On February 25, 2026, Hilton argued the case Hambleton v. HELP Las Vegas Housing Corp. before the Nevada Court of Appeals—in a special session held before a crowd of dozens of law students at UNLV’s William S. Boyd School of Law. The case was one of only two set for argument at the law school.
You can listen to the full argument audio here.
The Case: Hambleton v. HELP Las Vegas Housing Corporation
Hambleton v. HELP is a negligence case. Jonathon Hambleton was a veteran enrolled in Genesis, a supervised, alcohol-free transitional housing program operated by HELP Las Vegas Housing Corporation. On the same gated campus sat Renaissance, a sister program where residents were permitted to drink alcohol. Franklin Ritchey — a Renaissance resident with a documented history of mental illness, alcohol problems, and threatening behavior — repeatedly invited Hambleton over for drinks. Eventually, Hambleton accepted. That night, Ritchey stabbed him in the neck.
The District Court granted summary judgment to HELP, finding the attack unforeseeable. The appeal argues that HELP’s decision to co-locate a vulnerable, sober population with residents who had access to alcohol — while failing to maintain adequate separation or warn Genesis residents of known dangers like Ritchey — created foreseeable conditions for exactly this kind of harm.
The case raises questions about premises liability and Nevada’s foreseeability standard: must a plaintiff show that a specific individual was likely to commit a specific type of violence, or is it enough to show that the defendant’s conduct foreseeably increased the risk of harm from third parties?
Set for Argument at UNLV Boyd School of Law
The Court set Hambleton v. HELP to be argued at UNLV William S. Boyd School of Law, bringing live appellate advocacy directly into the classroom. The Thomas Mack Moot Courtroom was packed with students — a full house eager to watch an argument unfold in real time, with consequences for the advocates’ clients riding on every exchange.
Arguing Against a Legend
Hilton argued against Dan Polsenberg, one of Nevada’s most seasoned appellate attorneys. Polsenberg has been a fixture of Nevada appellate law for decades. He began practicing in Nevada in the early 1980s and was among the first attorneys in the state to establish a dedicated appellate practice — a concept that was still relatively novel at the time in a state the size of Nevada. Over the course of his career, he helped define what serious appellate advocacy looks like in Vegas.
Hilton was chosen from a team of lawyers who worked on the Hambleton case to take Polsenberg head-on. The opportunity to argue against such a legend is an honor for the firm.
The Q&A: A Full Courtroom and Questions from the Students
After the argument concluded, the 3-judge panel remained for a 30-minute question and answer session with the students — a generous and rare opportunity for the aspiring lawyers to engage directly with a sitting appellate court and the appellate advocates.
When a student asked what separates good legal writing from great legal writing, Hilton’s answer was direct: the rewriting process. Hilton told the students that most of his major appellate briefs go through 15 to 20 versions before they’re filed. The process of returning to a brief again and again — rethinking the structure, sharpening the argument, cutting what doesn’t work — is what transforms competent legal writing into something genuinely persuasive. For any law student dreaming of appellate practice, Hilton reiterated that there are no shortcuts, and the work is in the revision.
Polsenberg, for his part, offered wisdom forged from having argued hundreds of cases over four decades. He stressed the importance of paying close attention to the judges during oral argument and responding directly and honestly to their questions. At the appellate level, the bench knows the record. The judges have read the briefs. What they want from counsel is honest and direct engagement — answers, not speeches.