2020 September Writ

September 2020. Vol. 42, No. 8

The OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE WASHOE COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION

Join us on September 9, 2020 on Zoom for the Judicial Forum with the candidates for the Second Judicial District Court

W

CBA is pleased to present the upcoming candidates' forum for the Second Judicial District Court.

DEPARTMENT 10 Judge Elliott Sattler has been the presiding judge in Department 10 since 2013. He has participated as a judge or attorney in over 100 jury trials.

Judge Sattler received the highest average score of all General Jurisdiction Judges twice in the 2018 & 2020 WCBA surveys, and his retention rate in 2020 was 97%.

The Reno personal injury law firm of Kathleen A. Sigurdson represents injured people, both those hurt on the job and those injured through the neglect of others.

Kathleen was admitted to the State Bar of Nevada in 1998 and the State Bar of Arizona in 1999.

DEPARTMENT 11 Paige Dollinger currently serves as Washoe County's juvenile delinquency court master. In this role, she has presided over more than 8,000 hearings. Prior to her appointment as a court master, Paige worked for more than a decade as a deputy public defender, and for four years as a deputy district attorney in Washoe County.

Greg Shannon was a deputy district attorney for Washoe County for 25 years, with substantial experience in child support, child protection, and civil litigation.

He was chief deputy of the child protection team. Greg has been a fulltime family court master for nearly six years, primarily hearing child support cases but experienced in all aspects of family court.

DEPARTMENT 13 Judge Bridget Robb is a 4th generation Nevadan.

She attended the University of Nevada and received her juris doctorate, cum laude, from Santa Clara University.

Judge Robb has been elected twice to Department 13 and has served as the Family Division Presiding Judge for most of the last five years.

Aaron Bushur practices primarily family law in all Northern Nevada courts.

Aaron operates his own office and is the sole employee. Aaron is married with three sons and has resided in the area in excess of twenty years since leaving the military. Aaron intends to bring much needed change to the Department.

``

RANDOM THOUGHTS PG 2

CONVERSATIONS ON DISCOVERY PG 3

ACROSS THE LINE PG 6

COURTS PG 8

JUDICIAL SURVEY 10

APPELLATE BRIEFS PG 12

LAW LIBRARY/ PRO BONO PG 14

MILLENNIAL MINUTE PG 15

PEOPLE PG 16

Random Thoughts Chandeni Sendall President

2020: Election Season Begins

A

s fall approaches, the sun begins to set earlier each day, the new school year rolls ahead, and many of us still find ourselves in the same “new” COVID-19 pandemic-laden routine. Yet, aside from the pandemic and smoke filling our skies, a lot has changed over the past few months. As we head into a tense and quickly approaching November presidential election, calls for criminal justice reform within our community and nationally are taking center stage and largely influencing the political rhetoric of elected officials from local candidates all the way to the presidency.

Our fundamental structure of government plays a crucial role in the implementation of new laws and the amendment of existing laws. The American system of representative governance relies on those elected to hold office to reflect the interests of their constituents. Our government is made up of representatives who seek election based upon party principles and ideologies. These representative legislators and executive officeholders are of course motivated by furthering the interests of those that elected them into office. However, as the interests and viewpoints of the American people change, so should the representative actions of their elected officials.

The THE WRIT IS THE OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE WASHOE COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION ARTICLES APPEARING IN THE WRIT EXPRESS THE VIEWS OF THE AUTHORS AND NOT NECESSARILY THOSE OF THE WCBA. FOR ADVERTISING CALL THE WRIT AT 775-7864494. WCBA RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ACCEPT OR DENY ANY ADVERTISING.

2

September 2020, Vol. 42 No. 8

The Nevada Legislature has already attempted to address certain aspects of criminal justice reform during the recent Special Session, and it appears the topic will continue to be evaluated and debated both at the lawmaking level in Carson City and the law enforcement level. Certainly, the outcome of our upcoming election in November is likely to influence our elected representatives’ positions regarding the recent protests and calls for criminal justice reform.

After this election is over, if any additional bills reforming the current criminal justice system are passed, it will be in large part due to the representative make up of those elected officials that remain in office, and those that are newly elected.

Four teenth Amendment jurisprudence requires that equal justice under the law be afforded to all people.

The very words, “EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW,” are engraved above the front entrance of the United States Supreme Court building in Washington D.C. As attorneys representing the interests of our clients, it is our duty to ensure that we do our part so that the law is indeed equally and justly applied to all.

In Nevada, the judiciary is elected to interpret those laws passed by our legislators and enforced by our executive branch. The role of the judiciary as

JENNA GARCIA, EDITOR GINA MACLELLAN, MANAGING EDITOR ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION RATE FOR NON-MEMBERS OF WCBA: $36 WCBA, P.O. BOX 1548, RENO NV 89505 TEL: 775-786-4494 FAX: 775-324-6116 WWW.WCBAR.ORG E-MAIL: GINA @WCBAR.ORG

the third branch of government is an important check on the legislative and executive branch, which are representative of the people but often politically influenced by their electorate base.

The judiciary on the other hand, while elected, is intended to be nonpartisan, and is tasked with even-handedly relying on the Constitution and sound jurisprudence for guidance in interpreting and determining whether laws challenged are constitutional. It is an important role that arguably is one of the most important checks on the power of the legislative and executive branches.

In that regard, here in Northern Nevada, the WCBA is holding a live virtual Judicial Candidate Forum on Wednesday, September 9, 2020. The judicial candidates running for Second Judicial District Court Departments 10, 11 and 13 will be providing brief statements and answering pre-submitted questions from WCBA members. Please consider participating in this free Zoom webinar event to hear from the judicial candidates directly. No registration is required, the link has been sent via email to all WCBA members. If you would like to submit a question for the candidates, please email Executive Director Gina MacLellan at gina@wcbar.org.

I wish you all a healthy beginning to the fall season.

PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT SECRETARY TREASURER SERGEANT-AT-ARMS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

CHANDENI SENDALL JACEY PRUPAS RYAN LEARY THERESE SHANKS JENNA GARCIA GINA MACLELLAN

CONVERSATIONS ON DISCOVERY

By Wesley M. Ayres, Discovery Commissioner

T

he fiduciary exception to the attorney-client privilege was addressed in a previous article. When that article was written, the Nevada Supreme Court had not yet considered this subject. But our high court recently analyzed this issue for the first time in Canarelli v. Dist. Court, 136 Nev. Adv. Op. 29, 464 P.3d 114 (2020).

Unfortunately for me, the court came to the opposite conclusion that I reached in my analysis. The decision also discusses application of the common-interest exception to the attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine in the fiduciary context. Trustees and attorneys should familiarize themselves with the court’s conclusions and analysis so they fully understand the extent to which their communications are confidential.

