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

RECENT EDITIONS
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun

News
May. 22, 2008
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

Some lawyers perceive judicial bias

Judges rated for prejudice based on religion, gender or race/ethnicity

By MARGARET ANN MIILLE
REVIEW-JOURNAL
More Info
Complete results including survey methology, summary of retention scores, questionnaire and more

Some attorneys practicing in Clark County believe certain judges in Nevada favor lawyers or litigants involved in cases they decide.

Most of the lawyers participating in the 2008 Judicial Performance Evaluation said most judges were adequately free from every kind of bias the survey was designed to measure. On the other hand, every jurist was perceived, by at least a few lawyers, as biased in some fashion. And of four varieties of bias that could be attributed to a judge, personal bias regarding individuals was alleged much more often than prejudice based on religion, gender or race/ethnicity.

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
  • Alleging fraud, authorities raid voter group
  • NORM: Simpson planned acquittal party
  • Nevada's economy dead last
  • NORM: Hard-core fans ask: Has Jacko moved?
  • NORM: Bobbitt trains for boxing bout in LV
  • NORM: Letterman gives an 'A' to O.J. jury
  • PALACE STATION ROBBERY: Audiotapes convicted O.J.
  • Judge: Attacker 'gleeful'
  • Circle of friends surrounds lost pal
  • The Biggest loser



    • The biennial rating of local and state Supreme Court judges follows a report late last year in which the American Tort Reform Foundation for the first time put Clark County on its list of "judicial hellholes." The annual report targets areas of the country that it says have developed a reputation for uneven justice.

    "The decks appear to be stacked in favor of local lawyers who reportedly 'pay to play' in the county's courts," the foundation said, referring to a 2006 Los Angeles Times series that highlighted examples of questionable judicial decisions in Nevada.

    "Judges have been criticized for issuing favorable rulings in cases that benefit friends, campaign contributors or their own financial interests."

    The foundation's parent, the American Tort Reform Association, is a coalition of corporations, medical associations and other industry groups that seeks to limit corporate and professional liability.

    The tort reform foundation report focused on civil courts. The judicial evaluation suggests other courts also suffer from the same perception.

    Even those judges with enviable scores on personal bias fared more poorly on that trait than they did in other bias categories.

    Case in point: Family Court Judge Gloria Sanchez, who received the best rating for showing no bias toward lawyers or litigants.

    Only 4 percent of the 139 attorneys who rated her said she was less than adequate in that category. Yet 2 percent said the same about her concerning gender; all agreed she shows zero bias regarding religion or race/ethnicity.

    Are some of the 799 attorneys who took the online survey merely disgruntled about cases they have lost, or is their perception of preferential treatment by some judges warranted?

    "The criticisms of our legal system here in Nevada are very valid," says Kenneth Fernandez, assistant political science professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

    "Of course judges will be affected by the pocketbook. ... It is very hard to suppress your financial interests. If a lawyer has contributed to your challenger, that will affect you more than race or gender or anything else."

    In the legal community, it's not always about money.

    "It's a very small world. Everyone knows everyone, and it's a network," Fernandez says. "Even without campaign contributors, there can be personal rivalries that can affect individuals. ... You will not stop individuals from holding a grudge on a personal matter."

    District Court judges captured three of the five worst ratings for perceived bias toward attorneys and litigants.

    At the bottom is Elizabeth Halverson, who was suspended with pay last year by the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline because of allegations she mistreated staff, slept on the bench and illegally communicated with jurors. Seventy-nine percent of attorneys said she was less than adequate at showing no bias of that kind.

    Halverson is trailed by Family Court Judge Nicholas Anthony Del Vecchio, at 50 percent; District Court judges Lee Gates and Kathy Hardcastle, 45 percent and 44 percent, respectively; and Supreme Court Justice Nancy Saitta, 42 percent.

    Neither Halverson, Saitta nor Hardcastle returned calls for comment.

    In each court, the average "less than adequate" score in that bias category was skewed by the results of one or more judges.

