Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its judicial ethics decision in Caperton, et. al. v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc. (opinion available here), putting a smack down on justice to the highest bidder West Virginia-style. The majority issued the common sense holding that due process is violated when the "probability of actual bias . . . is too high to be constitutionally tolerable." Say, like when a Justice does not recuse himself from a $50 million lawsuit involving a defendant/appellant who has donated $3.1 million in direct and indirect contributions to the elected Justice's campaign in an election yea (for background on the absurd W. Wa. case, read WSJ blog here). Seems pretty reasonable: when a litigant makes massive contributions to a judicial official, the judge should recuse himself from that case.But Chief Justice Roberts' minority opinion offers the most questions for the issue of "justice for sale" in Nevada. And by questions, we literally mean questions. Chief Justice Roberts included a list of 40 questions in his dissent (starts p. 28), which he claims the majority's opinion leaves unanswered, including the question of whether a judge must recuse herself from hearing a case litigated by an attorney who made a significant donation to the judge's campaign.
Seems particularly relevant for Nevada's judiciary, which has [at least in the recent past] turned a blind eye to questions of conflict of interest (see prior post here) and where attorneys/litigants can contribute up to $10,000 to a judge's campaign. Reached for comment on how the case would impact Nevada, State Bar President Bruce Beesley said "Judges here typically are very aware of bias . . . and try to avoid it." (RJ) Hmmm . . . what do you think readers? Do we have the squeaky-clean Silver State judiciary Mr. Beesley imagines?
In related Nevada news, this issue may soon be moot as the Nevada legislature just passed a bill calling for appointment of judicial candidates. (LV Sun)
Again Legal Eagle, you are spot on. The Nevada Judiciary has been for sale, yes including bankruptcy & federal courts, for years. Sometimes in cash, sometimes in clout. In my opinion, what the US Supreme Court has just done is ADMIT that justice is for sale and that maybe we should consider curtailing it. I mean, come on, this had to be taken to the highest court in the land? Any idiot on the street can see the conflict. It is only us lawyers and judges that muddy the ethical waters all in the name of "justice". The irony is that hidden in the shadows is "self-interest" and "corruption", while the banner reads "duty" and "justice". Between the new legislation and the new Decision, maybe, just maybe, Nevada will stop ignoring this age old system of "pay for justice". We'll see.
ReplyDeleteGood to see you stating your opinions on the matter!!
I've stated more opinions at www.legallyunbound.com
It's obvious here in Clark County that the Plaintiffs' bar has the judges in their hip pocket. They have the money and can make the contributions. The stench of corruption is remarkable.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if the FBI couldn't do a little work here on cleaning things up.
Agreed RE the FBI. They went after the County Commissioners, they are going after the PI attorneys & doctors, but when they tried to go after the judges it got snuffed out VERY quickly. I felt like there was more to go on, but it was shut down.
ReplyDelete