The decision concerned a dispute between the beneficiary and trustees of an irrevocable trust. The trustees were the beneficiary’s parents and their attorney, Edward Lubbers. Among other property, the trust owned interests in the parents’ business entities. In 2012, the beneficiary claimed that the trustees were acting in bad faith, and he threatened to sue them over certain trust-related decisions and to have them removed as trustees. In 2013, the parents resigned as trustees. One week later, Mr. Lubbers, the sole remaining trustee, entered into a purchase agreement to sell off the trust’s ownership in the parents’ business entities. The beneficiary then filed a petition asking the district court to compel Mr. Lubbers to provide all information related to the purchase agreement, as well as an inventory and accounting for the trust. Mr. Lubbers hired counsel, and communicated with them via phone and email prior to filing his response to the petition.

The beneficiary subsequently filed a supplemental petition alleging breach of fiduciary duty against the former and

current trustees. Mr. Lubbers resigned from his role as trustee in 2017, and died six months later. See id. at 3-4, 464 P.3d at 117-18.

During discovery proceedings, the former trustees inadvertently disclosed documents containing Mr. Lubbers’ notes. One group of documents was comprised of his notes pertaining to a telephone call with counsel to discuss the beneficiary’s petitions, his responses to those petitions, and potential strategies for defending against certain allegations. These documents included his typed notes in preparation for the call as well as his handwritten notes contemporaneously memorializing the call. A second group contained his notes contemporaneously memorializing a subsequent meeting he attended in late 2013 with the other trustees, counsel, the beneficiary, and an independent trust appraiser. The trustees argued that both groups of documents were protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and the workproduct doctrine, and they tried to “claw back” those documents. The discovery commissioner determined that only some of the information in the first group of documents was protected, and that notes containing factual statements or information unrelated to the trust were discoverable. To the extent that factual statements were intertwined with protected information, the documents were found to be discoverable because of the fiduciary and common-interest exceptions to the attorney-client privilege and the substantial-need exception to the work-product doctrine.

Documents in the second group were found to be discoverable based on the substantial-need exception to the work-product doctrine (to the extent that the doctrine applied at all). The district court generally adopted the commissioner’s findings. The trustees

then sought extraordinary relief to protect the disputed documents and to require their return or destruction. See id. at 4-6, 464 P.3d at 118.

Because the district court order was to compel the disclosure of allegedly privileged information and the case presented issues in need of clarification, the supreme court exercised its discretion to consider the petition. See id. at 7-8, 464 P.3d at 119; see also Diaz v. Dist.

Court, 116 Nev. 88, 93, 993 P.2d 50, 54 (2000) (noting that “the opportunity to define the precise parameters of [a] privilege conferred by a statute that this court has never interpreted” is a circumstance warranting writ relief ) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). The court then stated the standard of review for discovery matters, explaining that appellate courts will not disturb a discovery ruling unless the district court clearly abused its discretion. See Canarelli, 136 Nev. Adv. Op. 29 at 8, 464 P.3d at 119 (quoting Club Vista Fin. Servs., LLC v. Dist. Court, 128 Nev. 224, 228, 276 P.3d 246, 249 (2012)).

Findings of fact will not be set aside unless they are clearly erroneous or not supported by substantial evidence, while conclusions of law—including the meaning and scope of statutes—are reviewed de novo. See id.

The court then discussed whether the attorney-client privilege would protect the first group of documents.

The court emphasized that the privilege exists “to encourage clients to make full disclosure to their attorneys in order to promote the broader public interests of recognizing the importance of fully informed advocacy in the administration of justice.” See id. at 8, 464 P.3d at 11920 (quoting Wynn Resorts, Ltd. v. Dist.

Court, 133 Nev. 369, 374, 399 P.3d 334, 341 (2017)). In that regard, NRS 49.095(1) makes clear that the privilege September 2020, Vol. 42, No. 8

3

protects confidential communications “[b]etween the client or the client’s representative and the client’s lawyer or the representative of the lawyer.” NRS 49.095(3) extends protection to any confidential communications “[m]ade for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services to the client, by the client or the client’s lawyer to a lawyer representing another in a matter of common interest.” The court clarified that “[m]ere facts are not privileged, but communications about facts in order to obtain legal advice are.” See id. at 9, 464 P.3d at 120 (quoting Wynn Resorts, 133 Nev. at 374, 399 P.3d at 341). Of course, the party asserting the privilege has the burden to prove that the material is in fact privileged. See id. While privileges must be interpreted and applied narrowly, “the attorney and client must be able to predict with some degree of certainty whether particular discussions will be protected.” See id. (quoting Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 393 (1981)).

The primary issue presented with the first group of documents was whether an individual’s notes must actually be delivered to the attorney before they will be deemed “communications” for purposes of NRS 49.095. The supreme court agreed with federal courts that to give full force to the attorney-client privilege, the physical delivery of notes is not required, “so long as the content of the notes was previously or is subsequently communicated between a client and counsel.” See id. at 10, 464 P.3d at 120. Based on the date and content of the first group of documents, the court concluded that the content of the notes Mr. Lubbers prepared before his call with counsel, as well as the notes that were taken during that call, were communicated between Mr. Lubbers and counsel for purposes of NRS 49.095. The kind of proof needed to make that showing was also addressed: [W]e emphasize that the party asserting the privilege does not

4

September 2020, Vol. 42 No. 8

have to prove that the client spoke each and every word written in his or her notes to counsel verbatim.

Such a requirement would lead to the unreasonable result of permitting the disclosure of confidential information that was not orally conveyed exactly as it was recorded on paper, or vice versa. . . .

Id. at 11, 464 P.3d at 120-21 (citation omitted). In that regard, the declarations of Mr. Lubbers’ attorneys and their billing records were sufficient proof that Mr. Lubbers’ notes showed communications with counsel. The court also held that the factual information contained in those notes was relayed in order to obtain advice about how to respond to the beneficiary’s petitions, so those portions of the notes remained protected. See id. at 11-12, 464 P.3d at 121.

The beneficiary argued that the fiduciary exception and the commoninterest exception to the attorney-client privilege precluded application of the privilege to the first group of documents.

With regard to the former, the supreme court observed that under NRS 49.015, privileges in Nevada are recognized only as required by the federal or state constitutions or by a specific statute.

The statute identifying exceptions to the attorney-client privilege does not include a fiduciary exception, see NRS 49.115 (2019), and the court deemed that omission intentional. See Canarelli, 136 Nev. Adv. Op. 29, at 12, 464 P.3d at 121 (noting that “[t]he maxim ‘EXPRESSIO UNIUS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS,’ the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another, has been repeatedly confirmed in this State”). Moreover, jurisdictions with statutory privileges like Nevada “have overwhelmingly

refused to adopt a fiduciary exception by judicial decree,” and it likewise declined to do so. See id. at 13, 464 P.3d at 121; see also Wells Fargo Bank v. Super. Court, 990 P.2d 591, 596 (Cal. 2000); Crimson Trace Corp. v. Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, 326 P.3d 1181, 1195 (Or. 2014); Huie v. DeShazo, 922 S.W.2d 920, 92425 (Tex. 1996).

