Opinion
No. 52760.
01-31-2011
In the Matter of the Honorable Elizabeth HALVERSON, District Court Judge, Eighth Judicial District, County of Clark, State of Nevada. The Honorable Elizabeth Halverson, District Court Judge, Eighth Judicial District, County of Clark, State of Nevada, Appellant, v. Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline, Respondent.
Schwartz, Kelly & Oltarz–Schwartz, P.C. Elizabeth Halverson Sinai Schroeder Mooney Boetsch Bradley & Pace Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline
Schwartz, Kelly & Oltarz–Schwartz, P.C.
Elizabeth Halverson
Sinai Schroeder Mooney Boetsch Bradley & Pace
Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This case comes before us on appeal from the Nevada Judicial Discipline Commission's decision to permanently remove Elizabeth Halverson as a district court judge. While this court does not agree with each and every finding and conclusion the Commission made, after our own review of the record, we hold that sufficient clear and convincing evidence was introduced to conclude that Judge Halverson committed willful misconduct in violation of multiple provisions of the Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct. These violations were serious and justify the discipline imposed. See Matter of Davis, 113 Nev. 1204, 1222, 1226, 946 P.2d 1033, 1045, 1047 (1997) (sustaining the Commission's decision despite holding that certain canons were not violated).
Specifically, we are not persuaded that Judge Halverson's statements to the press, which formed part of the basis for Counts 3 and 13, may, consistent with the First Amendment, subject her to discipline. See Jenevein v. Willing, 493 F.3d 551, 558 (5th Cir .2007) (applying strict scrutiny to determine whether discipline for a judge's press statements was permissible), cited in Carrigan v. Commission on Ethics, 126 Nev. ––––, 236 P.3d 616 (2010), cert. granted, 79 U.S.L.W. 3286 (U.S. Jan. 7, 2011) (No. 10–568 ).
Moreover, we agree with the Commission that the evidence demonstrates that Judge Halverson's testimony lacks credibility. This lack of credibility and an apparent unwillingness to admit mistakes, combined with sufficient evidence of willful misconduct, lead us to conclude that Judge Halverson cannot serve as a judge. The Commission's quotation from a New Mexico case is particularly apt:
When a new judge, through lack of knowledge, experience or judgment, acts in ways that are inconsistent with his or her new role, we hope that such conduct can be corrected through discipline in the form of training, mentoring, and supervision. However, when a judge denies making mistakes, he or she cannot learn from the mistakes, and there is little that can be done to correct the behavior. Under such circumstances, to allow a judge who is not truthful to remain on the bench betrays the public trust and threatens the integrity and independence of the judiciary as a whole.
In the Matter of Rodella, 190 P.3d 338, 349 (N.M.2008). We therefore affirm the Commission's determination that Judge Halverson be permanently removed from office.
The Honorable Michael Cherry and the Honorable Mark Gibbons, Justices, voluntarily recused themselves from participation in the decision of this matter.