HONORABLE JEFFREY SOBEL,
Former District Court Judge,
Eighth Judicial District,
County of Clark,
State of Nevada
State of Nevada,

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND IMPOSITION OF DISCIPLINE

            Pursuant to prior written notice, the above-entitled matter came on for public (formal) hearing in Las Vegas pursuant to NRS §1.467(3)(c) and Interim Commission Rule 18 (hereinafter referred to as the "hearing") on June 29, 2005, before the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline (hereinafter referred to as the "Commission"). Attorney Mary Boetsch acted as the Special Counsel and prosecuted the case against the Respondent, Jeffrey Sobel. The Respondent was present and represented by counsel, Leonard Gang. The Commission commends both counsel of record for their able and zealous advocacy.
            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. The Commission hereby issues the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Imposition of Discipline pursuant to Commission Interim Rules 27 and 28; and NRS §1.4673 and §1.4677. Following private deliberations the Commission announced its decision that the evidence presented was sufficient to meet the burden of proof imposed on the Special Counsel. The Commission also announced the discipline to be imposed, to wit, a public censure and prohibitions restricting the respondent from appointment to or election to judicial office in Nevada. The votes as to both the violations and the appropriate discipline were unanimous. The instant order constitutes the Commission’s final, dispositive ruling and this written order will supersede any oral pronouncement issued following the hearing.
A. Findings of Fact.
            1. That respondent was, at all times applicable to the allegations contained in the Formal Statement of Charges, a District Judge in the Eighth Judicial District Court in and for the County of Clark, State of Nevada. Therefore, the Respondent was a judicial officer whose conduct was subject to the provisions of the Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct (hereinafter the "Code").|
            2. The factual allegations contained in Counts 1 through 3, regarding the Respondent’s election campaign-related conduct, have been established by the required standard of proof, to wit, clear and convincing evidence. The Commission expressly finds that the Respondent made the statements attributed to him in paragraphs 6 through 8 of Count 1; that the Respondent performed the act attributed to him in paragraph 11 of Count 2; and that the Respondent performed the acts attributed to him in paragraphs 14 through 17 and paragraph 19 of Count 3. The Commission expressly finds that the Respondent’s conduct pertaining to all three counts was willful, notwithstanding the respondent’s explanation for his behavior in his chambers vis-a-vis attorneys Consul, Silvestri and Boyack; and in light of his persistent efforts to obtain from attorney Murdock more money or a satisfactory explanation of what the Respondent perceived to be a disparately large monetary contribution to the Respondent’s opponent.
            The Commission is guided by recent Nevada Supreme Court precedent, which requires application of the "objective reasonable person standard" when applying the canons that comprise the Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct. Mosley v. Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline, 102 P.3d 555, 560 (Nev. 2004). While the Respondent and even some of the attorneys who were present at the in-chambers conference may have initially believed the Respondent was joking–if ever so badly–when he told attorney Boyack he was "f***ed" because he hadn’t contributed while the others had, the objectively reasonable person would be hard-pressed to detect the existence of anything truly humorous or ethical about what the Respondent said and how he said it, particularly during a pre-trial conference in a contested matter. Nor would the objectively reasonable person have believed the Respondent was not behaving unethically when he placed attorney Consul in the exceedingly uncomfortable position of having to admit and then explain the reason for his attendance at a campaign event for the Respondent’s opponent, Jackie Glass. There is little doubt that Mr. Consul felt as if he had been placed in a position that arguably compromised the position of his client, because he went back and discussed the matter with a partner in his firm, Mr. Dickerson, who was a long-time friend of the Respondent. Likewise, Mr. Murdock was subjectively impacted. Indeed, he was irate to the point of writing a letter to the Respondent asking him to disqualify in the case of Herrera v. Baron, Case No. A450123, and accusing the Respondent of trying to extort money from him via a contribution closer in value to the one Mr. Murdock provided to Ms. Glass, who is the wife of Mr. Murdock’s personal friend, attorney Steve Wolfson.
            The Respondent conceded at the Commission hearing that what he did was stupid and he stated he wishes he would not have acted as he did in either instance. He explained that his anomalous behavior during the pre-trial conference in Steinberg v. Western Cab Company, Case No. A408515, occurred at the end of a day during which he conducted many other pre-trial conferences with many other lawyers who either had or had not given him contributions. He testified that during some of the cases involving lawyers from both categories, he revealed what he did not have to reveal, that is, that some lawyers had contributed to his campaign while others had not. He also explain that he truly was interested in finding out from Mr. Murdock why there was a great disparity in his contribution to Ms. Glass vis-a-vis the relatively small contribution Mr. Murdock provided to him. The Respondent’s subjective explanations do not overcome the evidence against him when examined in light of the applicable legal standard.
