Snail-paced process shouldn’t extend beyond election in Halverson case

Few are surprised suspended District Judge Elizabeth Halverson has fallen out with the three attorneys who have represented her in her legal travails.

But why the split?

To end their yearlong relationship with the judge, lawyers Dominic Gentile, Bill Gamage and John Arrascada asked on May 20 to be allowed off her case before the Nevada Judicial Discipline Commission. The lawyers said they had an “irreconcilable conflict of interest.”

Because Halverson asserted her right to confidentiality under attorney-client privilege, they declined to provide further details, other than to say May 29 that it involved “a disagreement over tactics and strategies.”

But Halverson filed court documents saying they quit because she wasn’t paying them and that she had chalked up $120,000 in legal fees. That’s slightly less than her annual salary, which she has received during the process. Then she went on to trash them in her motion.

“It appears the defense attorneys have not engaged in any investigation, interviewed any witnesses, served any subpoenas, obtained any documents or filed any motions since the filing of the charges in January 2008,” Halverson contended.

If true, and I doubt it, that’s also surprising because next Monday she was to have a starring role in a week-long hearing focusing on whether she’s fit to be a judge.

The special prosecutor, Dorothy Nash Holmes of Reno, was set to go and objected to any delay. She wrote in her documents that 80 people have been interviewed and she had subpoenaed 31 witnesses for the case.

“Judge Halverson likely bears responsibility for any breach with her attorneys and should not be allowed to profit from the situation” by further postponement, Holmes wrote.

Can’t help but wonder what the disagreement over tactics and strategies might be.

Could her attorneys have negotiated a settlement that Halverson refused to accept?

Could Halverson have wanted to make the other judges the focus of her defense? Sort of the “I’m-no-worse-than-the-other-judges” defense — a tactic the commission has already rejected.

Obviously, her attorneys, who had seen this as a constitutional issue, wouldn’t want to be involved with rabid judge bashing. Because their reasons were filed under seal, we’re left with speculation.

Without her attorneys, Halverson asked for five months to prepare her case, which would have given her until just before the November election. She noted she has physical limitations that limit her ability to be attorney, investigator and support staff. That’s in contrast to her prior contention that her health doesn’t prevent her from being a judge.

The commission split the baby and pushed the hearing back to Aug. 4.

The hearing May 29 just to determine whether the attorneys could pull out of the case ran from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. If that’s any indication of what’s to come, the full hearing is going to test the patience of the special prosecutor and the commissioners.

Halverson claims she hasn’t received any documents from her attorneys in the past year. The attorneys dispute that.

When one commission member expressed doubts about her claim, I’m told Halverson became snippy and said if he didn’t believe her, he could amend the complaint and file perjury charges against her.

Halverson against the world.

Did Halverson mistreat and abuse her staff? Engage in hostile work environment and sexual harassment? Demand foot rubs from her bailiff? Curse her husband in front of staff? Does she lack the abilities to oversee a criminal trial without harming the public and justice itself? Did she fall asleep during a criminal trial? Did she have improper contact with jurors during a trial?

Even if the answer is yes to all those questions, in all likelihood, the case against Halverson won’t be decided before the primary election in August. Something is horribly wrong with a judicial discipline system that doesn’t act until after an election.

This is the commission that disciplined District Judge Jeffrey Sobel … after he lost his election.

Yes, judges deserve due process and her attorneys asking to withdraw less than three weeks before her hearing places a heavy burden on Halverson. But the glacial pace of the Judicial Discipline Commission shows it needs an overhaul by the Legislature.

This case started April 25, 2007. Resolution after elections isn’t fair to anyone.

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