peter wrote on February 10, 2008 11:33 AM: I was at a lunch appointment one day where i heard this guy say he was longer a rock-star and had become a sex symbol. i've ben engaged incases with his lawyers who collude with doctors and run up bills for procedures the client doesn't even know he is getting, and falsify evidence. more than likely nothing will happen to him, because the nevada bar doesn't discipline anyone. if judges can embezzle, take bribes, commit sexual misconduct and still retain the bench, what makes anyone think mr. lerner will even be reprimanded?

2zero wrote on February 08, 2008 02:24 PM: I understand that Glen made the comment that he has been "living like a rock star". Is his sabbatical really detox? Give the man a break and pick on Paris for a change......

douglas wrote on February 08, 2008 11:47 AM: apparently the reptile did lead his pool cleaner to believe that he was representing him.

then giving the finger to that defendant and the court exposes the reptile's honor.

the yellow pages and tv ads are thick with lawyers. why would anyone chance being represented by a dishonest lawyer ?

kinda like getting bit by a dog. only an idiot would try to pet that same dog twice.

oldlawdawg wrote on February 08, 2008 11:37 AM: Why does the RJ insist upon such slanted reporting on Glen Lerner's alleged failure to appear for a murder trial when the public record,available to the RJ and everybody else,makes it absolutely clear Glen Lerner was NOT Lino's attorney of record or lead trial attorney,and the court recognized a Mr. Arnold as Lino's attorney of record because Arnold not only WAS Lino's attorney of record,but ADMITTED to being Lino's attrorney of record. Lerner only got drug into this because he was involved in the plea negotiations,but that does NOT in any manner obligate him to try the murder case. Lawyers can represent a client in many roles without becoming attorney of record,and just because Lerner allegedly told a prosecutor over the phone that he was going to try the case does not mean that he is,in fact,going to do so,and it certainly does not make him attorney of record or lead trial counsel. Aside from the alleged telephone statement to the prosecutor,everything else to do with Mr. Lerner comes from the mouth of Arnold,Lino's attorney of record who tried unsuccessfully to withdraw as counsel on the eve of trial due to alleged "differences" with his client, Lino. Indeed, Arnold did not even mention Lerner until after the Judge denied his motion to withdraw, and Arnold began desperatly throwing anything out at the judge in hopes of getting out of the case. BUT NOWHERE DID GLEN LERNER EVER FILE A DOCUMENT INTO THE RECORD OR ENTER AN APPEARANCE ON THE RECORD,AND, AS THE TITLE IMPLIES,ONE CANNOT BE AN ATTORNEY "OF RECORD" UNLESS ONE HAS APPEARED OR FILED PAPERS ON BEHALF OF THE CLIENT ON THE RECORD. While the RJ incorrectly stated that Judge Leavitt chastised Lerner for failing to appear,the record is clear she was chastising Arnold for not appearing,NOT LERNER.

Russ wrote on February 08, 2008 10:09 AM: DAVID, DAVID, as someone who has to defend against Mr. Wonderfuls lawsuits I will defend this editorial any day. Anyone who claims "Personal Injury Claims, I file the most" is not providing quality counsel. He proclaims filing over 2000 cases a year. My experience is that he very seldom delivers what he promises, at least with the cases I've handled. It just doesn't happen in the real world. Many of his claims are substantially out of line with the injury causing litigation which depletes any settlement the claimant would have gotten. Many of client's are lucky to see anything within one to two years after thier accident. Glen is a leach praying on victoms for his own glory.

KDWN Listener wrote on February 08, 2008 08:45 AM: William - just be glad that glen lerner spends his money to support a radio show we all enjoy. Afterall, without sponsors like him, KDWN wouldn't be able to afford to stay in business.

David wrote on February 08, 2008 08:40 AM: Where in the world did this personal angst over Glen Lerner come from? This is one of the most despicable editorials I have ever read. It is one thing to attack public policy, legislation etc. etc. There is no evidence to back any of the vitriolic personal attack on Mr. Lerner by this editorialist. It's a jealous, child like rage against a man that has been helping injured people for many years. I for one can't stand our litigious society and strongly believe in legal reform, however, Mr. Lerner has worked within the law to defend people who have been injured. This unusual incident does not define his career. On a personal note(I have observed him up close speaking and dealing with clients)... he is a warm hearted person who truly cares about the well being of his clients (unlike many other personal injury lawyers I know). This editorialist is an attack dog looking for sensationalism in an obviously unusual circumstance.

There are many lawyers who deserve the State Bar to come down "heavy" on them. Perhaps they are not as clever in their advertising or self promotion, but just because they hide behind their "professional" austere garments doesn't make them less sleazy. Glen Learner is not one of them. This unknown editorialist needs to lighten up. The advertisement shows a sense of levity and joy with his profession and life.

Superbowl Ad Critic wrote on February 08, 2008 08:21 AM: Hands down, the funniest ad in this year's Super Bowl! Keep up the good work Glen!

blind eye wrote on February 08, 2008 08:12 AM: What has the bar said about the Noel Gage case? Oh, is Noel connected? What a difference.

he is not he only one wrote on February 08, 2008 08:10 AM: At least Lerner does what he does in the open. That is more than I can say for many of the self proclaimed "prestigious" firms that do back door deals with judges.

Read All Comments