Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
StumbleSupreme Court OKs overhaul of judicial conduct code
New rules force judges to report misconduct if ‘likelihood’ of a violation
Friday, Jan. 1, 2010 | 1:55 a.m.
Beyond the Sun
CARSON CITY – The Nevada Supreme Court has approved a revised code of judicial conduct, providing the first major overhaul of instructions in 18 years on how judges should behave.
The regulations, which take effect Jan. 19, are the result of a study by a commission.
Judges will now have an obligation to report the misconduct of another judge or lawyer if he or she has information indicating a there is a “substantial likelihood” of a violation. The commission said the new rule “mandates that a judge take appropriate action when he or she believe that a judge or lawyer’s performance is impaired by drugs or alcohol or by a mental, emotional, or physical condition.”
The current rule requires a judge to report the misconduct only if he or she had knowledge of “known misconduct.”
There was disagreement between the court and its study commission on the issue of disqualification of a judge. The commission, headed by retired Chief Justice William Maupin, recommended the disqualification of a judge in the case if he or she received financial or electoral campaign support of $50,000 or more within six years from one of the parties or lawyers in the case.
The court did not adopt that recommendation.
In another area, the Supreme Court has ruled in the past that a judge has duty to stay on the case where there is a close call for disqualification.
The commission unanimously recommended that the Supreme Court scrap that “duty to sit” ruling.
Laura Fitzsimmons, a Las Vegas lawyer and member of the commission, said the court accepted all the recommendations except three. She said this “duty to sit” doctrine hurts the clients of an attorney who may have criticized a judge who doesn’t want to step aside in the case. Or it may hurt the clients if the attorney on the other side has been too close to the judge who won’t disqualify himself.
“Lawyers are afraid to criticize judges,” said Fitzsimmons, because “their clients are going to pay the price.” And judges have more power in this “duty to sit” system. She said the proposed new regulation would have eliminated the prior decisions of the Supreme Court.
Jeffrey Stempel, a Las Vegas commission member, says in close disqualification cases, the judge should bow out and that will enhance public confidence in the judiciary.
Stempel, a professor of law at the William S. Boyd School of Law at UNLV, said a judge stepping down in close disqualification cases ensures “that subtle, subconscious, or hard-to-prove bias, prejudice or partiality does not influence decision making.”
Nevada is only one of four states with this system of “duty to sit.”
The court’s new rule says judges should not disqualify themselves without a valid reason. And they should not step aside to avoid “difficult, controversial or unpopular parties or lawyers.”
The new code also does not require a judge to disqualify himself from a case if a judicial discipline complaint is filed against him involving the case. The judge should determine on a case-by-case basis whether he should excuse himself from sitting.
The court somewhat loosened the rule on judges making public statements. A judge may now respond directly or through a third party to allegations in the media or elsewhere concerning his or her conduct in a matter. But they are still restricted in making public statements that might affect the outcome of a pending case.
The rules are tightened banning judges from being a member in an organization that practices “invidious discrimination” involving such things as gender, ethnicity and sexual orientation. There has been a one-year grace period for the judge to leave the organization. But now the judge must resign from the group immediately.
The commission, in recommending adopting the new rule, said a judge has a right to belong to religious and military organization “regardless of the organizations’ possible invidious discrimination.”
The new rules say a judge or a judicial candidate may now attend political gatherings, or attend or purchase tickets for dinners or other events sponsored by a political organization or a candidate for public office. And the rules allow a candidate or judge to speak to a political organization.
And the rule “does not prohibit use of court facilities or resources for limited purposes such as filming campaign commercials, so long as the use does not interfere with the performance of judicial duties.”
The court revises the rule on prohibiting judges from abusing the office to advance his or her personal or economic interests. The commission said, “For example, it would be improper for a judge to allude to his or her judicial status to gain favorable treatment in encounters with traffic officials.
“Similarly, a judge must not use judicial letterhead to gain an advantage in conducting his or her personal business,” said the commission.
The court retained the rule that judges who are unopposed in election are prohibited from collecting campaign contributions.
