Complaint stalled, and panel won’t say why

After all, the Nevada Supreme Court said there were “arguable merits” by the judge that after six years, the commission should have acted on the complaint by either filing formal charges or dismissing the complaint.

Instead of explaining why the complaint lingered, the commission argued that it didn’t matter that the case was so old, though legislators in 2009 found problems with the commission’s lagging and set deadlines for future cases.

One footnote said the commission had been busy with other cases, presumably one reason the Jones ethics case is still pending.

The commission’s executive director, David Sarnowski, argued Jones’ attempt to persuade the Supreme Court to toss the charges even before they have been formally filed was premature. Jones and his attorney, Jim Jimmerson, should wait until after he is formally charged.

In July, Jones was informed of the proposed charges against him from the Discipline Commission, giving him a heads-up about what is coming – mainly allegations of improper financial transactions dating to 1996 to the tune of
$2.2 million. The charges also include accusations of an affair with a law student working for him and that later she practiced in his court without him disclosing the relationship.

Even if the Supreme Court justices dismiss these proposed charges, Jones faces legal woes on two other fronts.

On Oct. 24 in federal court, he and five co-defendants were indicted on allegations of defrauding people through investment schemes that didn’t deliver results. The money involved supposedly was in the range of $3 million, and the Family Court judge is accused of providing credibility to the operation.

On Dec. 21, the Judicial Discipline Commission filed ethics charges against him involving his romantic relationship with a former prosecutor who practiced before him.

The 12 counts all involve actions taken between October 2011 and July 2012. Most of the accusations are already known, that he supposedly allowed Lisa Willardson to prosecute cases in his court while they were dating. She insists she did not appear before him while they were dating.

For me, the most shocking part of the charging document is that though Jones was well-aware his dubious behavior was under scrutiny, he had, according to the document, two staffers – Judicial Executive Assistant Connie Avila and law clerk Himanshu Kumar Rattan – work on the taxpayer’s dime to help prepare legal documents for Willardson to submit to the State Bar of Nevada.

Jones, now on paid leave, must think he is wearing the cloak of invincibility to ask staff to work on her legal needs. The two are public employees, not his servants.

The ethics counts allege that Jones violated a multitude of ethical canons, including requiring a judge to comply with the law, to act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, and to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Judges also aren’t supposed to permit social or other relationships to influence their conduct.

Here’s my prediction: The Supreme Court won’t dismiss the pending ethics counts but will give the Judicial Discipline Commission a tongue-lashing. The commission then will do nothing with either of the ethics cases, the one already filed or the one pending. Instead the commission will wait for the criminal action to be resolved.

After all, the most severe punishment the commission can enact is to remove Jones from the bench while the feds can send him to prison and seize property. If Jones is convicted of a felony, he automatically is removed from the bench. That’s discipline.

While that’s the practical approach, at some point it would be enlightening to hear the commission’s thorough explanation for the long delay.

Maybe a legislator can ask during the next session when the commission defends its request for funding.

Jane Ann Morrison’s column appears Monday, Thursday and Saturday. Email her at Jane@reviewjournal.com or call her at 702-383-0275. She also blogs
at lvrj.com/blogs/Morrison.