B. Conclusions of Law.
            The Commission unanimously concludes that it has jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter. Likewise, it concludes the evidence suffices to prove each count of the Formal Statement of Charges as follows: A violation of 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2B, 5 and 5C(2) of the Code occurred regarding Counts 1 through 3.
C. Imposition of Discipline.
            The Commission concludes that the appropriate discipline to be imposed under Commission Interim Rule 28 as to said charges shall be as follows:
            By unanimous vote of the Commission, pursuant to Subsections 5(a) and (b) of Article 6, Section 21 of the Constitution of the State of Nevada, NRS 1.4653(2), and Commission Interim Rule 28, the Respondent shall: (1) Be permanently barred from serving as an elected or appointed judicial officer in Nevada; and (2) Be publicly censured. By way of clarification, the restriction imposed in item (1) immediately above does not restrict the Respondent from providing services as a private or court appointed Special Master, Mediator or Arbitrator. By way of further clarification, the restriction imposed in item (1) immediately above does restrict the Respondent from serving in any of the following positions: Commissioner, Short Trial Judge, Hearing Master, Referee, Juvenile Master or Settlement Judge appointed pursuant to Nevada Rule of Appellate Procedure 16.
            The Commission is mindful of the fact that the Respondent has medical problems and is not a young man. Rather than pursue his former practice as a trial lawyer, he has decided to pursue a legal practice consisting of mediating and arbitrating. The Respondent asked the Commission to limit its disciplinary action in order to allow him to do so. The Commission has exercised its discretion and has decided that the prohibitions on judicial activities, as set forth above, are not unduly punitive. The Commission’s decision gives the Respondent ample opportunity to support himself and his family, while it also protects the public.
D. Order.
            IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Respondent is hereby publicly censured and he is hereby permanently barred from seeking or holding appointive or elective judicial office in Nevada.
            IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Executive Director of the Judicial Discipline Commission is to take the necessary steps to file this document in the appropriate records of the Commission and with the Nevada Supreme Court.
            IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk’s Certificate of Mailing, found below, shall constitute notice of entry of this document pursuant to Commission Interim Rule 34, and the clerk shall promptly serve it on the Respondent’s Counsel and the Special Counsel.
E. Recommendation.
            Because of the relationship between judges and attorneys, who are officers of the court, campaign activities by judges involving attorneys should be carried out with great caution. In soliciting donations, endorsements or political organization help from attorneys, judges can easily place attorneys in a position where the attorneys feel coerced. Attorneys may be concerned for their pending and future cases before judges who are requesting campaign help and believe that there is an obligation to give such help, if their clients are to be assured fair treatment by the judge.
            IT IS, THEREFORE, THE RECOMMENDATION of this Commission that judges not engage in any communication with attorneys within the courtroom, courthouse or even in chambers during the course of any judicial proceeding, whether formal or informal, which can reasonably be construed to be soliciting campaign help from such attorney or anyone closely connected with such attorney. Such communication includes direct solicitation for such campaign help, as well as any innuendo or remarks which could reasonably be construed to be soliciting such help or criticizing an attorney for not giving such help.
            In addition, judges should avoid, even during normal campaign activities, soliciting campaign help from attorneys which an objective observer might reasonably construe to be coercive under all of the circumstances. Such circumstances include:
            1. an attorney’s pending litigation before such judge,

            2. the reasonable likelihood of future litigation before such judge,

            3. the monetary amount of litigation before such judge involving such attorney, and

            4. the serious nature of court proceedings before such judge involving such attorney or his law firm.

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

I hereby certify that on the day of July, 2005, I placed the above-referenced FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND IMPOSITION OF DISCIPLINE in the United States Mail, postage pre-paid, addressed to the undersigned

Leonard Gang, Esq.
P. O. Box 8416
Incline Village, NV 89452
Counsel for Respondent

Mary Boetsch, Esq.
448 Hill Street
Reno, NV 89501
Special Counsel

                                             /S/                                    
Kathy Schultz, Commission Clerk