SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

IN THE MATTER OF THE 

HONORABLE STEVEN JONES, 

DISTRICT COURT JUDGE, EIGHTH 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT, COUNTY OF 

CLARK, STATE OF NEVADA. 

THE HONORABLE STEVEN JONES, 

DISTRICT COURT JUDGE, EIGHTH 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT, COUNTY OF 

CLARK, STATE OF NEVADA, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

NEVADA COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL 

DISCIPLINE, 

Respondent. 

No. 64934 

FILED 

MAR 1 1 2016 

TRACE K LNDEMAN 

CLERK OF SUPREME COURT 

By • 

DEPUTY CLERK 

ORDER AFFIRMING IN PART, REVERSING IN PART 

AND VACATING IN PART 

This case comes before us on appeal from a Nevada Judicial 

Discipline Commission decision publicly censuring Steven Jones and 

imposing upon him a three-month suspension without pay for his conduct 

as a district court judge. 

After reviewing the record, we hold that sufficient clear and 

convincing evidence was introduced to conclude that Judge Jones 

committed willful misconduct in violation of multiple provisions of the 

Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct, including NCJC 1.1, 1.2, 2.2, 2.4(B), 

2.4(C), 2.11, and 2.12. The Commission has pointed to no evidence 

demonstrating that Judge Jones willfully obstructed staffing decisions as 

a result of his personal relationship with a deputy district attorney or that 

he used government time or assets to personally assist, or practiced law by 

assisting, the deputy district attorney with a State Bar grievance, 

(0) 1947A -(e 
however, and its findings in this regard are not supported by clear and 

convincing evidence in the record. Accordingly, we reverse and vacate the 

parts of the Commission's decision pertaining to Counts 3 and 12. 

Nevertheless, the violations proven in the other counts were 

serious and justify the discipline imposed. See In re Assad, 124 Nev. 391, 

406, 185 P.3d 1044, 1053 (2008) (explaining that, when determining the 

appropriate sanctions, this court must exercise its independent judgment); 

In re 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). NRS 1.4677 governs forms of discipline following a 

finding of misconduct on formal charges and allows the Commission to 

publicly censure a judge and to suspend the judge from office without pay.' 

NRS 1.4677(1)(a), (c). Although the Commission found willful misconduct, 

the discipline imposed is commensurate with the violations even under the 

not knowing and deliberate standard. NRS 1.4653(2). Without 

considering Counts 3 and 12, Judge Jones allowed an attorney to appear 

before him and litigate termination of parental rights cases at the same 

time he pursued a close social relationship with that attorney, even after 

other attorneys that appeared before him noted concern. Although this 

litigation was not extensive, it had potential to, and in at least one case 

did, significantly impact the lives of the families involved. Judge Jones 

also deliberately instructed a hearing master to recuse herself in cases 

based on his bias, without ensuring that her recusal was procedurally 

proper or that those cases would be heard in an efficient and timely 

1NRS 1.4675 applies to suspensions from office that take place 

before the judge is formally charged. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A ce 

2 

.v4.4-14 
manner. And he directed his law clerk and judicial executive assistant to 

assist with the deputy district attorney's State Bar response. As a result, 

the District Attorney's Office and the court were left scrambling to find a 

way to process the cases assigned to the involved attorneys in a fair, 

timely, and efficient manner, and the general atmosphere became hostile. 

Public censure and suspension without pay is appropriate, especially given 

that, at the time of decision, Judge Jones was already suspended with pay 

in a separate matter. See, e.g., The Florida Bar v. Gardiner, So.3d , 

No. SC11-2311, 2014 WL 2516419 (Fla., June 5, 2014) (disbarring judge 

who entered into a significant personal relationship with the lead 

prosecutor of an ongoing capital first-degree murder trial and who failed to 

disclose the relationship); In re Gerard, 631 N.W.2d 271, 278, 280 (Iowa 

2001) (suspending a judge from office without pay for 60 days after the 

judge engaged in a secret affair with a government attorney who regularly 

appeared before him); In re Schwartz, 255 P.3d 299, 306 (N.M. 2011) 

(formally reprimanding and imposing training requirements and a $6,000 

fine on a judge who pursued a personal relationship with an attorney 

appearing before him and who failed to recuse himself from her cases). 

Nor do any concerns with the judicial discipline investigation 

warrant relief. NRS 1.4663(2) (providing that investigations may extend 

to matters "reasonably related to an allegation of misconduct or incapacity 

contained in the complaint"); Jones v. Nev. Comm'n on Jud. Discipline, 

130 Nev. Adv. Op. 11, 318 P.3d 1078, 1083-84 (2014) (explaining that due 

process rights generally are not implicated during the investigatory phase 

of judicial discipline and, thus, relief will be granted only upon a showing 

of actual prejudice); State v. Johnson, 951 A.2d 1257, 1280-86 (Conn. 2008) 

(explaining that, in criminal cases, investigators have no duty to record all 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

3 

10) 1047A 7421iJo 
Chei API 

J. ttAla 

- 

interviews and the failure to record does not result in a due process 

violation). Therefore, we affirm the Commission's order of public censure 

as• modified, and we affirm the determination that Judge Jones be 

suspended from office without pay for three months. 

It is so ORDERED. 

AAA 

Parraguirre 

eze-4-t, 

Hardesty 

J. 

Douglas 

, 

' 1 

r 

Saitta Gibbons 

PICKERING, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part: 

I agree with the order affirming in part and reversing and 

vacating in part, except that I would affirm the Commission's decision as 

to Count 3. I therefore dissent as to Count 3 but otherwise join the 

foregoing order. 

J. 

Pickering 

cc: The Jimmerson Law Firm, P.C. 

Hutchison & Steffen, LLC 

Law Offices of Kathleen M. Paustian, Chartered 

Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

4 

(0) 1947A e