The common-interest exception is statutorily recognized in Nevada, and it precludes application of the attorneyclient privilege “[a]s to a communication relevant to a matter of common interest between two or more clients if the communication was made by any of them to a lawyer retained or consulted in common, when offered in an action between any of the clients.” See NRS 49.115(5) (2019). But in that regard, Mr. Lubbers’ attorneys were not retained or consulted in common, and an attorney’s representation of a trustee as a fiduciary does not result in an attorneyclient relationship between the attorney and the beneficiary. See Canarelli, 136 Nev. Adv. Op. 29, at 14, 464 P.3d at 122; see also NRS 162.310 (2019). In addition, the beneficiary’s allegations that the trustees had acted in bad faith and had breached their fiduciary duty to him showed that Mr. Lubbers was adverse to the beneficiary when he communicated with his attorneys, so those communications did not relate to a matter of common interest. See Canarelli, 136 Nev. Adv. Op. 29, at 14, 464 P.3d at 122. The court recognized that a beneficiary ordinarily may inspect a trust’s books and records, but it declined to extend that rule to allow inspection of the trustee’s communications with counsel when that trustee is adverse to the beneficiary. A contrary holding would discourage trustees from seeking legal advice, provide a disincentive for individuals to serve as trustees, and impact the advice attorneys provide to their trustee clients. See id. at 14-15, 464 P.3d at 122.

With regard to the second group of notes prepared by Mr. Lubbers, the trustees argued that the documents were

protected by the work-product doctrine, which extends protection to documents “that are prepared in anticipation of litigation . . . by or for another party.” See NRCP 26(b)(3)(A). The supreme court explained that “documents are prepared in anticipation of litigation when in light of the nature of the document and the factual situation in the particular case, the document can fairly be said to have been prepared or obtained because of the prospect of litigation.” See Canarelli, 136 Nev. Adv. Op. 29, at 15, 464 P.3d at 122 (quoting Wynn Resorts, 133 Nev. at 384, 399 P.3d at 348 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). But work product may be discoverable if the party seeking discovery can show “that it has substantial need for the materials to prepare its case and cannot, without undue hardship, obtain their substantial equivalent by other means.” See NRCP 26(b)(3)(A)(ii). In that regard, “[a] mere assertion of the need will not suffice.” See Canarelli, 136 Nev. Adv. Op. 29 at 16, 464 P.3d at 122-23 (quoting Wardleigh

v. Dist. Court, 111 Nev. 345, 358, 891 P.2d 1180, 1188 (1995)).

As explained above, Mr. Lubbers prepared the second group of documents after the beneficiary had accused the trustees of acting in bad faith; in fact, he had expressly characterized those allegations as “lawsuit threatened.”

Further, the beneficiary’s original petition contained adversarial allegations and required a response with legal implications. On this record, the supreme court concluded that Mr. Lubbers anticipated litigation when he prepared these notes. See id. at 16, 464 P.3d at 123. In addition, the court observed that the beneficiary attended the meeting to which these notes related, and that he could depose one of the other attendees to obtain any information he might have missed. Therefore, he did not have substantial need for the second group of documents. Since those documents were protected work product and the substantial-need exception did not apply, the district court erred in

allowing the beneficiary to retain them.

Accordingly, both the first and second groups of documents were protected from disclosure, and the supreme court issued a writ prohibiting the district court from compelling or allowing their production.

See id. at 17-18, 464 P.3d at 123.

Wes Ayres is the Discovery Commissioner for the Second Judicial District Court.

His columns are online and searchable at wcbar.org.

September 2020, Vol. 42, No. 8

5

ACROSS THE LINE

By Steven C. Gross, Porter Simon

Uber and Lyft Drivers deemed to be Employees Who's Next?

U

ber and Lyft drivers are employees, not independent contractors, according to Judge Ethan P. Schulman of the San Francisco Superior Court.

Judge Schulman issued an injunction on Monday, August 10, 2020 requiring Uber and Lyft to reclassify and treat their drivers as employees.

The lawsuit was filed on May 5, 2020, by the Attorney General of California and was joined by the City Attorneys of Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco. Together, they sought injunctive relief, restitution, and penalties. The complaint alleges that Uber and Lyft misclassified their drivers as independent contractors rather than employees in violation of California’s Assembly Bill 5 (A.B. 5), found as California Labor Code § 2750.3. A.B. 5 took effect on January 1, 2020. A.B. 5 is intended to ensure that all workers who meet the criteria of the law receive the basic rights and protections guaranteed to employees under California law. The complaint also alleged violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law. Whether Uber's and Lyft’s drivers should be classified as employees or independent contractors is governed by the “ABC Test” established by the California Supreme Court in its unanimous decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903. The ABC Test requires that a person providing labor or services for remuneration “shall be considered an employee rather than an independent contractor” unless the hiring entity establishes that the following three conditions are satisfied: “(A) The person is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of

6

September 2020, Vol. 42 No. 8

the work and in fact. (B) The person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business.

(C) The person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.” (Labor Code § 2750.3(a) (1)) Uber and Lyft argued that they are not “hiring entities” within the meaning of A.B. 5 or, alternatively, that they are exempt from the statute. Judge Schulman was not going to have any of it. He stated that such an argument “flies in the face” of Uber’s federal court lawsuit filed days after A.B. 5 was enacted asserting that its business was unfairly targeted by A.B. 5. He also pointed out that Uber and Lyft are major supporters of Proposition 22, a measure on California’s November 2020 ballot that would exempt them from A.B. 5.

With respect to their claim that they weren’t “hiring entities” Judge Schulman declared that such an argument “cannot be squared with the undisputed reality that they hire and contract with drivers."

In determining whether Uber and Lyft could demonstrate that the three conditions of the ABC Test were satisfied, Judge Schulman looked no further than the “B” prong of the test. He found that Uber and Lyft could not possibly demonstrate that the drivers are outside of the usual course of their business.

According to him, the likelihood that the Attorney General City Attorneys would prevail was so overwhelming that there was no need for him to consider the “A” and “C” prongs of the test.

Judge Schulman declared, “It’s this simple: Defendants’ drivers do not perform work that is “outside the usual course”

of their businesses. Defendants’ insistence that their businesses are “multi-sided platforms” rather than transportation companies is flatly inconsistent with the statutory provisions that govern their businesses as transportation network companies, which are defined as companies that “engage in the transportation of persons for compensation.” It also flies in the face of economic reality and common sense. And it is irreconcilable with the Supreme Court’s directive in Dynamex that California’s employee classification standard should be interpreted broadly to include all persons who can reasonably be viewed as working in the hiring entity’s business. To state the obvious, drivers are central, not tangential, to Uber and Lyft’s entire ridehailing business.”

Immediately following the ruling, Uber and Lyft expressed their intent to appeal it. I expect that by the time this article has gone to print and is read, Uber and Lyft will have filed their appeal and this particular battle will rage on.

