Home subscribe manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

News
Mar. 10, 2008
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

JUDICIAL COMMISSION: Judges punished in private

Attorney wanted details about complaint dismissal

By DAVID KIHARA
REVIEW-JOURNAL

Cheryl Moss
Family Court judge is accused of giving preferential treatment to campaign donors



Randy Rumph
Attorney filed complaint alleging Judge Cheryl Moss was biased

When attorney Randy Rumph filed a complaint against Family Court Judge Cheryl Moss, alleging she was biased in his custody case, he got this answer from the Nevada Judicial Discipline Commission: "Although the Commission has dismissed your complaint, it has taken what it considers to be appropriate action."

Rumph wants to know what appropriate action means, but he'll never find out.

Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

Most Popular Stories
  • NORM: Penthouse wants piece of the Strip
  • RAMPAGE ENDS IN SUICIDE: Man runs amok in Las Vegas
  • ROBBERY-HOMICIDE CASE: Juror sent flirtatious messages
  • Father mourns his daughter
  • NORM: 'Joe the Plumber' too booked for LV
  • Judge asks court to release son arrested after crash that killed girl
  • NORM: Strip club owners, 'Vinny' part ways
  • Police ask: Are there others?
  • Anger over cuts reaches fever pitch
  • Working beneath Lake Las Vegas



    • The judicial commission is responsible for punishing judges and often makes its findings public. But there are cases in which it has reprimanded judges or resolved complaints behind closed doors.

    That means the public in some instances may never learn if a judge is punished or even if a judge is accused of wrongdoing.

    Keeping such information private erodes the public's confidence in judges, who are elected officials, said Chuck Short, Clark County court administrator.

    Short, who is also a member of the group examining the state's judicial system, the Article 6 Commission, predicted that it will look into the Judicial Discipline Commission's private handling of judges.

    "Anytime you place the veil of secrecy on the behaviors of an elected official, it undermines the public's trust," Short said.

    Rumph filed his complaint with the Judicial Discipline Commission against Moss several years ago. He accused her of giving preferential treatment to lawyers who donated to her campaign.

    Rumph received the response in 2007 telling him the case was dismissed. Rumph said he then tried to get more information about how his complaint was resolved but was rebuffed, he said.

    "It's quite dumbfounding to me. It was all secretive," Rumph said.

    The judge at the center of the allegation wouldn't discuss the case. Moss said she signed a confidentiality agreement barring her from speaking about the complaint.

    According to Judicial Discipline Commission records, the commission privately reprimanded or privately resolved complaints against judicial officials five times in fiscal years 2004 to 2007. The commission also privately cautioned judges 41 times after dismissing cases against them in fiscal years 2003 to 2007.

    The records do not show which judges were reprimanded or why. The commission keeps complaints confidential after they are dismissed.

    Those numbers reflect only a fraction of the judicial misconduct complaints. From fiscal years 2003 to 2007, the commission received 770 complaints of judicial misconduct.

    More than half of those complaints, 481, were dismissed by the commission without any investigation.

    The commission often dismissed the complaints because it didn't have jurisdiction over them.

    David Sarnowski, the commission's executive director, said the Judicial Discipline Commission is required to make public formal complaints, suspensions and censures of judges. But he said "private reprimands" are often "minor transgressions" that the commission finds doesn't rise to the level of needing a public proceeding.

    "We don't use it often, as you can probably see. But it has been known to occur," he said.

    Sarnowski said the commission might issue a private reprimand for a very minor offense.

    He also said the commission's "letters of caution" to judges aren't punishment. He described the letters as guidance for judges who might have put themselves in a questionable judicial position.

    About 30 states have similar laws as Nevada's regarding secrecy of judicial disciplinary proceedings. About a dozen have even more restrictive regulations.

    But a few states, including New Hampshire and Arizona, give the public more information on judicial misconduct complaints.

    In New Hampshire, unlike Nevada, complaints against judges are made public even after its oversight committee dismisses or informally resolves the complaint. New Hampshire made the information public after almost a decade of allegations of judicial misconduct, cover-ups and accusations that the committee was worthless, according to reports.

    Anthony McManus, executive secretary with the New Hampshire Judicial Conduct Committee, said the public believed judicial misconduct proceedings were "the old boy network with judges protecting judges."

    He said only about one person a year in New Hampshire actually requests to see a file on a judge.

    "Very rarely does a member of the public ask to see a file," he said.

    In Arizona, the state Supreme Court made its proceedings more open after a county attorney filed a petition after a judge the attorney complained about received only a private reprimand. The attorney argued that since judges are elected, the public has a right to know about even minor and isolated acts of misconduct, according to reports.

    In Arizona, a complaint is made public even after it's dismissed but the names of the judge and complainants are redacted.

    Keith Stott, executive director of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct, said the newly released information requires a "tremendous amount of time and effort" to compile, yet tells you nothing more than the nature of a complaint and that the commission dismissed it.

    But, Stott said, people could use even dismissed complaints against judges, especially during an election year. This is unfair, especially when a minor reprimand is made public, he said.

