Opinion ID: 1124510
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Count 6: [14] Incident at Friendly Ford

Text: The Commission found that appellant took two uniformed marshals to Friendly Ford where he berated and intimidated an employee with a threat that the City of North Las Vegas would never purchase another vehicle from Friendly Ford because the court had not yet received ordered vehicles. The Commission concluded that this constituted a violation of NCJC Canon 2 and was grounds for discipline under ARJD 11(3). Appellant argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the finding that he berated and intimidated the Friendly Ford employee. He also contends that his conduct was not a violation of Canon 2 because, as chief purchasing agent for his court, he did nothing other than express his dissatisfaction with the dealership's performance. Appellant thus insists that his conduct did not impugn public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Georgia Nunez testified that it was her perception that appellant berated and intimidated the dealership's employee and that after the incident appellant had said that he probably overreacted. The commentary to NCJC Canon 2 states, Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges.... A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny. Additionally, the commentary explains that [t]he test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge's ability to carry out judicial responsibilities with integrity, impartiality and competence is impaired. [15] However, keeping in mind the trust of ARJD 11(3) that the NCJC is to be read strictly in favor of the judicial officer, and the preamble to the NCJC providing that not all violations of the code warrant discipline, we conclude that appellant's ill-advised conduct does not constitute a sufficiently serious violation of NCJC Canon 2 to warrant discipline.