Monday, July 18, 2005
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

JANE ANN MORRISON: Law requiring more experienced judicial candidates benefits public

Justice of the Peace Joe Bonaventure wouldn't be wearing a black robe today if new standards for running for judge had been in effect when he filed for office last year. He didn't have five years' legal experience.

Family Court Judge Cynthia Dianne Steel wouldn't have been able to run for the job she now holds because she didn't have 10 years' experience at the time. Nor would she have been able to run for the Nevada Supreme Court last year. She didn't have 15 years' experience as a lawyer.

With minimal attention from the news media, the Legislature made it tougher to become a judge by approving Senate Bill 234 to eliminate inexperienced lawyers, more often women than men, running for judgeships.

Youthful candidates may complain loudly, but the public should benefit from the law, which kicks in Oct. 1 and says if you want to be a justice of the peace, you need to have passed the state bar five years earlier. For District Court and Family Court, 10 years' experience will be required. And for Nevada Supreme Court, if you don't have 15 years' experience, don't bother.

Fortunately for Bonaventure, Steel and others, incumbents are grandfathered in.

Some nicknamed it the Joe Bonaventure bill, because when the son of District Judge Joe Bonaventure ran for justice of the peace, many believe he won because voters thought they were voting for his dad. The younger judge had only two years' experience. (Word inside the legal community is that the son is doing a decent job as a JP.)

Before this law passed, a state Supreme Court candidate had to be 25, had to have lived in the state two years and had to have a law degree. Pretty minimal. And some of the candidates who ran were pretty minimal, too.

Washoe County District Judge Jim Hardesty had 30 years of legal experience when he ran for the state Supreme Court against Steel. "I'm very grateful I had those 24 years as a lawyer and six years as a District Court judge. I can tell you daily, I need it all. This is a tough job, very complex, with lots of issues," Hardesty said. "My own personal experience is that you need some number of years under your belt to be an effective jurist."

Las Vegas state Sen. John Lee, a Democrat, and Reno state Sen. Randolph Townsend, a Republican, both introduced bills requiring a judicial candidate to have a certain number of years of experience to run. The bills were combined into one, carrying Lee's name.

"The bill is not aimed at anybody in particular," Lee said. "But I've got the assets of my company, the future of my employees, and I have to hand those over to people who might not understand the law."

The owner of a plumbing company, Lee thought it was wrong that plumbers needed more experience to work than judges did.

Hardesty advocated the bill. So did Assembly Majority Leader Barbara Buckley, D-Las Vegas. She argued that the Legislature should join the 20 other states with minimal experience standards for judicial candidates.

The state Senate passed the bill unanimously, but in the more populist Assembly, it was a split vote, 23-18. The standards do not apply to municipal judges because each city's charter sets the standards for them.

Las Vegas attorney Rhonda Mushkin worked for the bill's passage and testified that as an attorney she doesn't want inexperienced judges cutting their teeth on her clients.

Mushkin's practice is in Family Court, and she said it appeared in recent elections that "candidates are running who in my opinion are not yet seasoned enough to sit on a bench, and Family Court is an excellent example of that."

A lawyer since 1986, Mushkin was blunt: "A judicial job should not be sought for an increase in pay by someone who is unable to make a living in private practice."

Opposition came from those who said the bill limits people's choices.

Call me a Geezerette (only if you're brave), and it's probably discrimination against the young, but I don't mind seeing a few character lines in the faces of judges. They wield power over people's personal lives in divorce and custody cases, control people's freedom in criminal cases and decide people's finances in civil cases.

Wrinkles don't mean wisdom, but when Mushkin says she doesn't want novices cutting their teeth on her clients, I concur.

Jane Ann Morrison's column appears Monday, Thursday and Saturday. E-mail her at jane@reviewjournal.com or call 383-0275.