Comments taken on how state handles judicial complaints

A handful of people showed up Thursday to voice their opinions about the way Nevada handles allegations of judicial misconduct.

Among them was Allen Lichtenstein, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, who argued against the practice of issuing private reprimands to judges who commit minor infractions.

Lichtenstein said a more open process increases public confidence, "and that probably does help the judges more than anything else."

Several other speakers came to talk about their negative experiences with Nevada's judiciary.

The public comment came in response to a report released earlier this month by a subcommittee of the Nevada Supreme Court's Article 6 Commission, which is looking at ways of improving the state's judicial system. The report urges the Nevada Judicial Discipline Commission to reduce secrecy and work faster to resolve complaints.

Members of the Article 6 Commission, meeting in Las Vegas and Carson City, narrowly voted to remove a recommendation that outlined appropriate circumstances for issuing private reprimands. However, the group stopped short of asking the Judicial Discipline Commission to end the practice altogether.

"There was a time when there was no private discipline," said Chuck Short, a member of the Article 6 Commission. "Now there is. We've lost public trust."

The subcommittee's report states that the Judicial Discipline Commission should resolve cases within 18 months. It also states that those who file complaints against judges should be allowed to speak about their allegations.

Under state law, people who make formal complaints against judges can be punished with contempt if they talk about their complaints.

William Dressel, president of the National Judicial College and co-chairman of the Article 6 Commission, said the board will accept written comments until 4 p.m. on Jan. 26. Its proposals then will be sent to the Legislature for possible changes to state law.

"We can't change the rules," he said. "We're just saying to them: Here's something you might want to think about."

No one at Thursday's meeting could say how much additional money the Judicial Discipline Commission would need to meet the goal of resolving all cases within 18 months. However, the Article 6 Commission learned that the investigative cost of the case against District Judge Elizabeth Halverson reached nearly $78,000.

The Judicial Discipline Commission removed Halverson from the bench in November and permanently barred her from serving as a judge. Halverson, who took the bench in early 2007, was accused of harassing staff and mishandling trials.

In written comments, District Judge Valorie Vega said she has tried for 12 years to change the discipline commission's practice of accepting anonymous complaints.

"Transparency for the public is a good thing," she wrote. "The judges deserve the same."

Consultant Cynthia Gray said police officers can investigate anonymous complaints, and the Nevada Judicial Discipline Commission should have the same ability. Staff members and lawyers are sometimes afraid to put their names on complaints against judges, she said.

Dressel said he shared Gray's opinion.

Contact reporter Carri Geer Thevenot at cgeer@reviewjournal.com or 702-380-8135.