Nevada’s chief justice announces immediate actions to curb conflicts of interest and other improprieties by Nevada Judges.
The chief justice of the Nevada Supreme Court has ordered three steps to heighten scrutiny and supervision of the state’s judges, who have become the target of a reform effort amid allegations of impropriety and cronyism in the courtroom and on the campaign trail.
The changes were disclosed in a four-page statement by Chief Justice Robert E. Rose, Nevada‘s former lieutenant governor and an important figure in the state’s political landscape.
They come in the wake of an investigation into the state’s judiciary, especially the Las Vegas bench. The investigation determined, among other things, that Nevada judges have awarded millions of dollars in judgments in recent years without disclosing that the money was awarded to friends, business partners and former clients — even people to whom the judges owed money.
Rose’s statement outlined three additional steps toward reform that will be set in motion immediately.
First, the Supreme Court will implement a formal process to evaluate the performance of the state’s senior judges — on-call jurists who are paid by the hour, have typically retired from the bench and are farmed out to assist with a growing workload in the court system.
Although many had distinguished careers before their retirement, they are seen as vulnerable to allegations of impropriety because they are not accountable to voters and serve at the pleasure of the Supreme Court indefinitely.
Starting in November, evaluation forms will be sent to lawyers, jurors and parties in cases that are heard by senior judges, and the district courts that request the judges’ services.
Second, Rose said, senior judges will be subjected in some cases to peremptory challenge — the right of a party in a court case to seek a judge’s removal. Currently, senior judges are immune from such challenges, unlike regular judges.
In the past, Rose said, senior judges were not exposed to challenges because they were often pressed into service at the last moment; they are often called to preside over a case when another judge is sick or otherwise absent.
Now, peremptory challenges will be allowed when a senior judge is appointed more than 14 days prior to a scheduled court date, Rose said.
Third, Rose said, the Supreme Court will issue a communique to all of the state’s district court judges reminding them of their ethical obligation to disclose potential conflicts of interest.
According to federal and state judicial canons, judges should withdraw from cases when their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. But the state does not require judges to disclose when their campaign contributors appear before them. And court observers say some judges have been reticent in volunteering information that might call their impartiality into question.
Rose said he would remind judges that they should "err on the side of disclosure."
About The Author:
Attorney Ted Bills can be reached at 719.444.1000 or at http://www.SpringsAttorney.com.
Attorney Ted Bills has one mission – to fight for the rights of victims, the wrong accused, and those who have been devastated by the misconduct of others – he represents clients with an aggressive approach designed to provide SWIFT justice.
Attorney Ted Bills practices Auto Accident (Car, Truck, and Motorcycle crash), DUI, Personal Injury, and Criminal – Traffic Violation law in Colorado Springs, CO and is a member of the American Bar Association, the Colorado Bar Association, the Colorado Trial Lawyers Association, the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, and the El Paso County (Colorado Springs) Bar Association. He works in tandem with his clients to provide assertive, business-savvy, legal services that solve problems, reduce delays, and minimize costs.
Nothing on this site constitutes an attorney-client relationship nor does it constitute legal advice. Links are for informational purposes and do not represent endorsement by Attorney Ted Bills.
