Tuesday, June 13, 2006 | 7:36 a.m.
The president of the Nevada Bar Association said Monday a three-day series of newspaper articles highly critical of some Southern Nevada judges may help reform the state's process of selecting and retaining judges.
Vince Consul, a Las Vegas attorney, said the Los Angeles Times' stories "spread through the legal community like wildfire."
He spoke about the series and its potential effect during an interview on "Face to Face With Jon Ralston," which aired Monday night and will be shown again Tuesday morning at 11 on Las Vegas One, Cox Cable channel 19.
The series, "Juice vs. Justice," criticized the state's court system and judges and showed that some Nevada judges routinely do not reveal conflicts of interest they have in cases involving friends, former clients and business associates.
The stories were also critical of the fact that Nevada's elected judges rely almost exclusively on campaign contributions from lawyers and casinos, on whose cases they have ruled or will rule.
During his Monday TV appearance, Consul said the stories could be an impetus to move toward the "Nevada Plan," which would replace the state's current election of judges with a system of appointed judges who, after serving two years, would have to win one nonpartisan election for a six-year term. After that, judges would run uncontested in retention elections every six years, with voters deciding only whether to keep or remove the judge.
"Change has got to be made to put as much possible distance between money and justice," Consul told the Sun in a later interview. The Nevada Plan would eliminate the need for judges to raise money every six years for re-election, he said.
"The State Bar is concerned with ensuring the independence of the judiciary," Consul said, adding that the bar association believed the plan "would be in the best interest of preserving that judicial independence."
The bar has been championing such a change since January and received some support since then in the legal community. Since the Times' stories, he said he has received a new wave of supportive calls from attorneys and judges.
"I think that the articles can add impetus to the movement, and I think it may be sufficient to overcome resistance to the plan that has existed before," Consul said.
Attempts to change how Nevada picks it judges - from elective to purely appointive - failed in 1972 and 1988.
A new system would require a change in the state Constitution. For the Nevada Plan, with its modified appointive/elective system, to become law, it would have to be passed by the Legislature, then approved by voters in two successive elections.
The time it would take to make the change into law doesn't bother Consul, he said:
"The wheels of justice grind deliberately. You don't make any constitutional change in a drastic fashion."
archive