    "It doesn't mean a judge is a bad judge. It just means they've made a relatively minor mistake," he said.

    Contact reporter David Kihara at dkihara @reviewjournal.com or (702) 380-1039.



    Leave Your Comment 30 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    RobeProber wrote on April 04, 2008 05:52 AM: http://www.RobeProbe.com has pages of judicial ratings by lawyers and litigants criticizing/praising judge Moss.

    Check out what one guy says about moss over at www.RobeProbe.com, it's incredible.


    DivorcedDad wrote on March 11, 2008 08:27 AM: Lawyer for 15 years - never say never

    I am not confused. The judge in my case deferred ruling on the motion to confirm the validity of the post-nup agreement from Day One and tried to force a settlement the whole time - even during trial. I put it down to being allergic to making an appealable ruling. And this behavior was condoned by the Judicial Discipline Commission.


    Lawyer for 15 years wrote on March 10, 2008 09:32 PM: God- I am involved in business matters and love it... helping "real" people with "real" problems, like foreclosure etc., and give telephone guidance to then daily out of my heart, when I don't see that I can help them. In otherwords, I am doing noble deeds. As for your view, it does has merit, but so does protections against frivolous claims that could unnecessary harm one's career. By the way, how long have you been GOD? Over 10 years? LOL! Okay, have some humor folks!

    DivorceDad- I have NEVER heard of such an incident in over 15 years of practice. I do not believe you are telling the complete story, or perhaps you are confused. Judges make it a habit to clear cases from their books.


    Mamamia wrote on March 10, 2008 07:46 PM: Open letter to Chuck Short: You know and the "public" knows that the Committee on Judicial Discipline is just a figurehead nonentity, patterned along the same phony line of the so-called "Coroner's Inquest" that is as honest as any corrupt politician now serving time in prison for graft. Get real, people. Demand an accounting for the inexcusable misbavior of these "naughty" judges. They sure jumped on Judge Halverson quick enough. Why? Because she wasn't part of the "good ol' boy network". Put some of those judges in jail a few times and they might go straight, but don't count on it. There's always going to be rats on the benches!


    GOD wrote on March 10, 2008 07:22 PM: Perverts and criminals like to hide behind rulings that bless them with confidentiality ---
    ISN'T THAT RIGHT SCUM, ER I MEAN LAWYER FOR 15 AMBUALNCE CHASING YEARS AND MR. INVESTIGATING LITTLE BOYS IN THE BATHROOM.

    Who am I?... Well I'm Crazy Harry Reid.


    DivorcedDad wrote on March 10, 2008 06:30 PM: I finally obtained my divorce today after 3.5 years of fighting through the family court system in Las Vegas. The whole thing would have been over in one hearing if the judge had ruled on the validity of our post-nup agreement. There has been no ruling on that motion for 3.5 years - and no action by the Judicial Disipline Commission or Chief Judge (despite rules that all motions must be ruled on 10 days before trial). According to the commission - its an "appealable issue" and outside their juridiction - yeah right.


    geezelouise wrote on March 10, 2008 02:48 PM: To Lawyer for 15 years-

    Why should judges be treated any differently than the general public who are treated every day in a "guilty-until-proven-innocent" fashion. (Person's Name) faces (fill in blank) complaint". That's just as embarrasing to a teacher, a police officer, and accountant or a homemaker.

    I find it interesting that we are all created equal under the law, but there are classes of people who have a notion that they are above the law.


    Lawyer for 15 years wrote on March 10, 2008 02:39 PM: Looks like GOD got caught by Investigator LMAO! :) Look, to make every complaint (valid or not) against a lawyer or doctor PUBLIC, could harm the PUBLIC as the lawyer, doctor, judge etc., is distracted from their clients, patient, etc. There are many frivolous (irrational) claims that are filed by angry individuals, which complaints do not warrant headlines and do not warrant harming one's career.

    There are many instances where a person's privacy is protected, not disclosed (rape victims, auto fatalities until confirmation etc).

    The root of this "bias" issue is campaign contributions, which affect our 3 branches of goverment. Until that is ended or "CAPPED" at an amount that should not cause influence (e.g., $100) these issues will resurface. When someone gives $10,000 to local official or $500,000 to presidential campaign we have an Issue or Problem! Look at the controversy surrounding the Obama (real-estate deal) and Hillary campaigns.


    Greta Muirhead, Esq. wrote on March 10, 2008 02:32 PM: I have been an Alternate Child Support Hearing Master since 2002, not since 1992. I mis-typed the date. I want all of the information I convey to the public to be accurate.

    If you have any questions, please contact me.
    Thank you,

    Greta Muirhead, Esq.


    Rodman wrote on March 10, 2008 01:16 PM: Why is it that action against Moss is secret and every Tom, Dick, Harry and governmental department known to man kicks Halverson around in public?? I'm not a fan of Halverson's I'm just wondering why the same type of justice doesn't apply to all. Looks like to me that Moss ought to be a name remembered to be voted out in the 2008 elections.


    Read All Comments