Nevada bar wants new disciplinary hearing against Commissioner Jones

The State Bar of Nevada wants to relitigate a disciplinary case against Clark County Commissioner Justin Jones after an independent panel declined to strip his law license earlier this year.

In late April, the bar petitioned its disciplinary board to rehear the case, weeks after the three-member panel issued a public reprimand against Jones and ordered that he stay out of trouble with the bar for six months.

The bar had requested that Jones be disbarred, alleging bribery and deceitful actions related to a controversial housing project on Blue Diamond Hill.

The Nevada Supreme Court, which oversees the bar, is evaluating the panel’s initial decision.

While the board has agreed to rehear the disciplinary case, it’s up to the higher court to decide if that’s warranted, said Chief Bar Counsel Daniel Hooge Thursday.

Supreme Court filings are due in a week, Hooge said.

New complaint

The bar accused Jones of bribery for an alleged deal he made with former County Commission Chairman Steve Sisolak, who was running for governor when Jones was an attorney representing an environmental group that had opposed the housing development in the unincorporated county. The group would endorse Sisolak’s campaign if he opposed the development.

It also alleged that Jones had taken deceitful actions when he deleted all the text messages on his cellphone after a crucial vote related to the project after he was elected to the commission.

The arguments had been made in litigation that led the county to pay an $80 million settlement to developer Jim Rhodes’ Gypsum Resources.

The disciplinary panel said the deal with Sisolak did not amount to bribery and split on whether the mass deletion of messages constituted deceit.

The new motion alleges that while representing Jones in the March proceedings, attorney Rob Bare engaged in misconduct during his closing arguments, improperly appealed to the panel’s emotion, vouched for a character witness and “mocked the bribery charge.”

“The State Bar submits that the cumulative effect of these violations denied it a fair hearing and requests that the court grant a new hearing to ensure an impartial determination of the disciplinary matter,” Hooge wrote in the motion.

Despite being told not to use “character evidence,” Bare highlighted Jones’ pro bono work and the commissioner’s “personal virtues,” the motion alleged.

Bare asked the panel to put themselves in Jones’ position, evoking emotion by referencing deaths of family members.

The motion noted that Bare compared the panelists to surgeons, telling them, “Excise this silliness, felony bribery. Take the scalpel.”

Jones declined to comment.

“The misconduct here was not a slip of the tongue — it was a calculated and prolonged appeal to emotion, sympathy, and character, in direct violation of Nevada law,” Hooge wrote in the motion.

Panelist agrees with bar

The motion included an affidavit written by attorney Rachel Wise, who served on the disciplinary panel.

She outlined the allegations in the complaint, writing that Bare had “prejudiced the panel’s ability to render a fair and impartial decision.”

Wise added: “Respondent’s counsel displayed excessive emotional behavior, including crying multiple times during his arguments and yelling at an expert witness. He also vouched for the credibility of witnesses and (Jones).”

Bare, a former Clark County District Judge, defended himself in his own affidavit, arguing that the allegations are “devoid of substantive merit, and the Motion should be denied.”

Asked for comment, Bare said the response motion “speaks for itself.”

‘Alternate universe’

Jones’ attorneys filed a response last month petitioning for the disciplinary board to strike the hearing request.

The attorneys allege that the bar was influenced by anonymous feedback online and that Hooge had told media outlets that the bar was expecting the panel’s decision because they rarely agree with the bar.

“Hence, the request for a new Formal Hearing and new Panel is rather befuddling, and seems unnecessary in light of Bar Counsel’s own words,” the response said.

It added: “The State Bar’s Motion seems to operate in an alternate universe where the Hearing Panel somehow gave Mr. Jones a free pass for the misconduct it ultimately found him guilty of, arguing that the decision ‘to impose only a reprimand’ suggests the Panel was ‘swayed’ for improper reasons.”

Contact Ricardo Torres-Cortez at rtorres@reviewjournal.com.