must choose between buying your morning latte and filing your client's pleading. [cue Jeopardy music] Apparently, some people envisioned the future as being slightly cheaper - who did you think was going to pay for those file clerks we no longer need?

Honestly, we're not well versed in filing fees. Don't get us wrong, we're aware that there is such a fee, and someone in our firm has (hopefully) been paying said fee ... but we're pretty far removed from that process. Our feigned rage in the title was solely an attention grabber - sorry about that.

The good people at Wiznet apparently anticipated the rage of those who actually know about filing fees, and put up a little cost-benefit analysis to head them off at the pass. According to Wiznet, e-filing (when coupled with e-serving) saves attorneys anywhere from $6.33 to $25.50 for an average 15-page filing depending upon which service you previously used.

So here's our question: What's the fuss? We'd like to hear from those of you grumbling about the cost of the new system, leave us your thoughts in the comments.

Gossip Tapas for Your Weekend

I love getting together with my Delta Nu sisters for a quick lunch. They know their legal gossip and can often confirm the things I've read in the comments.

It has been confirmed Corey Eschweiler and another attorney from Glaser Weil's Las Vegas office left to work with The Heavy Hitter. This is quite a change of scenery. Joel Gray sang it best in Cabaret, "money makes the world go 'round, the world go 'round..."

Robert Schumacher, formerly of Peel Brimley, moved to Gorden & Rees's Las Vegas office. It is our understanding that some Peel associates followed Schumacher.

Now, word on the street is that Peel Brimley has to disgorge $1.8 million in fees; however, we don't have confirmation of this rumor. Do any of our readers know about this?

State Medical Board Seeks Discipline For Kabins

The Nevada State Board of Medical Examiners has filed a Complaint seeking to "discipline" Dr. Mark Kabins. The Complaint sets forth three counts:

• Count 1: Violation of NRS 630.301(9) - Conduct that "brings the medical profession into disrepute."
• Count 2: Violation of NRS 630.301(11)(g) - Conviction of offense "involving moral turpitude."
• Count 3: Violation of NRS 630.306(2)(a) - Engaging in conduct "intended to deceive."

Intent to deceive?! Why isn't every plastic surgeon in this town strung up by their toes?

You are likely already aware of the sequence of events which led to this Complaint being filed. In case you've been living under a rock, here's a hint: Exhibits 1-4 are Kabins' Grand Jury Indictment, Criminal Information, Guilty Plea Agreement, and Judgment, respectively.

Not being doctors ourselves, we're unsure if the Board of Medical Examiners has actual teeth or just slightly-jagged, duck-like gums like our own lawyerly disciplinary board. They certainly sound serious.

We'll have to wait to see if Kabins' punishment is in the form of a slap on the wrist, or a career change.

(Thanks, Tipster!)

The Letter to the Judicial Candidates

I saw the comment on my post earlier and, honestly, I didn't think anyone would be interested in the letter. So, for those who are interested, here it is. These are the final questions. No, we won't be making any changes. I ran these by the editorial board a while back. The goal is to keep it simple and get some basic information. The questions are based on your comments. Many of the comments seem to say, why is this person running or I am more qualified than X. So that's what I'm going for. And I wanted to ask a fun question. This isn't the RJ. And apparently, when I drafted this late last night, I wanted to include some run-on sentences in the bullets. Here is the letter:

Dear Judicial Candidates,

I am a writer for Wild Wild Law, Clark County's local legal blog. Because we do not accept advertisements, many people are not aware of how large our audience is. On any given day, we range from hundreds to thousands of page views, depending on what's happening in the legal world. As judicial candidates, exposure on the site allows you to reach a targeted group of viewers who are specifically interested in the legal arena in Clark County.

One of the topics that generates the most interest is the Clark County judiciary. During the last election cycle, we referred our readers to other sites, like the Review Journal, to obtain specifics about the judges. Based on the comments we've seen, I'd like to offer all of the judicial candidates a chance to answer a brief interview. If you decline to answer or if we receive no response, we will simply state that we have not received a response when your department is posted. If you do answer, we will post your answers on the site in the following manner:

• I request that you answer by February 21 to be included in the first round of answers. If you answer later than that, it is fine, I will still post your responses, it may not be with your original opponents.
  
• I will post races that will be facing a primary election prior to those races with just two candidates
• I have sent emails only to those candidates who have listed emails on their Candidate Filing forms with the Election Department. If there is a candidate who did not receive this email who would like to participate, please email me at ewoodsesq [at] gmail [dot] com.
• If you would like to send a photo to post with your response, attach it to your response. You may also provide a link to your campaign site.
  
