Las Vegas Sun

No, you just displayed your own ignorance. I just find it amusing at how the people who scream and yell about how terrible lawyers supposedly are scream *for* a lawyer when they're arrested or involved in an accident. No worries--when you're arrested, with or without cause, me or someone like me will do our best to get you released from custody regardless of whether we like you or not. In contrast, under your logic, there is nothing wrong with a doctor refusing to provide medical services to someone whose race, color, creed or political beliefs they don't like.

Buzz: You should investigate before you speak. Like a lot of lawyers, I do a substantial amount of court-appointed work, so I have no say on whom the judge appoints me to represent absent an ethical conflict--which is narrowly defined as representing a client when that representation would hurt another client. Similarly, attorneys are expected to (and do) perform pro bono services for the needy every year---in sharp contrast to doctors, who have no such aspirational or mandatory requirement. Look beyond your sound-bite stereotypes and you might learn something.

A license to practice medicine, like a license to practice law, is granted primarily to benefit the public rather than the professional. In my own practice, I have zealously represented persons whose world view is 180 (or 360) degrees apart from my own, so it's frankly offensive to me that doctors would seek to limit the provision of medical services to patients whom might otherwise qualify for them.

It's common practice in most settlement agreements to include a confidentiality clause--i.e. "Keep your mouth shut regarding the settlement or you open yourself up to a new lawsuit from the guys you just sued". Ideally, that wasn't in play in this case--because if it was, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Roberts may have new problems on the horizon by disclosing the details of the settlement.

Methinks County Risk Management doth protest too much. Ms. Valentine apparently has zero issues with the constantly malfunctioning elevators in the RJC (which *do* have a material impact on life and limb, since it's not uncommon for the marshals to have to remove someone on a stretcher due to a medical emergency), but now one event which probably would have exposed the county to (at best) a worker's compensation claim given the volunteer's status as a county employee causes this level of uproar?

Jfnance32--regarding your missive that "The lonnie left is soooooo nutty" I have only this to add: At least we can spell. :)

I'm frankly disgusted by the virtrol expressed by some of the people commenting on this story. Ms. Navajo made a terrible mistake. She then--against the direct advice of her attorney--took full responsibility for her mistake even though that could have exposed her to a death sentence. Bear in mind that when she made her statements to the police, she wasn't even considered a suspect in this case--and instead, the police were looking seriously at the decedent's boyfriend. For the record, in my book it takes a lot more ovaries to confess to the police to prevent an innocent person from going to jail than it does to place insulting comments on a blog. Ms. Navajo served this country honorably and well for almost two decades and I'd feel far safer with her in this community than junjun, "GOD" and jfnace32.

While it's true that NV does not impose a tax on business profits, it *does* tax businesses based on the wages they pay each quarter, so the implication that non-gaming businesses are getting a free ride is respectfully incorrect.

Although I can't say I knew Mr. Waterman well, I was always glad to have the opportunity to watch him in action in court. Given that he practiced law for three years longer than I've been alive, I am thankful that I was able to see him as a role model for how an attorney ought to act. My thoughts and prayers go out to his wife and family during this tough time. While it may be of small comfort, I--and I think scores of other attorneys and courthouse personnel--will never forget him.

Junjun, I'm a bit confused by your comment on this story. No lawyer had anything to do with the defective design and/or shoddy construction (depending on whom you believe) of the RJC, let alone that the basement plumbing was apparently installed backwards (one courthouse theory for the smell on the lower level). Instead, we are the only hope the county has to actually hold AF Construction and/or the designers of the RJC accountable for their acts. Simply put, we're part of the solution, not part of the problem.