However, Uber and Lyft are fighting this battle on thousands, yes thousands, of fronts. Uber is awaiting the outcome of an appeal pending before the Ninth Circuit in Olson v. Bacerra, an action in which Uber is challenging the constitutionality of A.B. 5. As mentioned above, Uber and Lyft are spending millions of dollars trying to convince California voters to support Proposition 22, which would classify certain app-based drivers as independent contractors. Uber and Lyft are parties to myriad other cases in state and federal courts, including claims brought under California’s Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) and thousands of arbitrations.

The stakes for Uber and Lyft couldn’t be any higher – their entire business model, i.e. - their businesses, are at risk. By treating their drivers as independent contractors, they make millions avoiding the costs associated with paying minimum wage, carrying workers’ compensation insurance and unemployment insurance, providing rest and meal periods, paid sick leave and paid family leave, including emergency sick leave and extended paid family leave under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act. On the flip side, all of Uber's and Lyft’s independent contractor drivers don’t receive those benefits. Those independent contractors also have no protection against unlawful harassment and discrimination.

Despite the lack of protections, countless independent contractor drivers support this business model and want to see it thrive. They like working independently. They want to decide for themselves when and how they will work. They want to decide how much money they make. They like not having to report to supervisors. They don’t want bosses looking over their shoulders. For them, this business model works. They see these legal actions against Uber and

Lyft as affronts to their businesses.

When the legal dust settles in California, what will happen in Nevada?

Will the resolution of countless legal battles challenging the classification of drivers as independent contractors affect the Silver State? Will a growing gig economy have the rug pulled out from underneath it? Time will tell, or will it?

Under current Nevada law, Uber's and Lyft’s independent contractor drivers are treated, well, as independent contractors. Currently, there is no push in the Legislature to change the status quo. While ideas on how to “protect” workers may be incubating, the ultimate drive for them may not come from California.

As elsewhere in the county, Nevada is experiencing a plethora of applications for unemployment benefits. Of course, this is driven by the COVID-19 pandemic and its catastrophic impacts to our economy.

Many of those who apply won’t be eligible and won’t receive benefits. Those who are independent contractors won’t qualify, at least not based on previous earnings as independent contractors.

As the economic impacts from the pandemic are felt deeper and wider by

more Nevadans, we may see a push to bring more workers within the safety net of unemployment benefits. One way to do that would be to make more of them employees and fewer independent contractors. Time will tell.

This article is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. This article contains the personal views and opinions of the author only as to California law, and does not necessarily reflect those of the Washoe County Bar Association or the Porter Simon law firm. The author makes no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the contents of this article and expressly disclaims liability for any errors and omissions in this publication.

Steven C. Gross is an attorney practicing in California and Nevada, and is a principal in the Porter Simon law firm located in Truckee, with offices in Reno and Tahoe City. He practices primarily in the areas of public agency and employment law. Steve may be reached at gross@portersimon.com or at the firm’s web site www.portersimon.com. © 2020

September 2020, Vol. 42, No. 8

7

COURTS Jury Trial Update from the Second Judicial District Court Friends: I came to you last on behalf of the Second Judicial District Court (“the District Court”) in the May issue of The Writ. I discussed both the initial triage the District Court undertook to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the actions we anticipated taking as the year progressed. At the conclusion of my article, I noted the one core function of our justice system the District Court could not conduct safely was jury trials.

Much has changed since that first article; therefore, I come to you again with an update.

Governor Steve Sisolak has issued many modifications of his initial Stay Home for Nevada directives.

The District Court has continued to monitor these changes and adapt to the new standards. The District Court has continued to be open and operational, even though our physical structures mostly remain closed to the public. Our employees continue to work primarily from home; however, some employees come to the courthouse to perform jobs which must be performed on site or because the employee prefers to be on site. This flexibility enables those who work better from the office for various reasons to be present in the building.

We have strict protocols regarding social distancing, hand-sanitizing stations, mandatory face-coverings, temperature checks, and a limit on how many people are in the building at a given time. All these restrictions are closely monitored.

Our facilities are also subject to frequent cleaning and sanitizing.

Chief Judge Scott N. Freeman (“Chief Judge Freeman”) has continued to lead us through this turbulent event.

Judges continue to conduct their court

8

September 2020, Vol. 42 No. 8

proceedings through audio-visual hearings, though some of us (myself included) are now coming into our offices to conduct business. The District Court is aware not everyone has the technical ability to appear remotely. For this reason, we have recently begun the process of allowing in-person hearings on a limited basis. If good cause exists for such a hearing, a judge can schedule the in-person hearing beginning in August.1 The Judges of the District Court continue to meet weekly. The Recovery Committee continues to work toward opening our buildings to the public we serve when necessary and to improve remote operations.

The most exciting news for the District Court is we are beginning the process of recommencing jury trials.

Chief Judge Freeman has entered a series of Administrative Orders (“AO”) incrementally vacating jury trials since March.2 In the early summer, the District Court felt our ability to attempt jury trials would develop soon. We created two jury trial committees to make suggestions to the Bench on what they felt would be best practices for future trials.3 These committees reported back to the District Court by providing two reports on July 6, 2020. The District Court reviewed their suggestions and concluded it would be important to continue the work of reinstituting jury trials in a collaborative fashion with the members of the local bar. We created a committee of the whole with almost all the members of the two initial committees. Additionally, we have added Judge Steinheimer (as our Chair), Judge Breslow, Judge Simons, and me as members. The Jury Trial Committee (“JTC”) meets every Friday at lunch.4 AO 2020-02(D) vacates all civil jury trials scheduled to begin on or before October 31, 2020. If you have a civil jury trial scheduled in this window,

please contact the judicial department to discuss re-scheduling the trial. AO 202002(D) vacated all criminal jury trials scheduled to begin before September 21, 2020. AO 2020-02(D) establishes criteria for the type of criminal jury trials we will attempt to conduct, and the number of simultaneous trials the District Court can accommodate.

Defendants who have invoked their Constitutional right to a speedy trial, their statutory right to a trial within sixty (60) days, and are in-custody at the Washoe County Jail will be given priority. Further, the District Court will conduct no more than one trial per week until we are able to confirm our ability to conduct trials in a way that meets all the safety requirements established in footnote 2. The District Court has identified several cases that may be suitable for a jury trial on September 21, 2020. There are others that will be available for the following weeks.

The recommencement of jury trials is an exciting development. It also presents numerous health and logistical issues the District Court, with the assistance of the JTC, is working through. Of principal concern is the health and safety of all persons who are involved in a jury trial.

This includes the members of the venire, the parties, the attorneys, witnesses who are required to respond to a subpoena, and our District Court staff. If we cannot conduct a trial in a reasonably safe fashion the trial must be delayed.

The JTC is reviewing numerous variables in anticipation of the September 21, 2020 trial. It has been suggested the District Court conduct follow-up screening for one hundred and fifty (150) previously qualified venire members.

These are people who were ready to be called to service prior to the outbreak of COVID-19. The District Court is sending these individuals a supplemental

questionnaire to gauge whether they can, or would, be willing to come in and serve.