    In the Supreme Court, Mark Gibbons received the most favorable score of 10 percent. In District Court's civil and criminal divisions, David Barker fared the best at 9 percent.

    In justice courts, Abbi Silver of Las Vegas and Stephen George of Henderson had the worst and best ratings of 41 percent and 6 percent, respectively.

    In municipal courts, George Assad got the worst less-than-adequate score of 40 percent; Martin Hastings got the best, at 8 percent. Both are Las Vegas city judges.

    Of 68 judges evaluated in the survey, lawyers perceived all but four as being more biased toward persons involved than they were about any other issue.

    Las Vegas Justice of the Peace Karen Bennett-Haron and North Las Vegas Municipal Court Judge Sean Hoeffgen had worse scores for perceived racial bias.

    Bennett-Haron was rated less than adequate in showing no racial or ethnic bias by 37 percent of the 153 attorneys who scored her on that trait. That's 11 percentage points higher than those who said the same about her regarding attorneys and litigants. Bennett-Haron is one of the few black jurists in Nevada.

    She says while everyone is entitled to their opinions, she doesn't put much stock in the survey.

    "Perception is extremely intangible and extremely personal. I am here to serve the public, and if I get caught up in worrying about what a small segment of the population is perceiving about me, then I won't be able to do my job," Bennett-Haron says. "I have to remain focused on what I am here to do: to provide fair and equal treatment to everybody."

    In Hoeffgen's case, there was only a slight difference in his scores for racial and personal bias. Twelve percent of attorneys found him less than adequate in showing no racial bias, whereas 10 percent said the same when it comes to bias toward parties and attorneys.

    Hoeffgen says without any specific comments from attorneys addressing perceived racial bias, he is unsure what to make of his score.

    The fact that he presides in racially-diverse North Las Vegas, he says, might have influenced that perception. Also, only 51 attorneys rated him this year, a small enough number to have a significant margin of error. Only about half that number rated him in the 2006 survey, but they gave him a perfect score -- zero "less than adequate" -- on all four bias questions.

    "I just look at the survey as useful information for me to see how I am progressing in my career as a judge," he says.

    Justice of the Peace Stephen George and Municipal Judge Mark Stevens, both of Henderson, received the same less-than-adequate scores for another kind of bias as they did for bias toward attorneys and parties to lawsuits. George's tie score was a respectably low 6 percent for religious bias; Stevens' was 23 percent for gender bias.

    Contact reporter Margaret Ann Miille at mmiille@reviewjournal.com or 702-383-0401.



    Leave Your Comment 14 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:

    Dot wrote on May 22, 2008 09:21 PM: Free Nevada, you are catching on to the schemes. It is not hard to see the pattern of behaviour and connect the dots. Quite a few of them have ties to Utah. Hope they are honest in all their dealings. Tee hee. I would hate to see someone loose their planet.

    You mentioned our Governor. Unfortunately, we elected the village idiot. Our Governor is a joke. He too has ties to the Utah bunch.

    In all seriousness, what goes on in our judiciary is not a joke. Innocent people have their lives destroyed because of the corruption.


    Free Nevada wrote on May 22, 2008 04:34 PM: There is this one HOA attorney from Utah who practices at a big firm downtown --a quick review of his record shows he always seems to file motions early on to get his cases transfered to a specific judge and he most often prevails. You know, the kind of guy who sues your elderly neighbors for putting a stained glass window in to block some of the desert heat and wind up losing their home to a buddy on the HOA's board after not paying the lien for the legal bill from the big firm downtown. We all saw on Fox5Vegas how Castle Management was fining some guy $10,000 for having dog poop in his back yard and refusing to evict his renters. Governor Gibson veto'ed even basic hard-fought HOA reforms passed by the last Legislature which are only compounded by the nationally humiliated and "difficult to understand" local judiciary.


    Statistics Guy wrote on May 22, 2008 12:03 PM: Many fines result in money going into the judges' fund.

    Many property seizures result in property and/or monetary consideration going into the police fund.

