Thursday, October 28, 2010

Kishner Gets Censured

From the RJ:

A judicial ethics panel censured Clark County district judge candidate Joanna S. Kishner on Monday for making "reckless" statements about her opponent, Philip J. Dabney.
The Standing Committee on Judicial Ethics and Election Practices found Kishner knowingly made reckless statements that omitted facts about Dabney during their joint appearance on the Sept. 13 television show "Face to Face with Jon Ralston." Dabney and Kishner are candidates for the Department 31 district judge seat in Clark County.

A censure is a public reprimand.
Well, it's kind of like a public reprimand ... except for the "public" generally only includes people who read the small print in the back of legal publications.

(LVRJ; Thanks, Tipsters!)

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

She'll probably win the election. Welcome to Clark County, my friends.

Anonymous said...

The point here is Kishner is getting into trouble aleady on an otherwise uneventful campaign. She will be another Halverson for sure. She is completely lacking in experience as an attorney to be qualified as a jurist. Has she ever tried a case? Trial judges must first and foremost be trial lawyers first

Anonymous said...

Her only crime was not knowing how TV works, especially these second-rate local network programs like Face to Face that have less than professional production values due to, well, that's just the nature of locally produced programs everywhere. It's not personal.
Anyhoo, Ralston cut her off before she could finish her thought. It's not what she said, it's that she didn't say enough.

Anonymous said...

Dabney had my vote even before this scandal. I guess we get what we pay for when Judges aren't appointed.

Anonymous said...

vote YES on QUESTION 1 - need more evidence that judicial elections are a bad idea

Anonymous said...

the most astonishing things about that episode of face to face were (1) ralston wasnt aware that dabney was found to have violated rules of professional conduct (you can argue the violation was technical, but he wants to be a judge, so it would appear to be relevant) and (2) dabney didnt appear to be ready to answer the question. he had to know it was coming, right?

dabney's complaint is ridiculous. the supreme court said that dabney and his partner committed per se violations of the rules of professional conduct. that dabney was found not to have exerted undue influence is a separate matter and claim. one of the most alarming things about the dabney sct opinion is that dabney and his firms testified that they were concerned that they were violating the rules of professional conduct by modifying the woman's trust. they contended, and the court agreed, that this was a good fact and showed they cared about the client. my question is: if they were so concerned, why didnt they just read the rules of conduct? they would have realized they were violating the rules immediately. Dabney had the opportunity to explain himself on face to face. he probably filed this complaint because he did a terrible job. dabney has committed violations of the election rules throughout the campaign. he and a group of other candidates published a flyer asserting that they were the "democratic ticket" for judge, even though we all know it is non-partisan.

Anonymous said...

I've never had any experience with Kishner, she might be terrible might be fine. However, the Eighth Judicial is SEVERELY lacking in judges with commercial/ construction litigation experience. I hear this complaint constantly. People say, why would a partner from a big firm run for judge - it is certainly a big pay cut? Well folks, in the least, Dabney has significant experience in commercial and construction litigation. He is a partner at a big firm. (I've never had a case against him either). Just these facts alone place him far beyond most of our jurists. I don't care about either of the stupid violations everyone is freaking out about. Oh no, Kishner said something stupid. Oh no, Dabney may have had an ethical violation in his past. Everyone slips up, look at the big picture folks. I think about who will I feel more comfortable bringing a complex business litigation motion to. We have enough plaintiff's attorneys and criminal attorneys on the bench.

Anonymous said...

will someone please explain to me why our court system requires the judges to preside over both criminal and civil? Why not just have criminal judges, and civil judges? Maybe I'm too new of a lawyer to see the benefit of having a judge preside one month over a murder trial and the next month over a corporate suit. I can't think of a single lawyer that I would hire for both a murder trial and a complex civil trial next month, so how can I expect a judge to be competent in both?

Anonymous said...

10:05 = Kishner.

Personally, I think she's smart, nice, fair, balanced.... wait a second, wrong Kishner. Nevermind.

Anonymous said...

In the sake of fairness, the censure was struck down today by the Federal Court.

Anonymous said...

Published Decision 10-7 (re: Joanna S. Kishner) Rescinded by Order of U.S. District Court

On October 29, 2010 the Standing Committee on Judicial Ethics and Election Practices filed an order rescinding and withdrawing the committee's Published Opinion 10-7, originally published in response to a complaint by Philip J. Dabney against Joanna S. Kishner. The order was filed in compliance with a temporary restraining order granted by Hon. Roger L. Hunt.

Click here to read a copy of the order.

All effective 2010 published opinions of the Standing Committee on Judicial Ethics and Election Practices may be viewed at: http://www.judicial.state.nv.us/decisionsscjeep3new.htm
_______________________________________________________________

Anonymous said...

I have worked on cases where Phil was the opposing counsel. For the sake of my clients, I'm keeping this anon, but he is a damn good lawyer.
If I remember correctly, the NV Supreme Court held that Phil did not exert undue influence.

He has my vote. I want someone on the bench with his experience and intellect. Badly.

Anonymous said...

I have always felt Joanna Kishner has the experience and intellect to do a great job as a judge. I had planned on changing my vote based on the censure information and my lack of time to fully investigate. After reading more about it and see the Federal ruling I am glad I did not (I am voting November 2). I certainly feel there is no place for future judicial candidates for playing dirty politics, lining up the votes on the judicial panel (isn't it obvious, this is 1st amendment 101), then making a bid deal about it all over the radio. Never mind Dabney can be censured or found in violation of ethical behavior with the group of 11 actions (see Ron Israel censure, see "democratic flyer" comments in previous comments) as well as his past actions on the $250k inheritance that was exposed. I am tired of the dirty politics and don't tell me judges are above all this. Character and ethics matter. I hope Joanna Kishner wins the election, she deserves it.

Hubert said...

This is fantastic!