Action against judge upheld

CARSON CITY -- A unanimous Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a decision to temporarily bar District Judge Elizabeth Halverson from her duties over allegations of bizarre behavior, including mistreating staff members, sleeping during trials and having illegal communication with jurors.

The ruling upheld the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline's "rarely used but formidable power" to temporarily suspend a judge who is determined to be a serious threat to the public or to the administration of justice.

In the opinion written by Chief Justice Bill Maupin, the court rejected Halverson's claims that the commission had violated her rights of due process, along with all of her other claims raised on appeal.

"I think it's a victory for Nevada because we now have some established law in an area that's never been cited before," said the commission's special prosecutor Dorothy Nash Holmes.

The commission, which has the power to remove judges from office, has not had an interim suspension hearing, nor one challenged in the Supreme Court, since new rules governing the body took effect in 1997.

"It's certainly a case of first impression in a lot of areas and in that respect I think it's a very important decision," Nash Holmes said.

Halverson's attorney, Bill Gamage, said he was disappointed with the decision. The justices' opinion widely expanded the commission's authority over judges, he said.

The judge was unavailable for an interview Thursday, Gamage said.

"They spent a lot of time talking about ... the justification of the commission to come in and discipline the judges for intemperate behavior," Gamage said. "I think that reflects a new authority."

The court supported the commission's decision to temporarily suspend Halverson on four grounds:

• Inability to adequately conduct criminal trials.

• Abusive behavior toward court personnel, including sexual harassment and creating a hostile work environment.

• Falling asleep on the bench.

• Failure to cooperate with colleagues and court administration.

Noting "the need to protect the integrity of and public confidence in the judiciary," Maupin said "the cumulative effect of Judge Halverson's conduct was to seriously impair the functioning of the Eighth Judicial District Court."

The commission conducted a closed-door hearing with Halverson on July 16, and suspended her from serving as a judge on July 25.

Halverson appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the temporary suspension law was unconstitutionally vague; the commission lacked legal authority to suspend her before holding any formal proceeding on specific charges and that she did not meet the definition of a "current and future threat" by remaining on the bench.

The Supreme Court rejected all of her arguments, finding the commission, "is authorized to impose an interim suspension during any stage of its proceedings, both before and after issuance of a formal statement of charges."

Halverson has complained the commission improperly considered the testimony of former employees who had not worked for her for more than two months and as a result could not comment on whether she was a "current and future threat" if she remained on the bench.

While the court agreed that an interim suspension was only appropriate to address anticipated future harm, not past misconduct where there was no indication of an ongoing problem, it also said past conduct is a reasonable basis to predict future conduct.

The Supreme Court cautioned the commission that time is at issue for the panel to initiate formal proceedings regarding the misconduct allegations. Safeguards for initiating a temporary suspension, "will not suffice when that suspension takes on the attributes of more permanent discipline," Maupin said.

Halverson, who intends to campaign for re-election in 2008, can file a motion with the panel or high court if commissioners unreasonably delay their decision, Maupin wrote.

"We will move this as quickly as we can and get this resolved," Nash Holmes said. She told justices the commission is moving at "lightning speed" to decide whether formal charges should be filed and initiate a hearing, if necessary.

Gamage said he believed the justices' decision "makes no judge safe" from the authority of the commission.

At least one judge didn't see such a chilling effect.

"The commission acted with some basis, some level of proof in this matter," said District Judge Michael Villani. "We're not at a final stage yet (with the commission) but I don't know if every judge at the courthouse should be afraid of the commission."

He declined to comment on the allegations against Halverson.

Halverson, who continues to collect her $130,000-a-year salary while on suspension, was elected to Department 23 in 2006. Four months after taking the bench in January, commission staff received documentation of concerns about her judicial performance and treatment of staff.

The Supreme Court, in its opinion, discussed some of the evidence presented to the panel that led to the interim suspension.

A Clark County deputy district attorney testified that Halverson had dined and conversed with a jury during its deliberations in a child molestation case. The incidents occurred without the presence of attorneys in the case.

A former bailiff testified that a typical day included helping Halverson, who is obese and has several health problems, change her shoes, dealing with her oxygen tanks, preparing and serving her lunch and covering her with a blanket when she rested in chambers.

Halverson's former judicial executive assistant testified the judge called her law clerk a "faux Jew" because she did not regularly attend temple services, and derisively referred to someone else as a "Mick," which offended the law clerk, who was of Irish descent.

Other staff testified for Halverson, saying they were not asked to perform personal tasks and that she treated them courteously.

Substitute judges will continue presiding over Halverson's department until the commission concludes its work.

Chief Judge Kathy Hardcastle, who compiled a report of concerns from staff and judges that prompted the commission's actions against Halverson, said Thursday she was glad to see an orderly process of law had been followed.

"All I wanted was for the procedures to be followed and the rule of law to determine any disputes," Hardcastle said.

Contact Review-Journal Capital Bureau reporter Sean Whaley at swhaley@ reviewjournal.com or (775) 687-3900 and Review-Journal reporter K.C. Howard at khoward@reviewjournal.com or (702) 380-1039.