    I invite any dedicated reporter to compare the conviction rates for such crimes with the conviction rates for all other crimes.

    It's an amazing coincidence across the entire US.


    PS - I really enjoyed the look into expense fund use by judges the RJ did years ago.


    tmosley wrote on May 22, 2008 11:27 AM: Wouldn't a public debate be interesting? The judges can hide behind their standard defense in that they are prohibited from speaking about a particular case, however, they are certainly free to discuss their own conduct in many circumstances, especially after a complaint has been filed. While they may be able to argue that judicial discipline must remain confidential, when running for re-election they should have no problem explaining some of their actions. In addition, when an individual files a complaint with the Judicial Discipline Commission they receive a letter representing that based on statute they are precluded from discussing the complaint. Nonsense. This is noting more than a gag order and could be challenged as unconstitutional. This act of intimidation was enacted to protect the judges from those less informed. The judges should not be above the law, just as the people should not abuse the process solely for the purpose of retaliation when unhappy with a decision. There is a difference between a wrong judicial decision and a bad one. To that, the people should be aware of their rights under a 1983 action.
    Tmosley


    Al katraz wrote on May 22, 2008 11:03 AM: "Bobby" is right on the mark. The only solution to judicial bias or incompetency is to simply vote out all the incumbents. Clearly, anyone who hold office is automatically incompetent or corrupt. In fact, what we should do, Bobby, is have an election right after election day so we can vote everyone out those who were elected, that way we'll never have that all-pervasive incompetency and bias.


    chewit wrote on May 22, 2008 10:05 AM: On the other hand, every jurist was perceived, by at least a few lawyers, as biased in some fashion.
    Why do you think that is?? when they see the corruption within, climbing the walls, spilling into the streets, blantant criminal acts from the ones elected to stop those things.
    In the legal community, it's not always about money, try noteriety.
    "It's a very small world. Everyone knows everyone, and it's a network," Fernandez says. "Even without campaign contributors, there can be personal rivalries that can affect individuals. ... You will not stop individuals from holding a grudge on a personal matter."


    The game wrote on May 22, 2008 09:23 AM: It is not uncommon for the attorneys to work together with the judge. Yes, your own attorney will work against you and charge you through the nose to hang you out to dry. When you discover what is going on good luck finding another attorney. The few decent attorney's will hear who is involved and pass on the case. The other scum attorneys will take your money and sell out out just like the first one. Then if you are left with no choice but to represent yourself pro se you most definitely will spend years being drug through the ringer.

    You say call the state board? File a complaint with the judicial commission? Attorneys policing attorneys does not work. Make no mistake the good ole boys have their people in positions to alert them if you complain. The judges will just make things worse for you. How dare you expose their illegal activity.


    Disgusted wrote on May 22, 2008 09:09 AM: The sad part is when you get in front of these game playing judges your the one hung out to dry. It is not the attorney or the judge that suffers it is the person that hired the attorney in good faith.

    Saitta has used her position to line the pockets of her buddies and financially destroy the other party. Saitta's orders are gold to her connections.

    When the public was angry with Becker they wanted her out. The good ole boys seized the moment and sold the public on Saitta. If anyone would have done their homework Saitta's record was more than available. So, they replaced Becker with something 10 times worse. Not only do incumbents need to be voted out good viable candidates need to be voted in. If all of Saitta's shenanigans were to come to light, the public might demand public hanging be restored.


    JEW wrote on May 22, 2008 08:10 AM: THE FBI AND IRS SHOULD BE INVESTIGATING THE COURTS,JUDGES AND LAWYERS OF LAS VEGAS JUST AS THEY DID THE CRAZY HORSE TOO. TALK ABOUT KICKBACKS AND PAY-OFFS !!!!!


    D Jones wrote on May 22, 2008 08:05 AM: Whenever the RJ publishes the Judges report cards, I make a list of good and bad. My list has more bad than good. I hope other readers do this so the the bad ones won't be reelected. Abbi Silver was on the bad list last time, yet she got reelected.
    To the RJ, thanks for doing this.


    Read All Comments