Chief Judge Freeman will be sending the potential venire members a letter with the supplemental questionnaire stressing the importance of jury service, and the precautions the District Court is taking to reasonably protect their safety as they access the courthouse. The JTC is evaluating the feasibility of using an alternate location to 75 Court Street for the jury trial. This may enhance our ability to call more citizens at one time to participate in the voir dire process.

Finally, the JTC has created a public outreach sub-committee. The purpose of the sub-committee is to inform the public the steps the District Court is taking to protect their safety and encourage them to come and serve as jurors.

The resumption of jury trials is truly a work in progress. The District Court would like to express our appreciation to all the members of the JTC who have provided their time and insight into this process. We will strive for the resumption of jury trials on September 21, 2020; however, we are cognizant of the fact many of the variables associated with this date are out of our control. The overriding focus will always be safety and following the guidance from our healthcare professionals. The JTC would appreciate any insight you may care to offer.

for Disease Control (“CDC”), National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (“NCJFCJ”), and Washoe County Health District (“WCHD”) guidelines.

3 There was a criminal committee and a civil committee. The two committees were comprised of representatives from firms and agencies who appear in the District Court.

4 The JTC members are John Arrascada, Marilee Cate, Edward Lemons, Joseph Goodnight, Evelyn Grosenick, Kaili Lane (Jury Commissioner), Jacey Prupas, Mark Simons, Matthew Sharp, Orrin Johnson, Marc Picker, Roger Doyle, Sarah Ferguson, Stephen Osborne, Deputy Kristin Vietti (Washoe County Sheriff’s Office), William Jeanney, Julie Wise (Assistant Court Administrator) and Zach Young.

Stay Safe. Stay well.

Elliott A. Sattler District Judge Second Judicial District Court These in-person hearings are the significant exception to the District Court’s preference for simultaneous audio-visual hearings conducted remotely for all participants. The in-person hearing requires approval of the assigned Judge, and all parties who appear in the building must meet stringent safety parameters.

2 All Administrative Orders can be found on the District Court’s website at www. washoecourts.com. The AO addressing the continuance of jury trials are AO 2020-2 (Mar. 16, 2020); AO 2020-02(A) (Apr. 9, 2020); AO 2020-02(C) (June 11, 2020); and AO 2020-02(D) (July 24, 2020). The AO were entered because it was determined the District Court could not safely comply with the Stay Home for Nevada, Centers 1

September 2020, Vol. 42, No. 8

9

Washoe County Bar Association Releases 2020 Judicial Performance Survey Results WCBA conducted its thirteenth version of the Judicial Performance Survey. The Bar created and conducted the first Judicial Performance Survey in 1994 and has conducted the survey every two years since that time.

Patricia Halstead, a former president of the Washoe County Bar Association, served as the Chair of the Survey, and once again the survey was conducted by BallotBoxOnline.

We would like to thank the attorneys who participated in the survey. WCBA is grateful for the services of Jim Proctor and Andy Robinson at Meridian Advantage for compiling the data to be reported to the judges and to the public through the media. Meridian Advantage prepares confidential reports for each judge that include an individual scoring sheet with the confidential comments for that particular judge.

WASHOE COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION JUDICIAL SURVEY 2020

Performance Score Average

10

Should this judge be retained?

Yes

No

Supreme Court Justice Elissa Cadish Justice Mark Gibbons Justice James Hardesty Justice Ron Parraguirre Justice Kristine Pickering Justice Abbi Silver Justice Lidia Stiglich

-

85.2% 88.5% 86.7% 90.2% 70.0% 92.8%

14.8% 11.5% 13.3% 9.8% 30.0% 7.2%

Nevada Court of Appeals Judge Bonnie Bulla Judge Michael Gibbons Judge Jerome Tao

-

68.2% 84.8% 47.6%

31.8% 15.2% 52.4%

General Jurisdiction Judge Kathleen Drakulich (Dept. 1) Judge Jerry Polaha (Dept. 3) Judge Connie Steinheimer (Dept. 4) Judge Lynne Simons (Dept. 6) Judge Egan Walker (Dept. 7) Judge Barry Breslow (Dept. 8) Judge Scott Freeman (Dept. 9) Judge Elliott Sattler (Dept. 10) Judge David Hardy (Dept. 15)

4.5 4.1 3.9 3.9 4.1 3.8 4.2 4.6 4.2

95.5% 86.9% 75.5% 80.6% 82.5% 70.9% 92.2% 97.2% 87.9%

4.5% 13.1% 24.5% 19.4% 17.5% 29.1% 7.8% 2.8% 12.1%

Family Division Judge Dixie Grossman (Dept. 2) Judge Cynthia Lu (Dept. 5) Judge Chuck Weller (Dept. 11) Judge Sandra Unsworth (Dept. 12) Judge Bridget Robb (Dept. 13) Judge Tamatha Schreinert (Dept. 14)

4.7 4.1 2.8 4.4 3.9 4.5

97.8% 88.1% 94.4% 78.6% 100.0%

2.2% 11.9% 5.6% 21.4% 0.0%

September 2020, Vol. 42 No. 8

WASHOE COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION JUDICIAL SURVEY 2020

Performance Score Average

Should this judge be retained?

Yes

No

Court Commissioners Discovery Commissioner Wesley Ayres Probate Commissioner Edmund Gorman, Jr.

4.7 4.5

-

-

Court Masters - Family Division Amy Banales Paige Dollinger Alison Testa Greg Shannon

4.4 4.5 4.0 3.2

-

-

Justice of the Peace – Washoe County Judge E. Alan Tiras (Incline Village) Judge Derek Dreilling, (Reno Dept. 1) Judge Pete Sferrazza, (Reno Dept. 2) Judge Ryan Sullivan, (Reno Dept. 3) Judge Scott Pearson, (Reno, Dept. 4) Judge David Clifton, (Reno, Dept. 5) Judge Pierre Hascheff, (Reno, Dept. 6) Judge Chris Wilson, (Sparks, Dept. 1) Judge Kevin Higgins, (Sparks, Dept. 2) Judge Jessica Longley, (Sparks, Dept. 3) Judge Terry Graham, (Wadsworth)

4.2 4.3 2.8 4.1 4.4 4.2 4.2 3.8 4.2 4.3 4.0

69.2% 100.0% 32.4% 76.2% 97.3% 86.8% 87.8% 74.1% 94.1% 89.5% 87.5%

30.8% 0.0% 67.6% 23.8% 2.7% 13.2% 12.2% 25.9% 5.9% 10.5% 12.5%

Municipal Courts – Washoe County Judge Gene Drakulich (Reno, Dept. 1) Judge Shelly O’Neill (Reno, Dept. 2) Judge Dorothy Nash Holmes (Reno, Dept. 3) Judge Tammy Riggs (Reno, Dept. 4) Judge Barbara McCarthy (Sparks, Dept. 1) Judge James Spoo (Sparks, Dept. 2)

4.2 4.2 4.2 4.4 4.5 3.9

88.9% 81.0% 76.9% 84.6% 100.0% 80.0%

11.1% 19.0% 23.1% 15.4% 0.0% 20.0%

September 2020, Vol. 42, No. 8

11

APPELLATE BRIEFS

By Adam Hosmer-Henner, McDonald Carano

A PICTURE (IN A DISSENT) IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS

I

n a previous article in June 2020, I predicted that the Nevada Supreme Court would issue an affirmance in Rock Springs Mesquite II Owners’ Association v. Raridan, Case No. 77085, which was an appeal that had been pending since August 15, 2019.