Discussion: comments so far…
Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.
Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.
No trusted comments have been posted.
Post a comment
Most Popular
- Viewed
- Discussed
- E-mailed
- Two dead after accident in downtown Las Vegas
- Superstar Whitney Houston dies at 48
- Instant Analysis: Debating whether UNLV should continue series with San Diego State
- Police looking for man in white Ford Explorer
- Dining Guide: 2012 Valentine’s Day options in Las Vegas
- Four people injured in car accident
- Color from the scene at Thomas & Mack Center: We have a wire job! Rebels win, and Louie Armstrong sings!
- Blog: Justin Hawkins’ steal seals UNLV’s thrilling 65-63 victory against San Diego State
- After Nevada and Florida wins, Mitt Romney trying to prove he’s ‘severely conservative’ to CPAC base
- UNLV makes key plays down stretch to hold off San Diego State 65-63
Blogs
The Kats Report
Color from scene at Thomas & Mack: We have a wire job! Rebels win, and Louie Armstrong sings!
South Point owner Michael Gaughan's take on 'Vegas Stripped': 'I'll give it an 8' (4 Comments)
Author relishes writing the life story of ‘larger-than-life’ Oscar Goodman (3 Comments)
Elsewhere
Landowner: All roads could lead to Uxbridge casino
Revel reveals smoke-free casino opening
Cirque du Soleil show in Sands China casino to close this month
Meet the woman behind Sheldon Adelson
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
What a wonderful place we live in where the judges are elected. They must raise campaign money of which 90% is given by the lawyers that stand in front of them in the court room. Now we are allowing the judges to write the rules that they have to obey. This rule, or whatever it is, is so vague that any attorney with a voice could argue the innocence. Vote out the incumbents, ALL OF THEM, EVERYWHERE, and keep doing it until we the legal citizens are represented once again.
Consultantd -- you make excellent points, especially "Now we are allowing the judges to write the rules that they have to obey." The key point being "we are allowing the judges" -- something almost everyone misses.
On the one hand when judges are elected they are directly accountable to the electorate -- the body politick. That means we can recall them. I'd say the flaw in that is they have to raise money to be elected.
On the other hand appointing judges becomes a high-politics insider game where the Bar reigns supreme.
The sure thing is what one of the few judges truly deserving of the title "honorable" said @ http://www.massnews.com/2003_Editions/3_...
See also http://exposecorruptcourts.blogspot.com/...
It boils down to this -- until We the People collectively remember they govern only on our authority AND our consent, then act accordingly, nothing will change.
KillerB, Consultantd,
Great posts. Thanks for sharing and thanks for the very educational links provided.
I agree, we need to change the paradigm. We the people are the law. How do we get those idiots in power to get it? That is the question of the decade.
Juries have a role to play in this war on power. If they were informed that they are the trier of FACT and not supposition or emotion. If they were also informed of Jury Nullification, they might be able to make a difference.
But sadly, a well informed juror is the exception and not the rule.
Jury duty should be thought of as an honor, not a hated obligation.
Will this new regulation EXCLUDE all of the Nevada Supreme Court Justices, Attorney General Masto and the Governor who were given the handwritten notes from former prosecutor Ron Rachow who withheld all of the Materialty and Exculpatory evidence in Mr. Nolan Klein's case 21 years ago? The all knew that he violated BRADY V MARYLAND BY withholding the evidence that showed someone else was responsible for the crime for which an innocent man was convicted. They all new over a year ago that DA Dick Gammick admitted to opening up the DNA evidence and testing and then he hid the results from us. They all chose to cover up the bad acts of the Washoe County District Attorney's office at the expense of an innocent man's life. Justices Hardesty, and Parraguirre, AG. Masto and the Gibbons are all up for reelection. AGAIN, WILL THIS NEW REGULATION EXCLUDE THESE MEMBERS FROM BEING HELD ACCOUNTABLE TOO? OR IS IT JUST ACCEPTABLE FOR THEM TO DO AS I SAY, NOT AS WE DO?