Columnist Sandra Thompson: Some judicious judiciary updates are appropriate

CAN an attorney's contribution to a judge's political campaign buy influence on the bench?

Some litigants in Family Court blame what they consider unfair decisions on the opposing counsel's relationship with the judge or because he contributed to the judge's campaign.

Attorneys say that Family Court judges rely on their contributions, but the usual amounts of $100 and $250 are too insignificant to affect the outcome of a case.

But all agree there can be an appearance of influence.

Leonard Gang, general counsel and executive director of the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline, says the American Bar Association recently amended the commentary part of its model code of judicial conduct. It states that campaign contributions may, by virtue of their size or source, raise concern and may be grounds for disqualification. While normal donations of small amounts shouldn't raise questions, large amounts may, the ABA says.

Bob Dickerson, past president of the Nevada State Bar, believes you can't buy influence for $100 or $500, "but $10,000 or $20,000, that troubles me." It may not buy actual influence, but it can assure access such as the judge always being available to take that attorney's phone call.

"It's a real predicament for an attorney. You don't want the judge to think you're buying influence," Dickerson says. Many attorneys and judges would be happy if the latter were appointed. Nevada voters, however, have not been in favor of that.

"I hate the fact we have to run for election," says Judge Gloria Sanchez, presiding judge for Family Court. "It's uncomfortable for the judge wondering if litigants think they have an advantage if the attorney contributed (to the campaign)." She does not solicit contributions directly; she has a committee to do that.

Family Court judges usually don't raise great sums for their campaigns as compared to other political races. The notable exception this election is embattled Judge Fran Fine who, according to her campaign report filed Aug. 25, raised $104,580. That's nearly double the next highest contribution amount (Judge Bill Voy's $53,661) of all the Family Court judicial candidates. Fine's opponent, Robert Lueck, raised $23,387, according to his report filed Aug. 25.

Most of the contributions from attorneys reported for Family Court judge candidates are in $100, $250 or $500 amounts. Occasionally there is a $1,000 donation. If the amount gets above that, there may be cause for concern, according to the Judicial Discipline Commission.

The commission has charged Judge Steve Jones with misconduct involving a campaign contribution to his 1996 unsuccessful race for the Nevada Supreme Court. A public hearing on the allegations is 8 a.m. Oct. 15 at the Sawyer State Building, 555 E. Washington Ave.

According to the commission, Jones failed to avoid the appearance of impropriety when he continued to sit on a case in which attorney Laura FitzSimmons represented a woman in a divorce action. During the case, FitzSimmons contributed $10,000 and her husband gave $10,000 to Jones. Jones is challenging the allegations.

It's not the only time concern has been raised about FitzSimmons and Jones. Earlier this year, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled that it would not intervene in a case directing the state Bar to vacate the appointment of FitzSimmons to the Nevada Commission on Judicial Selection.

In the dissenting opinion, Justices Bob Rose and Cliff Young noted that Jones voted for FitzSimmons even though he had a clear conflict and should have abstained because she and her husband had contributed $20,000 to his Supreme Court campaign. Also, FitzSimmons' law partner, Kermitt Walters, and his wife gave $95,000 to Jones' campaign individually and through businesses they controlled.

"The court has held that, as a general proposition, contributions by an attorney or a party to a judge's campaign do not disqualify the judge when the party or the attorney appear before the judge," the justices wrote in their dissenting opinion.

"However, when the contribution is very large or greatly disproportionate to the contributions made by a similar class of contributors, then an appearance of impropriety should be recognized."

Elected officials recently have come under increased scrutiny for their business and campaign contribution ties and what they must disclose before a vote.

There's no way Family Court judges can recuse themselves from every case involving an attorney who chipped in $100 or $500 to their campaigns. That would strangle the system. But judges should disclose when the amount is $10,000 or more or comprises a significant percentage of their campaign coffers.

Then let the litigant and his/her attorney decide if the money would buy influence.

SANDRA THOMPSON is vice president/associate editor of the Las Vegas Sun. She can be reached at 259-4025 or on the Internet at [email protected]

archive