Introduction to the Standing Committee on Judicial Ethics

A. Created by Nevada Supreme Court Rule in 1998. Purpose is to provide judges and aspirants to judicial office advisory opinions regarding ethical matters that may arise in the ordinary course of judicial service, or in the elective or appointive process.

B. Functions.

(1) Render non-binding advisory opinions on hypothetical questions regarding the Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct.

(2) Assist the Nevada Supreme Court by studying and recommending additions to, amendments to, or repeal of provisions of the Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct or other laws governing the conduct of judges and judicial candidates.

C. Membership.

(1) Six judges appointed by the Nevada Supreme Court. Three must be limited jurisdiction judges and three must be district court judges.  Present members are:  Art Ritchie (Clark County Family Court); David Hardy (Washoe County District Court); David Huff (Third Judicial District-Lyon/Churchill Counties); Stephen George (Henderson Justice Court); Kevin Higgins (Sparks Justice Court); and Ann Zimmerman (Las Vegas Justice Court).

(2) Twelve attorneys appointed by the State Bar of Nevada, one of whom is the chairman and one of whom is the vice-chairman.  The two officers are elected by the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline.  Current chairman is Reno Attorney Dan Reaser (Lionel Sawyer & Collins); and current vice-chairman is Reno attorney Michael Pagni (McDonald Carano).

(3) Twelve non-attorneys (lay members) appointed by the Governor.

D. Terms. Two-year terms with collective limit of no more than four, consecutive full terms.

E. Advisory Opinions.

(1) Process. A judge or candidate submits written requests to the Executive Director. Legal research submitted by the judge is accepted and encouraged. The chairman decides whether to form a panel and if he/she does, the Committee’s administrative assistant (Daneen Isenberg) contacts attorneys and judges to participate. Each panel must have one district judge and one limited jurisdiction judge, and six attorneys (including either the chairman or vice-chairman). Panel members discuss the ethical issue(s) via telephonic conference(s) and votes to issue an opinion or not, and what the conclusion will be. The chairman or vice-chairman drafts the opinion or assigns the task to another attorney member of the panel or the Executive Director. Each panel member reviews the draft and provides input regarding the written product. The final opinion is signed by the panel chairman and then filed with the clerk of the Nevada Supreme Court. Final opinions are: (1) sent via e-mail to American Judicature Society, all Nevada judges/senior judges, selected media outlets; and selected state agencies; and (2) posted permanently on Committee website. The development of distribution list for pro tem judges is under way.

(2) Production. 1998–6, 1999-7, 2000-7, 2001-3, 2002-5, 2003-5, 2004-5, 2005-5, and 2006-20.

(3) Limitations. The Committee shall not act on requests for opinions when any of the following circumstances exist:

(a) There is a pending state bar or judicial discipline commission complaint, investigation, proceeding, or litigation concerning the subject of the request.

(b) The request constitutes a complaint against a member of the judiciary.

(c) The request involves procedures employed by the judicial discipline commission in processing complaints against judges.

(d) The request involves activities, the propriety of which depends principally on a question of law unrelated to judicial ethics.

(e) Where it is known that the request involves a situation in litigation or concerns threatened litigation or involves the propriety of sanctions within the purview of the courts, such as contempt.

(f) The committee has by majority vote determined that it would be inadvisable to respond to the request and has specified in writing its reasoning to the person who requested the opinion.