Lawyers opt out of judge’s courtroom

Sam Skolnik

Monday, June 4, 2007 | 7:05 a.m.

As the concerns about District Judge Elizabeth Halverson have multiplied in recent months, a trend has become clear: Lawyers are fleeing her courtroom in droves.

According to statistics compiled by the Eighth Judicial District, which encompasses Clark County, from Jan. 1 through May 30 attorneys in 134 instances demanded that their cases be removed from Halverson's court and heard by another judge.

To put that number in perspective, there were 316 of these "peremptory challenges" combined for the 23 District Court judges who handle at least some civil cases. The challenges to Halverson amounted to 42 percent of the total made during that period.

Attorneys were willing to pay $300 per case to be let out of Halverson's court - or more than $40,000 in court fees.

Allegations have been made against Halverson in recent weeks by former staffers, fellow judges and others regarding her behavior on and off the bench. As the accusations grew regarding the rookie judge, who began serving in January, Chief District Judge Kathy Hardcastle recently banished her from the courthouse.

The state Supreme Court last month ruled that Halverson should be reinstated while her case against Hardcastle is heard before the court.

Halverson did not return a call for comment. But her attorney, Bill Gamage, said that the peremptory challenge numbers are skewed because Halverson has been victimized by a highly publicized process that has unfairly tarnished her reputation. Lawyers have been made aware of the charges against Halverson through the media, he said, and so naturally some of them will flee.

"This is the damage that's been caused from improperly handling the situation," Gamage said.

Attorneys contacted by the Sun who have had their cases recently removed from Halverson's court were reluctant to speak about why they did so, expressing concern that they might have to appear before the judge in the future.

But other District Court judges who handle civil case- loads, and who are receiving Halverson's challenged cases, said they are concerned because the cases in question are often some of the most complex and protracted civil matters. It's unfair, they say, that they should have to shoulder a heavier workload.

One District Court judge, who asked not to be named, noted that five of Halverson's cases had been transferred to the judge during one three-day period soon after Hardcastle decided in late April to strip Halverson of her criminal cases and assign her an all civil-case docket.

"This is an independent temperature-taking of the legal community," the judge said. "It does have a trickle-down effect on the rest of us that can't be ignored."

According to Presiding Civil Judge Elizabeth Gonzalez, newer judges are often targeted for peremptory challenges by attorneys who feel more comfortable having their cases heard by more seasoned judges. She said the number of challenges for Halverson was higher than for any other department, but declined to speculate on why.

Gonzalez said caseloads are supposed to even out because for each peremptory challenge case taken away from a judge, two new cases are assigned to that judge the next time they are supposed to receive one.

Once a case is assigned to a judge, court rules allow lawyers in civil cases to ask for a peremptory challenge. Each side can ask for a new judge one time per case, and the lawyers are instructed not to mention what grounds they may have for making the switch. Peremptory challenges cannot be made in criminal cases.

Judges who handle a full or mostly civil caseload have about 1,800 cases on their dockets, Gonzalez said.