More Transparency In Judicial Discipline Proposed

A subcommittee of an Article 6 Commission of the Nevada Supreme Court has proposed modifications of the rules and procedures governing judicial discipline. The subcommittee seeks amendments that will make the process more transparent:

To increase transparency, the Article 6 Commission subcommittee recommends:

• Allowing those who file complaints against judges to discuss thosematters publicly. Currently complainants are under the threat ofcontempt if they reveal the existence of their complaints.
• Allowing the Commission on Judicial Discipline to discloseinformation about some cases in certain circumstances – such as whendetails become public through other sources,
• Requiring the Commission on Judicial Discipline to prepare annual reports detailing the disposition of cases, and
• Requiring the Commission on Judicial Discipline to tell those who filed complaints how the cases were resolved.

The report also recommends:

• Authorizing letters of caution and private admonishments for relatively minor issues,
• Adding public admonishment and public reprimand to the list ofallowed forms of discipline (joining fines, suspension, and removal),
• Requiring notice to a judge when a case requires furtherinvestigations, but with protections against retaliation forcomplainants and others,
• Providing for notice and a public hearing before a judge can be suspended,
• Amending the Constitution to allow separation of the Commission onJudicial Discipline’s investigative and adjudicative functions.

The 154 page report will now be considered by the full commission. (Mike Frisch)