• There will be no editorial content added to my posts with your answers. The candidate responses for each department will be listed in alphabetical order.
  
• I will not spell check or grammar check. I recommend doing that. The comments will be open and our readers are a persnickety bunch.
  
• I repeat - the comments will be open. If you choose, the day your interview is posted, you are welcome to post responses to any reader questions or comments. I will do my best to advise everyone at least 24 hours in advance prior to the posting of their Department's responses.
  

Questions for non-judges:

1. Why do you want to be a judge?

2. Why are you qualified to be a judge?

3. Do you read Wild Wild Law? If so, what do you think of the site?

Questions for incumbents:
1. Why should people re-elect you?
2. What you have achieved while in office?
3. Do you read Wild Wild Law? If so, what do you think of the site?

Thank you for your time. Good luck with your campaigns. I look forward to hearing from you.

Elle

Attention Judicial Candidates

Today, I sent an email to all district court and family court candidates with an email address listed in their candidate filing seeking responses to interviews.

1. If any of the candidates without email addresses happen to see this (or if Bruce Gale or Carl Piazza see it - their emails bounced), please feel free to email me at ewoodsesq [at] gmail [dot] com and I will send you the official interview email.

2. If our readers know any judicial candidates, please encourage them to participate in the interviews. The questions are very simple. A lot of candidates take heat on the site based on what may be one person's experience and anonymous comments. Let's see what their answers really are.

3. When I get the responses, I will post them in the exact form that I receive them and the comments will be open. We'll be posting races that will have primaries first.

Hopefully we can get started with the responses during the week of 2/21.

LSC Picks Up Maupin

Lionel, Sawyer and Collins recently announced the hiring of retired Nevada Supreme Court Justice William Maupin.

Maupin, who retired as chief justice in January 2009, will reportedly focus on litigation, appellate work and lobbying ... were guessing mostly lobbying.

He was appointed district court judge in Clark County in 1993, and was first elected to the Nevada Supreme Court in 1996.

The Ex-Justice joins former Boyd School of Law Dean Richard Morgan as local heavyweights who have been acquired by the firm.

This ain't government work, Billy ... hope you're ready. Fitting name, as "Bill" will start living his life in 6 minute increments beginning March 15.

(Press Release, Thanks, Tipster!)

Sidebar: Bonus Spending

Sorry it's been a while since we've done a Sidebar. Like Joe said in his State of the Blog address, things got very busy right after the holidays. I've wanted to post about this for a while, but work has been.

Just like most of you, I make anonymous comments on the blog. While reading the comments, I saw that one of the people who was brave enough to list her name also linked to her blog. Of course I read it and linked to it in my reader. It turns out one of our own is The Frugal Lawyer. (I should mention that I emailed Danielle to see if she cared about being singled out in this Sidebar. She said something along the lines of, "It was on CNN.com, so no, I don't care.")

The link that I saw on her blog was this one. Essentially, Danielle revealed to the world what her bonus was and how she planned to spend it. We never really had an honest discussion on bonuses and I'm not going to try to go down that road yet again. However, the article did make me curious - given the state of the economy, if you got a bonus, did you spend it differently this year? How did you spend it? What did you spend it on? Or did you save it?

Bremer Whyte Grabs Defense Victory

In our ongoing goal to report more defense victories when we are tipped to them, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara recently got Judge Jones to dismiss a potentially huge class action suit in U.S. District Court against Uponor, Inc. We know ... who the hell is Uponor, Inc., and why do we care, right?

Depending on how you look at it, this suit had ties to the well-known class litigation going on against Kitec, Inc. for faulty plumbing fittings which tended to, well, fail. Both companies use PEX (cross-linked polyethylene) piping, though Uponor uses a different (apparently less-faily) means of attaching the pipe to the fitting.

Uponor was being sued for their plumbing fittings as well but instead of failing, plaintiffs claimed that Uponor's zinc-heavy brass fittings were leaching zinc when exposed to water, clogging pipes.

BWB&O was able to get the suit dismissed with prejudice by essentially severing the head of the class: They got Judge Jones to rule that any plaintiffs who had sought relief under our Notice and Opportunity to Repair statute (Chapter 40) had effectively opted out of the class. Not coincidentally, the named class members had filed for such relief. Net result: No class.

Given that the Kitec litigation led to settlements in excess of $90 million, BWB&O deserves a pat on the back for this victory. Congratulations! (National firm Fisher Kanaris was also involved, but with no local office - who cares about them?)

The case is Slaughter et al. v. Uponor, Inc. et al., Case No. 08-cv-01223.

(Thanks, Tipster!)