Editorial: Squeezing justice’s juice

Sunday, June 25, 2006 | 7:52 a.m.

The Los Angeles Times' recent in-depth investigation of Nevada's judicial system - a series that the paper dubbed "Juice vs. Justice" - contained serious allegations of impropriety.

For those who may not have read the series, here are but a few of the troubling findings uncovered by the Times:

Some legal ethics scholars interviewed by the Sun's Tony Cook described the allegations as blatant conflicts of interest that amounted to the kind of misconduct that could warrant removal from the bench. But the response by local and state law enforcement officials, Cook noted in his story from a week ago, was one of nonchalance.

District Attorney David Roger and state Attorney General George Chanos didn't have any interest in investigating the allegations. Chanos said the state's Commission on Judicial Discipline should take the lead. We would like to see the Commission on Judicial Discipline launch a probe, but people shouldn't get their hopes up that this will result in a satisfactory remedy.

To begin with, the Commission on Judicial Discipline's resources are meager - it has two staff members. As Cook pointed out in his story, this small staff is charged with investigating judicial misconduct of all state judges (21), senior judges (17) and an array of justices of the peace, municipal judges, hearing masters and magistrates who annually deal with thousands of cases. Such a paltry staff could only scratch the surface, at best, of judicial misconduct.

Furthermore, the Commission on Judicial Discipline's secrecy means that we might never know what it uncovers, even if there is wrongdoing. Only when misconduct rises to a "serious" level - and the commission gets to use its discretion in deciding what is "serious" - will any action or punishment be disclosed.

In the near term, the many allegations outlined in the Times' series should be investigated with all the gravity due them. For the long term, the Legislature needs to retool judicial oversight so there is more transparency and the Commission on Judicial Discipline has the resources to investigate and remove judges engaging in misconduct.