HONORABLE DONALD M. MOSLEY, 
District Court Judge, County of Clark
State of Nevada,;
Respondent.
____________________________________/

Pursuant to prior notice, the above-entitled matter came on for public (formal) hearing pursuant to NRS '1.467(3)(c) and Commission Rule 18 (hereinafter referred to as the "Hearing") on February 25-28, 2002 before the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline (hereinafter referred to as the "Commission"). Mary E. Boetsch, Esq. appeared as Special Prosecutor for the Commission. Thomas Pitaro, Esq. and Dominic P. Gentile, Esq. appeared as attorney for the Honorable Donald M. Mosley (hereinafter referred to as the "Respondent"). After hearing the allegations, positions and proof of the parties, the arguments of counsel and having carefully considered the evidence introduced by both parties, including substantial witness testimony, and after being fully advised of its obligations and duties, the Commission specifically finds that the Hearing was conducted according to the statutes, rules and procedures required by law and hereby issues the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Imposition of Discipline pursuant to Commission Rules 27 and 28; and, NRS '1.4673 and '1.4677:

A. Findings Of Fact

    The Commission finds that the legal evidence presented by the Special Prosecutor at the Hearing clearly and convincingly established each of the following facts: 

1. Respondent was, at all times applicable to the allegations contained in the Formal Statement of Charges, a District Court Judge for the Eighth Judicial District located in the County of Clark, State of Nevada and Respondent was a judicial officer whose conduct was subject to the provisions of the Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct (hereinafter the "Code"). 

2. That the factual allegations contained in Charge 1 (which are specifically referenced in Paragraph 1 of the Formal Statement of Charges) regarding the use of court stationery by Respondent in sending a letter dated August 25, 1999 with regard to a personal matter had been established by the required standard of proof. 

3. That the factual allegations contained in Charge 2 (which are specifically referenced in Paragraph 2 of the Formal Statement of Charges) regarding the use of court stationery by Respondent in sending a letter dated February 17, 1999 [erroneously stated on the letter as 1998] with regard to a personal matter had been established by the required standard of proof. 

4. That the factual allegations contained in Charge 3 (which are specifically referenced in Paragraph 3 of the Formal Statement of Charges) regarding an ex parte conversation or conversations Respondent had with a long-time friend Barbara Orcutt concerning the arrest and release of a particular defendant Robert D=Amore then pending sentencing before another judicial officer had been established by the required standard of proof. 

5. That the factual allegations contained in Charge 4 (specifically referenced in Paragraph 4 of the Formal Statement of Charges) regarding an ex parte request concerning the arrest and release of a particular defendant Robert D=Amore then pending sentencing before another judicial officer, and without notification to the District Attorney=s Office, had been established by the required standard of proof. 

6. That the factual allegations contained in Charge 6 (specifically referenced in Paragraph 6 of the Formal Statement of Charges) regarding Respondent having an ex parte meeting and conversations in Respondent=s chambers with Catherine Ann Woolf, Esq., an attorney representing defendant Joseph McLaughlin in a criminal case then assigned to Respondent for sentencing, had been established by the required standard of proof. 

7. That the factual allegations contained in Charge 7 (specifically referenced in Paragraph 7 of the Formal Statement of Charges) regarding the attendance, conversation and participation of Respondent at an ex parte meeting in Respondent=s attorney=s law offices with Catherine Ann Woolf, Esq., Carl Lovell, Esq., defendant Joseph McLaughlin (then pending sentencing before Respondent) and his wife regarding a case then assigned to Respondent had been established by the required standard of proof. 

8. That the allegations contained in Charge 8 (specifically referenced in Paragraph 8 of the Formal Statement of Charges) regarding the failure by Respondent to timely submit his recusal between approximate dates of August 12, 1997 and October 10, 1997 in the case known as State v. Joseph McLaughlin after ample and sufficient grounds for recusal were apparent under the Code during said period, had been established by the required standard of proof. 

9. That the allegations contained in Charges 5, 9, 10 and 11 (each specifically referenced in the corresponding Paragraphs 5, 9, 10 and 11 of the Formal Statement of Charges) had not been established by the necessary standard or, if they were initially established, were deemed not actionable in light of adequate evidence of mitigation as described below.