The next week after that prediction was written and submitted for publication, the Nevada Supreme Court issued an opinion reversing the district court.

Rock Springs Mesquite II Owners' Ass'n v. Raridan, 136 Nev. Adv. Op. 28, 464 P.3d 104 (2020). Per the apocryphal saying, “predictions are difficult, especially about the future.” There is some solace in that Raridan was a 2-1 split decision with Justice Silver writing a dissenting opinion. Justice Silver’s dissent was especially notable in that it appended three photographs from the record to illustrate the core of the dissent’s position.

12

September 2020, Vol. 42 No. 8

Raridan is a claim preclusion opinion about two cases and two walls: a retaining wall owned by appellant and an adjacent masonry wall owned by the respondents and their predecessors. Id. at 106. In the first case, appellant sued for damage to its retaining wall and the jury rendered a verdict against appellant. Id. In the second underlying case, appellant sued for declaratory relief, seeking to disclaim any liability to respondents caused by appellant’s repair or removal of the retaining wall. Id. The district court dismissed appellant’s declaratory relief claim in the second case on the basis of claim preclusion. The majority reversed the district court, holding that the declaratory relief claim was not and could not have been brought in the first case. Id. at 109. Dissenting, Justice Silver wrote that it was “disingenuous to say” that the declaratory relief claim “could not be brought” in the first case as the

second case was “just a second attempt by [appellant] to avoid paying the costs involved in repairing its retaining wall.”

Id. at 110 (Silver, J., dissenting). As an exclamation point, the dissent included three photographs showing the two walls crumbling on top of one another.

Id. (remarking that the photographs showed that “any attempt by [appellant] to repair its retaining wall would likely cause damage to the [respondents’] wall.”)

The Supreme Court has issued a series of claim preclusion opinions beginning with Five Star Capital Corp. v. Ruby, 124 Nev. 1048, 1056–57, 194 P.3d 709, 714 (2008). Five Star set forth the now familiar three-part test for claim preclusion: “(1) the parties or their privies are the same, (2) the final judgment is valid, and (3) the subsequent action is based on the same claims or any part of them that were or could have been brought in the

first case.” 124 Nev. at 1054. Then in Boca Park Martketplace Syndications Grp., LLC v. Higco, Inc., the Court established an exception to claim preclusion when the “original action between the parties sought only declaratory relief ” and so “claim preclusion did not bar the second action.” 133 Nev. 923, 929, 407 P.3d 761, 766 (2017) (analyzing NRS Chapter 30).

Unlike Boca Park, the Raridan decision did not involve an extensive analysis of the nature of declaratory relief or NRS 30.050. Instead, the decision in Raridan turned on whether the declaratory relief claim in the second case was or could have been brought in the first case, which is the third part of the Five Star analysis.

Raridan, 464 P.3d at 107.

The majority in Raridan concluded that the two cases were based on different facts as the first case involved whether there was liability for damage to the retaining wall and the second case involved future impacts to the masonry wall from repairing the already-damaged retaining wall. Id. (admitting, however, that the damage to the retaining wall “contributed” to the decision to “repair or remove the wall and to seek a judicial determination on its lateral support obligation.”) Additionally, because appellant “alleged that the wall continued

to degrade since the conclusion of Case 1,” the majority found that the declaratory relief claim could not have been brought in the first action. Id. The third part of the Five Star analysis is typically a fact-dependent inquiry and the majority cited to Tahoe-Sierra Pres.

Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency for the proposition that “identity of claims exists when two suits arise from the same transactional nucleus of facts.” 322 F.3d 1064, 1078 (9th Cir. 2003). However, there were also other Ninth Circuit decisions expanding on this framework. See Howard v. City of Coos Bay, 871 F.3d 1032, 1039 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding that the “inquiry about the same transactional nucleus of facts is the same inquiry as whether the claim could have been brought in the previous action.”) (internal quotations omitted, emphasis in original); see also Turtle Island Restoration Network v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 673 F.3d 914, 918 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Whether two suits arise out of the same transactional nucleus depends upon whether they are related to the same set of facts and whether they could conveniently be tried together.”) (internal quotations omitted).

The dissent forcefully argued that it was “obvious from the record” that the

two cases involved the same nucleus of facts as the appellant admitted “it could not repair its retaining wall without causing damage” to the other wall “[b]ecause that is the nature of a retaining wall.” Raridan, 464 P.3d at 110. The use of the photographs underscored the dissent’s practical approach and the grounding of its analysis in the real world. Regardless of the formal or technical claims asserted in the two different cases, the dissent concluded that claim preclusion was satisfied as the cases could have been conveniently tried together. The effect of the retaining wall on the masonry wall could have been tried at the same time as the effect of the masonry wall on the retaining wall, as evidenced by the photographs showing that the two walls were physically adjacent and conceptually part of the same transactional nucleus.

Adam Hosmer-Henner is a partner at McDonald Carano and practices primarily in the areas of commercial litigation and appellate law. He regularly handles appeals and writ proceedings at the Nevada Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

September 2020, Vol. 42, No. 8

13

l AW LIBRARY/ PRO BONO CORNER Looking for End of Year CLE Credits?

Did you know that volunteering for Lawyer in the Library now qualifies for Continuing Legal Education (CLE) credit? For every three hours you volunteer for Lawyer in the Library you can earn one hour of General CLE credit, for a maximum of 4 credits earned per year. Volunteering for Lawyer in the Library is easier than ever now that our popular program has gone virtual using Zoom. The current health crisis has forced all of us to adapt our services to ensure the legal needs of the community are addressed, and the Law Library is no different. As the Law Library evolved to meet these new challenges, perhaps the most successful adaptation was to take our program, Lawyer in the Library, virtual using Zoom.

How does volunteering virtually work?

The Law Library staff handles all the technical aspects of the Zoom meeting; from scheduling to controlling the flow of participants. The day prior to the program, Law Library staff will email you a list of participants for a conflict check, as well as the invitation to the Zoom meeting. Once the Zoom meeting begins, Law Library staff use the breakout room feature in Zoom to create a separate space for you and the patron(s) to speak privately. Prior to participants entering that breakout room, Law Library staff make sure there are no audio or video issues to ensure a smooth virtual session.

How much time do I need to commit?

Utilizing Zoom to host our Lawyer in the Library program affords the Law Library the ability to accommodate our volunteers’ schedules. We hold Family Law every Tuesday and General Law every Wednesday. Probate Law is held on the first and third Wednesday of the month. All of these programs can be held at any time between noon and 6 PM, depending on our volunteers’ availability. With the virtual format, we

14

September 2020, Vol. 42 No. 8

allocate 15 minutes for each participant, meaning volunteers will see four participants for every hour to which they commit. The amount of time you choose to commit is up to you; the most common length is an hour and a half.

