HOME PAGE
|
Friday, September 17, 1999
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal
Court reviews rules on judiciary
Judges' charitable solicitations, other issues discussed
By Sean Whaley
Donrey Capital Bureau
CARSON CITY -- Members of the Supreme Court debated and discussed a variety of judicial rules and issues Thursday, from charitable solicitations by judges to the timing of political contributions, but made no decisions after a three-hour hearing.
All the issues raised were taken under advisement by the seven-member court.
Most of the discussion during the court's administrative meeting focused on the fund-raising issue that surfaced after six district judges last year lent their names to a fund-raising dinner to help provide free and reduced-cost legal assistance to low-income Nevadans. The Judicial Discipline Commission cautioned the judges that the use of their names may have violated a judicial rule prohibiting them from soliciting funds for charitable purposes from lawyers.
No disciplinary action was taken against the judges.
Partly in response to concerns about the fund-raising issue, a Supreme Court committee was formed to review the code of judicial conduct. The committee proposed that the rules be liberalized to allow judges to be involved in such charitable causes and make such solicitations.
Carson City District Judge Michael Griffin, chairman of the committee, said that without judicial involvement in fund-raising activities important to the legal community, many significant projects in rural Nevada, such as the development of the China Spring Youth Camp in Douglas County, would not have occurred.
An alternative proposed by the State Bar of Nevada would allow "a general appeal" to the legal community for help in providing free and reduced-cost legal advice, called "pro bono" work, but direct solicitations to lawyers and law firms would not be allowed.
The fund-raising request by the judges that resulted in a caution from the Judicial Discipline Commission would have been permissible under the state bar proposal, said Ann Bersi, president of the state bar.
Others argued that the judicial ethics rules needed no change at all. Direct solicitation of money from lawyers by judges should be prohibited, Washoe District Judge Brent Adams said. The judicial rules provide many opportunities for judges to exercise leadership in the legal arena, including the ability to speak to groups about the need for pro bono work, he said.
Leonard Gang, general counsel to the Judicial Discipline Commission, agreed, saying the rule some were proposing to relax has been in effect around the country for 75 years.
While some judges and lawyers argued that no change was needed, Bersi said some clarification is clearly needed. The Judicial Discipline Commission ruling, while not a finding of wrongdoing by the judges involved in the fund-raising effort, will have a chilling effect on efforts by judges to encourage pro bono legal work, she said.
In a separate matter, there appeared to be some support for a proposal by Chief Justice Bob Rose to allow judicial candidates to retain contributions collected in one election to be used in the next.
Rose, who indicated he would not be affected by such a rule change, said it would allow judicial candidates to get off to a better campaign start in an election year. He proposed allowing candidates to keep $60,000 in donations that could be used to finance a new campaign.
Judges can now keep $30,000 in campaign contributions but cannot spend the money on a re-election effort.
Rose, who will likely run for one more six-year term on the high court, said he has no leftover funds to worry about. Since one more term will likely be his last, Rose said any rule change regarding the use of contributions would not affect him.
E-mail this story to a friend:
Give us your FEEDBACK on this or any story.
1999 BEST OF LAS VEGAS RESULTS
Fill out our Online Readers' Poll
|
Printable version of this story
|
