IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
IN THE MATTER OF THE No. 64934
HONORABLE STEVEN JONES,
DISTRICT COURT JUDGE, EIGHTH
JUDICIAL DISTRICT, COUNTY OF
CLARK, STATE OF NEVADA.
THE HONORABLE STEVEN JONES,
FILED
DISTRICT COURT JUDGE, EIGHTH MAR 1 1 2016
JUDICIAL DISTRICT, COUNTY OF TRACE K LNDEMAN
CLARK, STATE OF NEVADA, CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
By •
Appellant, DEPUTY CLERK
vs.
NEVADA COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL
DISCIPLINE,
Respondent.
ORDER AFFIRMING IN PART, REVERSING IN PART
AND VACATING IN PART
This case comes before us on appeal from a Nevada Judicial
Discipline Commission decision publicly censuring Steven Jones and
imposing upon him a three-month suspension without pay for his conduct
as a district court judge.
After reviewing the record, we hold that sufficient clear and
convincing evidence was introduced to conclude that Judge Jones
committed willful misconduct in violation of multiple provisions of the
Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct, including NCJC 1.1, 1.2, 2.2, 2.4(B),
2.4(C), 2.11, and 2.12. The Commission has pointed to no evidence
demonstrating that Judge Jones willfully obstructed staffing decisions as
a result of his personal relationship with a deputy district attorney or that
he used government time or assets to personally assist, or practiced law by
assisting, the deputy district attorney with a State Bar grievance,
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1947A -(e
however, and its findings in this regard are not supported by clear and
convincing evidence in the record. Accordingly, we reverse and vacate the
parts of the Commission's decision pertaining to Counts 3 and 12.
Nevertheless, the violations proven in the other counts were
serious and justify the discipline imposed. See In re Assad, 124 Nev. 391,
406, 185 P.3d 1044, 1053 (2008) (explaining that, when determining the
appropriate sanctions, this court must exercise its independent judgment);
In re Davis, 113 Nev. 1204, 1222, 1226, 946 P.2d 1033, 1045, 1047 (1997)
(sustaining the Commission's decision despite holding that certain canons
were not violated). NRS 1.4677 governs forms of discipline following a
finding of misconduct on formal charges and allows the Commission to
publicly censure a judge and to suspend the judge from office without pay.'
NRS 1.4677(1)(a), (c). Although the Commission found willful misconduct,
the discipline imposed is commensurate with the violations even under the
not knowing and deliberate standard. NRS 1.4653(2). Without
considering Counts 3 and 12, Judge Jones allowed an attorney to appear
before him and litigate termination of parental rights cases at the same
time he pursued a close social relationship with that attorney, even after
other attorneys that appeared before him noted concern. Although this
litigation was not extensive, it had potential to, and in at least one case
did, significantly impact the lives of the families involved. Judge Jones
also deliberately instructed a hearing master to recuse herself in cases
based on his bias, without ensuring that her recusal was procedurally
proper or that those cases would be heard in an efficient and timely
1 NRS 1.4675 applies to suspensions from office that take place
before the judge is formally charged.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A ce
manner. And he directed his law clerk and judicial executive assistant to
assist with the deputy district attorney's State Bar response. As a result,
the District Attorney's Office and the court were left scrambling to find a
way to process the cases assigned to the involved attorneys in a fair,
timely, and efficient manner, and the general atmosphere became hostile.
Public censure and suspension without pay is appropriate, especially given
that, at the time of decision, Judge Jones was already suspended with pay
in a separate matter. See, e.g., The Florida Bar v. Gardiner, So.3d ,
No. SC11-2311, 2014 WL 2516419 (Fla., June 5, 2014) (disbarring judge
who entered into a significant personal relationship with the lead
prosecutor of an ongoing capital first-degree murder trial and who failed to
disclose the relationship); In re Gerard, 631 N.W.2d 271, 278, 280 (Iowa
2001) (suspending a judge from office without pay for 60 days after the
judge engaged in a secret affair with a government attorney who regularly
appeared before him); In re Schwartz, 255 P.3d 299, 306 (N.M. 2011)
(formally reprimanding and imposing training requirements and a $6,000
fine on a judge who pursued a personal relationship with an attorney
appearing before him and who failed to recuse himself from her cases).
Nor do any concerns with the judicial discipline investigation
warrant relief. NRS 1.4663(2) (providing that investigations may extend
to matters "reasonably related to an allegation of misconduct or incapacity
contained in the complaint"); Jones v. Nev. Comm'n on Jud. Discipline,
130 Nev. Adv. Op. 11, 318 P.3d 1078, 1083-84 (2014) (explaining that due
process rights generally are not implicated during the investigatory phase
of judicial discipline and, thus, relief will be granted only upon a showing
of actual prejudice); State v. Johnson, 951 A.2d 1257, 1280-86 (Conn. 2008)
(explaining that, in criminal cases, investigators have no duty to record all
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
10) 1047A 7421iJo
interviews and the failure to record does not result in a due process
violation). Therefore, we affirm the Commission's order of public censure
as• modified, and we affirm the determination that Judge Jones be
suspended from office without pay for three months.
It is so ORDERED.
AAA eze-4-t, J.
Parraguirre Hardesty
Chei
Douglas
' 1r
, API
J. ttAla
Saitta Gibbons
PICKERING, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I agree with the order affirming in part and reversing and
vacating in part, except that I would affirm the Commission's decision as
to Count 3. I therefore dissent as to Count 3 but otherwise join the
foregoing order.
J.
Pickering
cc: The Jimmerson Law Firm, P.C.
Hutchison & Steffen, LLC
Law Offices of Kathleen M. Paustian, Chartered
Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A e
-