What are the benefits of volunteering and the virtual format?

By volunteering for Lawyer in the Library you can now earn CLE credits.

The Supreme Court of the State of Nevada amended Rule 210, so for every three hours you volunteer for pro bono service, you earn one General CLE credit, for a maximum of four hours of CLE credit a year. Additionally, Law Library staff track the hours you volunteer and submit them to the Nevada CLE Board on your behalf.

With Zoom, volunteers save time, as they no longer have to physically come down to the courthouse. This virtual format allows volunteers and participants to partake in Lawyer in the Library from the comforts of their own space, returning to their business immediately after the program ends.

The Supreme Court of the State of Nevada stated in November of 2019: “Educational value from pro bono cases derives from regularly taking lawyers outside of their comfort zones, developing new expertise while simultaneously addressing the critical needs of vulnerable Nevadans with their civil cases.” In the current health crisis, when direct access to legal assistance is limited, the need for programs like Lawyer in the Library have become even more critical. Join the Law Library as we try to ensure the legal needs of the community are addressed.

Please contact Sarah Bates at sarah. bates@washoecourts.us or (775) 3283254 if you would like to volunteer using our new virtual format or for further information regarding the Lawyer in the Library program.

Thank you to all our August Lawyer in the Library volunteers! Thank you to the Northern Nevada Women Lawyers Association for helping to recruit volunteers for the month of August.

Volunteers in bold have volunteered more than once this year.

Kendra G. Bertschy Elizabeth M. Bittner Audrey P. Damonte Katherine L. Hoffman Kendra J. Jepsen Bronagh M. Kelly Jeremy L. Krenek Colton T. Loretz Laury M. Macauley Jennifer A. Mayhew Samantha J. Reviglio Jennifer M. Richards Michael V. N. Roth Kevin P. Ryan Gary R. Silverman Janet E. Traut Jill K. Whitbeck CLE for Pro Bono Now Available in Nevada A great way to earn CLE is through pro bono service. Now, Nevada attorneys can earn one CLE credit for every three hours of uncompensated pro bono service.

You can earn up to four CLE credits each year by taking pro bono cases or participating in an Ask-A-Lawyer or Lawyer in the Library program sponsored by a legal aid organization, court or other governmental or non-profit pro bono program. The programs must be recognized by the Nevada Supreme Court Access to Justice Commission, such as the Nevada Attorney General’s Military Pro Bono Program. The legal aid or court program you select will track your service all year and report it to the Nevada Board of Continuing Legal Education in December. To start earning CLE through pro bono service, reach out to your Legal Service Provider.

MILLENNIAL MINUTE

By Kelci Binau, McDonald Carano As the Years Fly By: Career Advancement

Y

ou made it through your first, perhaps even your second or third year as an associate attorney. You navigated and, in some cases, avoided office politics.

You volunteered for as many projects in as many practice areas as you could get your hands on and handle. You tried to find a balance between being available to receive work from any partner who needed it and being available for projects in the practice areas in which you were most interested.

Each year as an associate brings with it new challenges, new responsibilities and new lessons. If there is one thing I have learned while being an associate it is to remain flexible and go with the flow.

As a junior associate, despite the fact that you may have an interest in or have a general practice area, you are the goto for last minute, partner requests. In other words, although you may consider yourself a transactional associate, be sure to make yourself available to litigation partners when they reach out for a research or drafting project. Regardless of the fact that this may not be your specialty, or you may never have drafted the requested pleading before, approach each request as an opportunity for growth.

While you want to work towards narrowing and building upon your skills and knowledge in specific practice areas, it is also important to develop a diverse skillset and a rapport with each attorney in your firm. Although it is not uncommon for certain partners to become comfortable with and prefer to work with certain associates, keep in mind that you work for the partnership, not specific partners. While it is nice and oftentimes necessary to have a core

group of partners from whom you receive a reliable and steady workflow, resist the urge to put all of your eggs into one basket. Reach out to partners with whom you have never worked or haven’t worked with in awhile and remind them that you are available to assist when needed.

Along with a diverse skill set, be sure to stay up-to-date with newly promulgated and amended laws. If nothing else, COVID-19 has provided quite the landscape to do just that.

Do the research, volunteer and make it known that you are the resident associate that partners can refer clients to for COVID related matters and legal updates.

Take the initiative to go beyond merely completing the requested assignment. Recommend the next steps and provide a list of the risks you think should be discussed with the client.

Don’t simply hand in the draft term sheet, include a transmittal letter also.

You will demonstrate to the partner that you understand the brief, care about the client and are invested in the matter.

Continue to build upon your knowledge of the business behind running the law firm. As a junior associate, it is important to keep apprised of law firm economics.

Schedule time with your mentor to review your billable hours and how to best track whether your clients are paying their fees or schedule a meeting with the firm’s marketing department to create a plan for how to develop clients.

While you should continue to focus on work product, working to advance business development skills, best practices and your understanding of the

firm’s financial goals will only put you one step ahead on your journey towards partnership.

Remember, be nice. We are all busy and oftentimes wonder where we will find time to finish everything, we have on our to-do list. Keep in mind, the partner or client you are too busy for or the assistant you are short with may not be there for you the next time you are looking for a project or need a favor.

Offer to assist other associates or assist a partner on a non-billable matter. You never know when the time may come when you need help. Law firms are like a machine, and machines always operate more smoothly when well-oiled.

Importantly, believe in yourself and learn to trust your intuition. While all attorneys need a “gut check” here and there, take charge and manage overly, selfcritical thoughts. Remember, managing your professional development is not anyone’s responsibility but yours. Being an advocate for yourself and your career starts with believing in your value, worth and competence.

Last but not least, remember, we are all in the same boat. The partners at the firm ventured and helped to clear some of the same paths you are on. The assistants and staff have spent years, in some cases decades, perfecting their craft and learning the same legal landscape you are beginning to learn and understand. When in doubt, ask for help and breathe, we are all in this together.

Kelci Binau is an Associate with McDonald Carano in the firm's Business Entities & Transactions and Real Estate & Land Use practice groups.

September 2020, Vol. 42, No. 8

15

P

E

O

P

L

E

GENO MENCHETTI Geno Menchetti passed away on June 18, 2020 at the age of 75, from complications of an auto accident.

Between the Lake Tahoe Shakespeare Festival, the Incline Village Bay Township Court, the fire protection district, and all the nonprofits he helped, he has left a lasting legacy.

Menchetti was commuting from school in Sacramento to his job wth the Nevada Attorney General's office in Carson City, when he made a wrong turn in Truckee and ended up in Incline Village and fell in love with the area.

Menchetti helped to establish the Incline Village Bar Association and the Incline Village Crystal Bay Township Court.

