Nevada high court rules on judge disqualifications

CARSON CITY -- The Nevada Supreme Court has ruled that judges do not have to automatically disqualify themselves in cases where the attorney or the party involved contributed to the election campaign of the jurist.

The court noted judges must run for election in Nevada and said, "The conduct of judicial business in this state would be all but impossible if every litigant and attorney who has ever contributed to the judge's campaign could disqualify the judge at will from presiding over an action involving the litigant or attorney."

The court ordered Clark County District Judge Michael Douglas back on a case involving a real estate transaction in Southern Nevada.

The case involves Daniel Ayala and his corporation, Ayalas Inc., who became involved in real estate transactions with Mark R. Escoto and John Bayer. Ayala sued, claiming he lost $185,000 as a result of Escoto's and Bayer's representations and a double escrow that permitted them to hide important terms of the transaction.

Judge Douglas found Escoto and Bayer liable for misrepresentation, constructive fraud, negligence and breach of various duties. And he set a hearing date for determining damages.

After the initial ruling, Escoto reminded the judge he had contributed to his election campaign. And he wrote the judge a letter complaining about the adverse liability ruling. Escoto's co-defendant Bayer then filed a motion to toss Douglas off the case.

At the hearing on the motion, Douglas denied being biased but he agreed to step down to avoid the appearance of impropriety and implied bias. Ayala, who won the first round in the case, appealed to the Supreme Court the decision of Douglas to recuse himself.

The court, in its unanimous decision Friday, said, "While we commend the judge for being sensitive to the need to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, we conclude that he should not have removed himself from this case.

"Bayer did not present sufficient factual and legal grounds to overcome the presumption of judicial impartiality," the court said.

It said there was never any allegation that the campaign contribution was exceptional. The amount of the contribution was not disclosed in court documents.

archive