« Ind. Decisions - Evansville attorney disturbed by Supreme Court decision | Main | Courts - "Judge conservatively, lest ye not be a judge" »

Monday, June 19, 2006

Courts - Still more on: Las Vegas judiciary subject of in-depth LA Times examination

Last Monday, June 12 the ILB quoted from an LA Times 3-part series on the sorry state of the Las Vegas judiciary plus, later that same day, quotes from a Las Vegas columnist lamenting: "I'm embarrassed. For the local judicial system. For the valley's media. And for Southern Nevada. It took an out-of-state newspaper, the Los Angeles Times, to publish one of the most devastating pieces about Las Vegas that we have seen in many years."

Today, a column in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, headlined "Unflattering series on judges unlikely to alter system, but could change players." Some quotes that are interesting even if one doesn't know any of the players:

I'm betting that little within the system will reform. The faces of the players, however, are likely to change.

District Judges Nancy Saitta, Donald Mosley and Sally Loehrer have plenty of friends and defenders, but I'd be surprised if they were able to shake the stench of questionable behavior raised in the series.

Nor will senior District Judges Joseph Pavlikowski, Stephen Huffaker and James Brennan, who have done plenty of good work but now will be compelled to explain the damning details compiled in the Times series. The lack of oversight of senior judicial appointees needs to change, but don't bet the monthly mortgage that oversight is around the corner. Ironically, these are also the most experienced judges in Southern Nevada and were appointed to their positions.

Hardest hit of all are U.S. District Judge James Mahan and popular -- a bit too popular for propriety's sake, some would argue -- civil receiver George Swarts. Every lawyer I've interviewed recently has said essentially the same thing about both men. Mahan is one of the best judges they've ever observed, and Swarts is a very capable receiver who has been a human vacuum cleaner, sucking up cash and fees at a staggering pace.

Readers of the series will surely be disturbed, but they will be left to wonder whether any system of judicial selection is trouble-proof. And that's precisely my point to ponder.

Although local judges are elected in Nevada, and of necessity raise funds from the lawyers and citizens who come before them, the process of appointing judges is rife with political juice and pitfalls aplenty. In the case of federal Judge Mahan, his appointment is for life.

The truth that academics and neophytes hate to admit is that politics is an inseparable part of the justice system. Favoritism is real. Judges commonly genuflect to the wealthy, give deference to high-profile attorneys and rule on close calls for allies and supporters over critics.

"I like the independence of the judiciary that comes from being somewhat shielded from popular vote, like in the federal system," attorney Richard Wright says, but he adds that he's ambivalent about the elected and appointed systems. Both leave plenty of room for politics.

"I don't think I've ever met a judge who would not prefer to be appointed and then run against his record," attorney Dominic Gentile says. "That's not to say that's the better system."

New York, for instance, continues to struggle with its system of appointing judges because the state's political parties rule the process. No political juice, no appointment -- to no one's great surprise.

It's not so different in Nevada, where it's increasingly common for a sitting governor to fill an open seat on the bench with a political ally.

"You get bad judges in both systems, elected and appointed, and you get good judges in both systems," says attorney Stan Hunterton, who is also a member of the New York bar and is familiar with the Eastern-style brand of juice. "You get crooks in both systems; you get excellent judges in both systems."

Posted by Marcia Oddi on June 19, 2006 08:13 PM
Posted to Courts in general