Judges warned about soliciting

Friday, July 22, 2005 | 9:24 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- The state Judicial Discipline Commission is warning judges they should not use pressure tactics to get campaign contributions from lawyers, especially those with cases before the judge.

The recommendation was made in a formal decision issued Thursday in the case of former District Judge Jeffrey Sobel of Las Vegas, who was censured and permanently barred from seeking any appointive or elective judicial office.

"In soliciting donations, endorsements or political organization help from attorneys, judges can easily place attorneys in a position where the attorneys feel coerced," the recommendation said.

Judges who must run for re-election traditionally receive a large share of their campaign money from attorneys.

The commission recommended that "judges not engage in any communications with attorneys within the courtroom, courthouse or even in chambers during the course of any judicial proceeding -- which can be reasonably be construed to be soliciting campaign help from such attorney or anyone closely connected with such attorney."

Judges should avoid any direct solicitation as "well as any innuendo or remarks which could reasonably be construed to be soliciting such help or criticizing an attorney for not giving such help," the commission said.

"Judges should not pressure attorneys for campaign help, nor communicate directly or by intimation that an attorney should not help an opponent of such a judge, under circumstances that an attorney might reasonably believe that he or his clients' interests before such a judge might be negatively affected by failure to comply with the judge's request for campaign assistance."

The commission previously announced its decision but issued the formal written decision Thursday in which it found that Sobel, in a meeting in his office in April 2002, "willfully" violated the judicial code in his discussion with three lawyers.

Attorneys Vince Consul and James Silvestri had both contributed to his campaign, but the third attorney, Ted Boyack, had not contributed. Sobel, according to the charge, reportedly told Boyack that he better make a contribution or he was (expletive deleted).

Sobel, now in the private mediation business, said those remarks were made in a joking manner.

The commission said an "objectively reasonable person would be hard-pressed to detect the existence of anything truly humorous or ethical about what the respondent (Sobel) said and how he said it, particularly during a pre-trial conference in a contested matter."

The commission said Sobel placed Consul "in an "exceedingly uncomfortable position of having to admit and then explain the reason for his attendance at a campaign event for opponent Jackie Glass, who defeated Sobel later in the election.

Attorney Robert Murdock gave $500 to Sobel and $3,500 to Glass' campaign. When Sobel learned about this, he tried unsuccessfully to call Murdock, who did not return his calls, the commission said. He then faxed Murdock a letter on Sept. 10, 2002, asking why he had given such a large donation.

Sobel said in the letter, "thirty five hundred dollars buys a lot of important stuff" and that you "would have been and would continue to be so grateful for such a large contribution."

The commission said Murdock then asked Sobel to disqualify himself in a case in which Murdock was the lawyer. Murdock accused Sobel of trying to extort money from him.

Sobel admitted what he did was stupid and told the commission he wished he had not acted in this way.

The commission said that even in normal political campaign activities, a judge should avoid such pressure tactics as soliciting money from an attorney with pending or the likelihood of future litigation before the judge.