Following a lengthy series in the Los Angeles Times which characterized the Nevada legal and judicial community as an incestuous bunch that cared more about helping friends and buddies than delivering justice, the state Supreme Court vowed to implement reforms.

Last week, Chief Justice Bob Rose announced a few modest changes.

First, senior judges -- those who haven't been elected, but have been appointed to hear occasional cases for sitting judges who are unavailable -- may be removed via peremptory challenges in some instances.

Second, judges must disclose past relationships with attorneys who worked for them as clerks.

It's unfortunate that either of these edicts is necessary. Senior judges should enjoy no more protection from challenge than their cohorts who are duly elected -- and, in fact, should be used only as a matter of last resort. In addition, a judge must err on the side of full disclosure when weighing potential conflicts; he shouldn't need the state Supreme Court to tell him what's right.

But at least now, there are fewer excuses.