IAAL, but sometimes offering legal advice includes, “look, you could do it this way – and there’s a good reason to do it this way – but it might not be the best idea.” This seems like one of those times.
4 Likes
Wonderful, this thing is
Stop; you’re being too logical.
9 Likes
It’s not even that. Assume the hotel knew for sure he brought in one firearm during his stay. Ok, it’s unusual but it happens; they’ll take note of it to cover their arses but not follow up aggressively.
However, if they also see a series of other heavy bags being carted in for the “guest with the gun” a competent casino hotel is going to get … curious. Even if there are other innocent and not-so-innocent possibilities (booze, audiovisual equipment, blocks of cocaine, etc) the initial presence of a weapon in the room will prompt some discreet follow-up as to what else he might be bringing in.
Due to the nature of LV casino hotels, if this is the case they can’t just shrug and play dumb.
8 Likes
8 Likes
A failing of the corporate mindset is that once lawyers are consulted, their advice is doomed to be followed. PR, your marketing people and your customers could be screaming in your face that what you are going to do is the stupidest thing in the history of free enterprise, a disaster on an untellable scale. But you’ve paid for the legal advice so by goodness you’re gonna follow it!
As a corporate lawyer, my response to this is: HAHAHAHAHAHA. Admittedly, it’s true that some clients will do everything you advise.
But many other clients will sit, stone-faced and nodding, while you spend half an hour explaining exactly why what they’re thinking of doing is a very bad idea, and then go ahead and do it anyway. Best case, it’s because they have considered your advice in light of their business objectives, their PR strategy, their risk appetite and a host of other considerations and have made a thoughtful decision on how to move forward. I love those clients, even when they don’t listen to me. Worst case, it’s because of ego, or a misunderstanding of the law based on something they saw on a TV show, or because taking a certain action fits in to a VPs personal career aspirations…
In this case, I would bet money that this was done against the advice of legal counsel. (Of course, lawyers were surely involved anyway and I’d be happy to argue about whether it’s ethical or appropriate for lawyers to assist clients in filing lawsuits that they personally think are bad ideas, but this probably isn’t the thread for that).
9 Likes
I believe this is called “throwing worse money after bad.”
1 Like
What’s Barzini doing there? I hate that damn Barzini.
1 Like
You guys don’t understand how many firearms are carried into Las Vegas hotels by patrons. It is not an unusual event. Las Vegas is awash in firearms, in a state awash in firearms. Open carry is legal, concealed carry is legal with a permit. There are machine gun ranges right in downtown. The world’s largest gun show is held there every year, and typically draws around 60,000 attendees, not to mention all the exhibitors. Both groups travel with an arsenal. 2018 was especially thick with guns, on account of how worried everyone was about another mass shooting.
7 Likes
You beat me to it!
What damage does losing rights cause anyhow?
2 Likes
Well, no, it really isn’t barratry. This is a probably a stupid public relations move, but it most definitely isn’t legally groundless or harassment. I haven’t seen the complaint, but it’s almost certainly the same issue that would have to be decided in any of the suits against them. The only real difference is that this is seeking resolution of the question in one proceeding in federal court rather than in several different state courts that would then have to be reconciled in the appellate courts.
Again, this is stupid and callous from a PR perspective, but it IS a question that has to be decided in one venue or another.
3 Likes
it’s definitely NOT harassment?
We disagree.
No, it definitely isn’t in the sense that the definition of “barratry” is using. This isn’t repeated or persistent litigation or a vexatious litigant, this isn’t a settled legal issue wasting the court or the parties’ time, and it isn’t a manufactured dispute. These folks have a genuine legal dispute that the victims are seeking to resolve in one court, and Mandalay is seeking to resolve in another. Mandalay looks callous in filing this action, but being callous or tone deaf is not the same thing as harassment, much less barratry.
I don’t know enough one way or the other to have any opinion about whether the hotel was negligent in some way or whether this safe harbor provision covers them, so I want to be clear I’m not arguing what any outcome should be. But the dispute itself is legit.
6 Likes
+1. When I worked for [ISP] pre-9/11, one of the items that saw flight time was a pelican case, which we had configured to hold spare line cards and a tool bag; it is, in fact, Pelican’s largest rifle case.
as far as being able to predict something like that happening? I can’t give odd either way, but trusting technology to give a reliable and accurate indicator is IMHO an unwise idea.
You betcha!!! The optics of this clearly out weigh the legalisms.
Whenever you think we’re running out of ammunition for another round of lawyer jokes…
