Judicial discipline is a joke. They only go after certain judges.

The Commission has a variety of issues. First, there is no oversight – the Commission does not answer to any body but only reports to the state legislature. The current budget is approximately $865,000 per year and has increased each legislative session since Paul Deyhle took over. That is a large budget with no oversight save a costly appeal. Second, as discussed in the article, rather than follow established civil procedure (NRCP) and law, the Commission is allowed to self-promulgate its own 'rules' which has resulted in the Commission propounding interrogs prior to the filing of a complaint. If the judge doesn't answer the interrogs (now called 'questions') – the Commission tells the judge all interrogs will be deemed admissions (on top of the judge's duty under the canon to cooperate with the Commission). It is an impossible bind and improper under the NRCPs. Historically, the Commission has stated this procedure exists to 'protect the judge's confidentiality' but, once a complaint is filed, the interrogs become public record and are used as all interrogs are used – a fishing expedition which may be used against the judge during the public hearing and, at the discretion of the Commission, to enhance or enlarge the charges against the judge. Third, the Commission takes the position it will not negotiate any case. The Commission is unwilling to listen to contrary evidence or legal issues that might impact the case. The judge can plead to the charges listed in the Complaint or go to hearing. Last, the Commission states on its website that all pleadings are publicly available once a case has been filed yet, none of the motions filed in the cases are available. Moreover, under the Commission rules, motions are decided in secret – neither the parties or their attorneys are able to attend and there is no information on who is present for motions or how they are decided. Additionally, if you happen to be charged and your case is later dismissed, the Commission does not make that information available on-line. Clearly, there is no transparency and the Commission does not want the public to know how many cases have been dismissed.

As most attorneys are aware, there have been a variety of serious allegations raised against various judges in this state. However, it appears the Commission isn't interested in the more serious and difficult (perhaps more political) cases. Rather, the Commission seems interested in bolstering its stats for the purpose of proving its value and keeping its budget in tact.

I don't dispute the need for the Commission but I do question the way it goes about business. There is no reason for it not to follow established procedure and law in a transparent manner. And, as with attorneys who have some issues, perhaps the better course would be to distinguish between judicial officers who might benefit from cautionary word or mentoring versus those who require actual discipline. At the end of the day, attorneys and judges are human and can and do make mistakes. There is a large difference between the type of mistakes that warrant discipline (including the appropriate level of discipline) and those that warrant lessor interventions – particularly when tax dollars (and bar dues) are at issue.

The judicial discipline commish is worse than the OBC. I cannot believe that I typed those words. They flat out ignore canon violations, and go after who is the unpopular to their Megamind. Analogize it to what the OBC does; goes after solos and little firms for IOLTA. Judicial discipline, aka Jill Davis, only goes after people she does not like. You will never see this agency go after Elissa Cadish, or Linda Bell, because they are personal friends.

Our firm (partners individually) will put up $15,000 for anyone that will run against Judge Hardy.