Some lawyers perceive judicial bias

Some attorneys practicing in Clark County believe certain judges in Nevada favor lawyers or litigants involved in cases they decide.

Most of the lawyers participating in the 2008 Judicial Performance Evaluation said most judges were adequately free from every kind of bias the survey was designed to measure. On the other hand, every jurist was perceived, by at least a few lawyers, as biased in some fashion. And of four varieties of bias that could be attributed to a judge, personal bias regarding individuals was alleged much more often than prejudice based on religion, gender or race/ethnicity.

The biennial rating of local and state Supreme Court judges follows a report late last year in which the American Tort Reform Foundation for the first time put Clark County on its list of "judicial hellholes." The annual report targets areas of the country that it says have developed a reputation for uneven justice.

"The decks appear to be stacked in favor of local lawyers who reportedly 'pay to play' in the county's courts," the foundation said, referring to a 2006 Los Angeles Times series that highlighted examples of questionable judicial decisions in Nevada.

"Judges have been criticized for issuing favorable rulings in cases that benefit friends, campaign contributors or their own financial interests."

The foundation's parent, the American Tort Reform Association, is a coalition of corporations, medical associations and other industry groups that seeks to limit corporate and professional liability.

The tort reform foundation report focused on civil courts. The judicial evaluation suggests other courts also suffer from the same perception.

Even those judges with enviable scores on personal bias fared more poorly on that trait than they did in other bias categories.

Case in point: Family Court Judge Gloria Sanchez, who received the best rating for showing no bias toward lawyers or litigants.

Only 4 percent of the 139 attorneys who rated her said she was less than adequate in that category. Yet 2 percent said the same about her concerning gender; all agreed she shows zero bias regarding religion or race/ethnicity.

Are some of the 799 attorneys who took the online survey merely disgruntled about cases they have lost, or is their perception of preferential treatment by some judges warranted?

"The criticisms of our legal system here in Nevada are very valid," says Kenneth Fernandez, assistant political science professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

"Of course judges will be affected by the pocketbook. ... It is very hard to suppress your financial interests. If a lawyer has contributed to your challenger, that will affect you more than race or gender or anything else."

In the legal community, it's not always about money.

"It's a very small world. Everyone knows everyone, and it's a network," Fernandez says. "Even without campaign contributors, there can be personal rivalries that can affect individuals. ... You will not stop individuals from holding a grudge on a personal matter."

District Court judges captured three of the five worst ratings for perceived bias toward attorneys and litigants.

At the bottom is Elizabeth Halverson, who was suspended with pay last year by the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline because of allegations she mistreated staff, slept on the bench and illegally communicated with jurors. Seventy-nine percent of attorneys said she was less than adequate at showing no bias of that kind.

Halverson is trailed by Family Court Judge Nicholas Anthony Del Vecchio, at 50 percent; District Court judges Lee Gates and Kathy Hardcastle, 45 percent and 44 percent, respectively; and Supreme Court Justice Nancy Saitta, 42 percent.

Neither Halverson, Saitta nor Hardcastle returned calls for comment.

In each court, the average "less than adequate" score in that bias category was skewed by the results of one or more judges.

In the Supreme Court, Mark Gibbons received the most favorable score of 10 percent. In District Court's civil and criminal divisions, David Barker fared the best at 9 percent.

In justice courts, Abbi Silver of Las Vegas and Stephen George of Henderson had the worst and best ratings of 41 percent and 6 percent, respectively.

In municipal courts, George Assad got the worst less-than-adequate score of 40 percent; Martin Hastings got the best, at 8 percent. Both are Las Vegas city judges.

Of 68 judges evaluated in the survey, lawyers perceived all but four as being more biased toward persons involved than they were about any other issue.

Las Vegas Justice of the Peace Karen Bennett-Haron and North Las Vegas Municipal Court Judge Sean Hoeffgen had worse scores for perceived racial bias.

Bennett-Haron was rated less than adequate in showing no racial or ethnic bias by 37 percent of the 153 attorneys who scored her on that trait. That's 11 percentage points higher than those who said the same about her regarding attorneys and litigants. Bennett-Haron is one of the few black jurists in Nevada.

She says while everyone is entitled to their opinions, she doesn't put much stock in the survey.

"Perception is extremely intangible and extremely personal. I am here to serve the public, and if I get caught up in worrying about what a small segment of the population is perceiving about me, then I won't be able to do my job," Bennett-Haron says. "I have to remain focused on what I am here to do: to provide fair and equal treatment to everybody."

In Hoeffgen's case, there was only a slight difference in his scores for racial and personal bias. Twelve percent of attorneys found him less than adequate in showing no racial bias, whereas 10 percent said the same when it comes to bias toward parties and attorneys.

Hoeffgen says without any specific comments from attorneys addressing perceived racial bias, he is unsure what to make of his score.

The fact that he presides in racially-diverse North Las Vegas, he says, might have influenced that perception. Also, only 51 attorneys rated him this year, a small enough number to have a significant margin of error. Only about half that number rated him in the 2006 survey, but they gave him a perfect score -- zero "less than adequate" -- on all four bias questions.

"I just look at the survey as useful information for me to see how I am progressing in my career as a judge," he says.

Justice of the Peace Stephen George and Municipal Judge Mark Stevens, both of Henderson, received the same less-than-adequate scores for another kind of bias as they did for bias toward attorneys and parties to lawsuits. George's tie score was a respectably low 6 percent for religious bias; Stevens' was 23 percent for gender bias.

Contact reporter Margaret Ann Miille at mmiille@reviewjournal.com or 702-383-0401.