Menchetti is survived by his sister, Joan Gage of NY, three nieces Kin Keill, Jill Bartlett and Tracy Burger, two nephews Greg Gage and Michael Jaeger and many great-nieces and nephews and his long-time girlfriend, Judy Heinbaugh of Incline Village.

Geno requested no service be held and a celebration of life will be announced at a later date. In lieu of flowers, donations to the Geno Fund Tahoe can made to the Rotary Club of Tahoe-Incline, P.O.Box 4990, Incline Village, NV 89451 or the Lake Tahoe Shakespeare Festival, 948 Incline Way, Incline Village, NV 89451.

NEWS RELEASE

August 12, 2020

Contact: Katherine Rodriguez, (415) 355-8800

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Mike K. Nakagawa of the District of Nevada Reappointed SAN FRANCISCO – Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit have approved the reappointment of U.S. Bankruptcy Mike K. Nakagawa of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada. He will begin his second 14-year term on September 1, 2020.

Judge Nakagawa, who maintains chambers in Las Vegas, has served on the bankruptcy court for the District of Nevada since 2006. Prior to his appointment to the bench, he practiced bankruptcy and business law in Northern California for more than 20 years. Judge Nakagawa taught bankruptcy law and business reorganization at McGeorge School of Law, and also served on the Sacramento County Civil Service Commission for more than 10 years. He served as a bankruptcy resolution advocate for both the U.S. District Court and U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California. Judge Nakagawa also provided a variety of pro bono services through the voluntary Legal Services Program for Sacramento County.

Born in Modesto, California, Judge Nakagawa received his bachelor’s degree from the University of the Pacific in Stockton, California, in 1977. He received his juris doctorate from the University of California, Davis, in 1980. While in law school, Judge Nakagawa was a member of the law review as well as a tutor in civil procedure. Following law school, he had an extended judicial clerkship with Chief Judge Philip C. Wilkins of the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of California from 1980 to 1984.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada, which is authorized 1 temporary and 3 bankruptcy judgeships, reported 10,046 new filings in 2019, up 6.8 percent from 2018.

Bankruptcy judges serve a 14-year renewable term and handle all bankruptcy-related matters under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit have statutory responsibility for selecting and appointing bankruptcy judges in the nine western states that comprise the Ninth Circuit. The court uses a comprehensive merit selection process for the initial appointment. For reappointments, the court conducts a performance review and considers public comment evaluations. # # #

STOP THE BLEEDING Local MEDIATION SERVICES at a Reasonable Rate

 AAA Trained Mediator.  40 Years of experience in Commercial Litigation and Employment Litigation with numerous Jury Trials and hundreds of Judge Trials representing both Plaintiffs and Defendants.  Has conducted over 40 mediations as a mediator, both public and private, and has participated in over 50 mediations as an attorney for a party.

If you would like to see if you can resolve your dispute at a reasonable cost, please give me a call: Dan C. Bowen BOWEN LAW 5595 Kietzke, # 114, Reno, NV 89511 (775) 843-3935

16

September 2020, Vol. 42 No. 8

E

v

e

n

t

s

See wcbar.org/events for details and registration SAVE THE DATE October 14, 2020

State of the U.S. District Court with Chief Judge Du 12:00 p.m. - Zoom 1 Hour CLE Credit

Judge Miranda Du will explain changes to court operations in response to COVID-19 risks, including building entry protocols, in-person court proceedings, jury trials and Clerk's Office operations.

Free to WCBA Members - RSVP to gina@wcbar.org Non-members please register online at www.wcbar.org/events

September 2020, Vol. 42, No. 8

17

PRSRT STD U.S. POSTAGE P A I D RENO, NEVADA PERMIT NO. 418

The POST OFFICE BOX 1548, RENO, NEVADA 89505

change service requested

Classifieds Please visit www.wcbar.org/classifieds for full job descriptions & deadlines.

EMPLOYMENT LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP (LBBS) Reno Tahoe office is actively searching for an attorney with 5-8 years experience to join our Commercial and Professional Liability practice. Candidates must have experience in commercial litigation of business disputes as well as legal malpractice, medical malpractice and insurance agent/broker, directors/ officers liability. For details, please visit www.wcbar.org/classified-ads/.

LAW OFFICES OF THORNDAL ARMSTRONG with offices in Reno and Las Vegas, currently has an associate position available in its Reno office to a qualified candidate with interest in a diverse civil defense practice. Successful candidates will be Nevada bar passed and have strong research and writing skills and academic background. Please send resume, writing sample and cover letter to kfp@thorndal.com. All inquires will remain confidential.

BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA is currently seeking an Associate Attorney to join our firm in our Civil Litigation practice group in our Reno office. An ideal candidate must have a minimum of 3 years of litigation experience as an attorney. The candidate must be motivated, reliable and able to work independently for a professional firm. This opportunity is ideal for a person ready to take their career to the next level with a highly reputable and multi-state firm. We offer autonomy to manage your own caseload under the supervision

of either a senior attorney or partner.

For details, please visit www.wcbar.org/ classified-ads/. To apply, please email your resume and cover letter to Katie Bremer at kabremer@bremerwhyte LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP (LBBS) The Reno Tahoe office has an immediate opening for a full time General Office Clerk.

This position will perform operational and clerical duties under general supervision and will be responsible for copying, scanning, production of documents, order and process medical record request, assist with office supply inventory, assist in opening and closing of client file, reception backup, assist with in and outgoing mail and general clerical support to the office. Provide facilities support including deliveries for the office

SERVICES

OFFICE SPACE PROFESSIONAL OFFICES AVAILABLE: Midtown, across from the Federal Courthouse, conference room, parking, kitchen and other amenities included. Call 775.742.9509 ONE PERSON LAW OFFICE, Midtown (105 Mt. Rose St.) Furnished, $750/mo, includes utilities, parking. Available now. Call 324-6447 SHARE OFFICE SPACE: Mostly retired attorney looking for another similarly situated to share my single office at 63 Keystone Ave. Fully furnished. Kitchen, conference room. Contact Sherry. 775.323.1469 or attorney.sherry.bowers@gmail.com.

The publication of any advertisement should not be deemed as an endorsement by the Washoe County Bar Association nor should any previously published advertisement be considered as precedent for future publication of the same or similar content.

LEGAL RESEARCH & WRITING 20+ years experience at the Nevada Supreme Court, now available on a freelance basis for research and writing projects. Briefs, petitions, motions, etc. tlindeman@ appellatesolution.com 775-297-4877.

WORKERS COMP REFFERRALS?: Have you been contacted by someone injured on the job, but you do not handle worker’s compensation matters?

If so, we offer referral fees per NRPC 1.5(e). Please contact Robert Kilby 775.337.6670 or robert@kilbylaw.net

CLASSIFIEDS

Your classifed ad appears in The Writ and online at wcbar. org./classifieds. Updated regularly. Member rate is $25 for first 30 words and $.50 for each additional word. Nonmember rates: $40 for first 30 words and $1.00 for each additional word. Fax to 775-324-6116 or e-mail gina@ wcbar.org.