B. Conclusions of Law 

The Commission finds, as follows:

As To Charge 1: A violation of Canon 2B of the Code occurred and to unanimously impose discipline under Commission Rule 28 regarding Charge 1 contained in Paragraph 1 of the Formal Statement of Charges.

As To Charge 2: A violation of Canon 2B of the Code occurred and to unanimously impose discipline under Commission Rule 28 regarding Charge 2 contained in Paragraph 2 of the Formal Statement of Charges.

As To Charge 3: A violation of Canons 1, 2, 2A, 2B and 3B(7) of the Code occurred and to impose discipline under Commission Rule 28 regarding Charge 3 contained in Paragraph 3 of the Formal Statement of Charges. The decision carried with six Commissioners voting aye and one Commissioner voting nay. 

As To Charge 4: A violation of Canons 1, 2, 2A and 2B of the Code occurred and to unanimously impose discipline under Commission Rule 28 regarding Charge 4 contained in Paragraph 4 of the Formal Statement of Charges. 

As To Charge 5: Pursuant to Commission Rule 27, to unanimously dismiss Charge 5 contained in Paragraph 5 of the Formal Statement of Charges.

As To Charge 6: A violation of Canon 3B(7) of the Code occurred and to impose discipline under Commission Rule 28 regarding Charge 6 contained in Paragraph 6 of the Formal Statement of Charges. Decision carried with six Commissioners voting aye and one Commissioner voting nay. 

As To Charge 7: A violation of Canon 3B(7) of the Code occurred and to unanimously impose discipline under Commission Rule 28 regarding Charge 7 contained in Paragraph 7 of the Formal Statement of Charges.

As To Charge 8: A violation of Canons 1, 2, 2A and 2B of the Code occurred and to unanimously impose discipline under Commission Rule 28 regarding Charge 8 contained in Paragraph 8 of the Formal Statement of Charges.

As To Charge 9: Pursuant to Commission Rule 27, to unanimously dismiss Charge 9 contained in Paragraph 9 of the Formal Statement of Charges due to a specific finding of a sufficient mitigating factor as allowed by said Rule. The mitigating factor being that Respondent=s intervention may have been required as a result of Mr. McLaughlin=s personal safety being in question.

As To Charge 10: Pursuant to Commission Rule 27, to unanimously dismiss Charge 10 contained in Paragraph 10 of the Formal Statement of Charges as previously requested by the Special Prosecutor.

As To Charge 11: Pursuant to Commission Rule 27, to unanimously dismiss Charge 11 contained in Paragraph 11 of the Formal Statement of Charges.

C. Imposition of Discipline.

    With regard to Charges 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 in which the Commission found a violation of the Code, the Commission finds that the appropriate discipline imposed under Commission Rule 28 as to said charges shall be, as follows:

As To Charges 1 and 2: Respondent shall arrange and attend the first available general ethics course, at his own expense, at the National Judicial College in Reno and file proof of attendance with the Clerk of the Commission. No Administrative Office of the Court/Supreme Court funds are to be utilized for attendance at this course. The decision carried with five Commissioners voting aye and two Commissioners voting nay.

As To Charges 3 and 4: By unanimous vote of the Commission, Respondent shall herewith receive a strongly worded censure stating that the judicial officer did not follow the proper practice under the Code which requires that all parties be notified of such meetings and have an opportunity to attend and be present and that Respondent should conform his conduct to the Code in the future.

As To Charge 6: By unanimous vote of the Commission, Respondent shall herewith receive a strongly worded censure stating that the judicial officer did not follow the proper practice under the Code which requires that all parties be notified of such meetings and have an opportunity to attend and be present and that Respondent should conform his conduct to the Code in the future.

As To Charge 7: By unanimous vote of the Commission, Respondent shall arrange and attend the first available general ethics course, at his own expense, at the National Judicial College in Reno and file proof of attendance with the Clerk of the Commission. No Administrative Office of the Courts/Supreme Court funds are to be utilized for attendance at this course.

As To Charge 8: By unanimous vote of the Commission, Respondent shall be required to pay within fifteen (15) days of the entry of this decision a fine pursuant to NRS '1.4677(1) of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) with said payment directed to the Clark County Law Library or related library foundation.

DATED this 5th day of March, 2002

NEVADA COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE