Panel suspends Halverson

Embattled Clark County District Court Judge Elizabeth Halverson is off the bench but not out of a job.

The Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline on Wednesday gave two reasons for suspending the 49-year-old Halverson.

"First, she poses a substantial threat of serious harm to the public," said the order, signed by Commission Vice Chairman Daveen Nave. "Second, she poses a substantial threat to the administration of justice."

The Judicial Discipline Commission found that Halverson's inexperience with criminal law, her inexperience as a judge and her overall poor judgment were solid grounds for removing her from the bench. The suspension was effective at 5 p.m. Wednesday.

Though she won't be working, Halverson will continue to collect her $130,000 annual pay pending a judicial disciplinary proceeding. The commission has the power to ban her from the bench.

Halverson will be required to turn in the badge that allows her access to nonpublic areas of the Regional Justice Center, said District Court Spokesman Michael Sommermeyer. Sommermeyer said the Nevada Supreme Court will be asked to provide a senior judge to take over the civil cases that had been assigned to Halverson.

"We'll do everything we can to make sure that people's cases are heard in a timely manner," Sommermeyer said.

Halverson's lawyer, William Gamage, said the suspension will be promptly appealed.

Halverson could not be reached for comment, and Kathy Kubik, Halverson's spokeswoman, declined to comment.

"The proceedings are still confidential," Gamage said, "and because of that we cannot really comment on some of the remaining aspects of the case."

The commission had first issued its order of interim suspension of Halverson on May 10. The panel had put that order on hold because Halverson requested a hearing.

That hearing took place July 16. With Halverson present, the commission reviewed complaints against her concerning her competency as a judge and allegations that she created a hostile work environment for her staff. Witnesses, including Halverson's former staff, testified to the commission that the judge initiated improper contact with jurors in at least two criminal trials, actions that resulted in requests for mistrials in both situations.

"In at least one case, a child thought to be a victim of a sex offense may have to experience another trial due to the judge's alleged error," the order said.

The order also noted that "there was more than adequate proof" that Halverson fell asleep on at least one occasion while presiding over a criminal trial and that in another case Halverson dined with jurors in the courtroom, "an event unheard of as far as the commissioners participating in this case are aware."

The Judicial Discipline Commission's order also said that Clark County District Court Chief Judge Kathy Hardcastle's decision to restrict Halverson to hearing civil cases only was reasonable and practical, under the circumstances. Halverson has a lawsuit pending before the Nevada Supreme Court challenging Hardcastle's authority to take that action.

It might be argued that Halverson doesn't pose a threat to the administration of justice now that she has a civil case load, commissioners noted, but the statistics don't support that. Testimony to the group from Clark County Court Administrator Charles Short showed that the number of peremptory challenges against Halverson for May and June totaled 151, compared with a combined total of 53 filed against the other judges at the Regional Justice Center during the same time.

"While Judge Halverson's counsel argued that she has no control over what attorneys, law firms or parties decide to remove her via a peremptory challenge, the Commission concludes that the statistics reveal a distinct unease in Clark County about Judge Halverson's ability to handle even civil matters," the order said.

The order also showed that commissioners were disturbed by testimony from Halverson's former staff members. Johnnie Jordan, Halverson's former bailiff, told the Commission that his role devolved into "what he stridently characterized as one of 'housenigger.'"

Jordan's duties included heating Halverson's lunches, changing her shoes, keeping ice in her drinks, covering her with a blanket when she rested in her chambers, and, on at least one occasion, she directed him to rub her neck and back.

She also expected him to spy on other court personnel, something Jordan said he refused to do.

Witnesses testified to Halverson's inappropriate comments regarding other staff members, including one instance where she called her former law clerk Lisa Carroll a "faux Jew."

That behavior, the order said, suggested that Halverson is predisposed to treating her subordinates poorly and is not a competent administrator.

"It cannot be said strongly enough that a demonstrated history of treating staff members with disrespect if not outright contempt cannot and will not be tolerated," the order said.

Clark County District Attorney David Roger said the decision to suspend a judge is uncommon. It erodes public confidence in the judicial system when such an action is necessary, Roger said.

"I can tell you that it's a very sad day for the judiciary," Roger said. "People reading about Judge Halverson in the newspaper may one day be litigants in court. It doesn't help the court's reputation when citizens read about these things."

The commission's order makes it clear that the relationship between Halverson and the Judicial Discipline Commission has become a tense one. Halverson's attempts to delay the proceedings and her complaints that she and her attorneys had not been given enough time to review all the investigative information raised the ire of the commission, which provided her with documents as a courtesy and not because of any legal requirement to do so.

"Nevertheless, Judge Halverson chooses to attack the Commission's process by contending that she does not have time to digest all the information that the rules don't even entitle her to have at this juncture," the order said.

"In the Commission's view, this argument lacks legal merit and transparently demonstrates Judge Halverson's desperation at having to face a hearing at all."

Review-Journal writers K.C. Howard and David Kihara contributed to this report.