State Supreme Court won’t block discipline case against embattled judge

The Nevada Supreme Court Thursday refused to block another disciplinary case against suspended Family Court Judge Steven Jones.

The case, which was launched in 2006, includes allegations Jones was involved in several investment schemes, associated with ex-felons, improperly handled drug evidence and once had an “intimate relationship” with a law student who worked for him.

The far-reaching allegations are separate from the charges the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline sustained against Jones in December tied to his handling of a romantic affair with the late former prosecutor, Lisa Willardson, while she appeared before him.

The commission suspended Jones without pay for three months Feb. 3 after finding his relationship with Willardson violated rules of conduct for judges because he failed to disclose it when she appeared before him.

The Clark County coroner last week ruled Willardson’s Dec. 26 death an accident. She had a combination of lethal anti-anxiety and sleeping medications in her system, the coroner concluded.

Jones and his lead lawyer, James J. Jimmerson, sought relief in the 2006 case from the high court on grounds the commission violated the statute of limitations and his due process rights when it waited until July 2012 to formally inform Jones of the investigation.

But in a 15-page decision Thursday, the Supreme Court concluded the judge’s rights were not prejudiced by the commission investigation and the court’s intervention was not warranted at this time.

The court said Jones could lodge an appeal if the judicial commission takes further action against him.

Jimmerson issued a statement saying Jones was “disappointed” with the Supreme Court’s decision.

“While he has the utmost respect for our Supreme Court justices, he disagrees with their opinion today,” Jimmerson said. “Every judge in this state has been harmed by this precedent. Rules and statutes exist prescribing how the commission is supposed to conduct itself, yet the Supreme Court’s ruling effectively renders those rules and statutes meaningless.

“If there are no consequences for the commission’s failure to follow the law, there is nothing to protect our State’s judges from arbitrary and capricious treatment from the commission in the future.”

Jimmerson did not address the 2006 allegations, but Jones has denied wrongdoing.

The commission now has the option of publicly filing the 2006 misconduct case against the embattled judge, who was first elected to the Family Court bench in 1992.

In July 2012, the commission informed Jones that it had prepared a proposed complaint alleging the wide range of misconduct.

The complaint accuses Jones of participating in the investment schemes as far back as 1996, and that one of the felons he dealt with was his former brother-in-law, Thomas Cecrle.

Federal authorities consider Cecrle the central figure in a $3 million investment scheme with Jones that occurred between 2002 and 2012. The two men were indicted by a federal grand jury in the scheme with four others in October 2012. They are to stand trial June 3.

The proposed judicial commission complaint also alleges Jones pressured his former bailiff, Robin Whisman, into loaning another felon, Victor Hancock, $18,000 in 2004 and 2005.

Jones also is accused of having an “intimate relationship” in 2002 with Michelle Taylor, a law student working for him. She married after the relationship ended, and Jones several years later allowed her to practice in his courtroom without disclosing his onetime relationship with her, according to the proposed complaint.

Another allegation involved marijuana submitted as evidence by an attorney in a January 2007 child custody case before Jones.

According to the proposed complaint, Jones took the marijuana home, where his then-girlfriend, Amy McNair, smoked the evidence.