Opinion ID: 1162726
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Quantum of Proof

Text: The rules promulgated by this court for the conduct of commission investigations and hearings expressly provide that a finding of probable cause to proceed with a formal hearing must be premised upon a determination that, in reasonable probability, the evidence apparently available for introduction at a later formal hearing could clearly and convincingly establish grounds for disciplinary action within the commission's jurisdiction. See Interim Rule 1.2 (emphasis added); see also Comm. Rule 15. The clear and convincing standard governs judicial disciplinary proceedings in a majority of jurisdictions. [9] By requiring a lesser degree of proof than the reasonable doubt standard, the standard acknowledges the non-criminal and non-punitive nature of judicial disciplinary proceedings. At the same time, however, it is deferential to the severity of the sanctions that the commission may impose by requiring a higher degree of proof than the mere preponderance of the evidence standard that governs most civil proceedings. See In re Diener, 304 A.2d 587 (Md. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 989 (1974). [10] Therefore, pursuant to the applicable Nevada rules and in light of the persuasive authorities from other jurisdictions, we conclude that factual findings of the commission constituting grounds for censure, removal or retirement of a judicial officer must be premised upon clear and convincing evidence. [11] We note that in the instant case, the commission correctly discerned that the clear and convincing evidence standard governed its proceedings.