Halverson’s ‘baby judge’ argument insults new jurists who don’t act badly

Every legal argument raised by District Judge Elizabeth Halverson about why she shouldn’t have been temporarily suspended as a judge was shot down methodically in a Nevada Supreme Court opinion filed Thursday.

But of all Halverson’s legal arguments (the law was vague, she didn’t get due process), her most specious defense was: I have changed my ways.

Her defense team argued she was a “baby judge” who improved her behavior and was no longer a “substantial threat to the public or the administration of justice.” Sure, her first four months on the bench were rough, but she’s evolved.

The Supreme Court didn’t buy it.

Her defense team also tried to scare the justices, suggesting that if they upheld her temporary suspension by the Nevada Judicial Discipline Commission on May 10, that opened the door to remove judges simply because they are unpopular. In other words: You could be next.

That didn’t frighten the justices. They upheld the Judicial Discipline Commission on every legal issue, thwacking the commission only for taking so long to file a formal complaint against Halverson.

The justices told commissioners to move it along so that a formal hearing could be held to decide whether Halverson should be permanently removed from the bench.

Until then, Halverson keeps drawing her salary without working for it, sort of a dream job. It allows her plenty of time to campaign for her next election, because she has declared she will run again for a full six-year term in 2008.

The Supreme Court took 47 pages to cover the legality of the commission’s suspension, agreeing the commission was right to say Halverson is a threat to justice and was right to suspend her.

The justices were concerned about the extraordinarily high number of peremptory challenges against her by attorneys.

Court Administrator Chuck Short provided me Friday with the most recent figures of attorneys who pay $300 to get their cases reassigned to another judge. Between January and the end of August, 251 attorneys removed their cases from Halverson’s court. Even after her suspension in May, attorneys want their cases out of Department 23, most likely in case she returns.

All the other judges combined averaged only 12 peremptory challenges during that time, so 251 is large by comparison.

The next highest number of challenges went not to any of the other new “baby” judges — Michael Villani, Elissa Cadish, David Barker or Susan Johnson — who all have joined the district court bench since January 2007.

No, after Halverson, the most frequently challenged judges are Jessie Walsh, Lee Gates and Mark Denton, all experienced judges.

Some argue the claims that Halverson abused her staff or used terms like “faux Jew” or “Mick” aren’t enough cause for removal.

But the Supreme Court opinion noted numerous judges in other states whose mouths got them into trouble. An Arizona judge was removed for racist, sexist and obscene comments, among other things. A Florida judge, a woman, was removed in part for sexually harassing her judicial assistant and being abusive to attorneys.

Some were only disciplined. In Georgia, a judge was disciplined for repeated flippant and derogatory remarks. In Iowa, a judge was disciplined for being rude, disrespectful and hostile to other judges, attorneys, litigants and staff.

In Michigan, hostile and obscene terms got a judge disciplined. In Pennsylvania, a judge who threw files, slammed doors, pounded fists and demeaned women on his staff, plus used racial and ethnic slurs in his staff’s presence, was disciplined.

By saying the commission was justified in temporarily suspending Halverson, partly based on her abusive behavior, the state’s highest court is sending a message to certain other judges sitting on the bench that perhaps some may want to temper their own behavior.

If it’s wrong for Elizabeth Halverson, it’s wrong for all judges who believe the black robe allows them to treat people with contempt.

But for her to defend herself as an inexperienced “baby judge” who didn’t know any better but won’t do it again insults the other new district court judges who have joined the bench since the last election.

They haven’t become baby judges run amok. Attorneys aren’t rushing to get any of them bounced off their cases.

Jane Ann Morrison’s column appears Monday, Thursday and Saturday. E-mail her at Jane@reviewjournal.com or call (702) 383-0275.