In December 2009, Judge William Gonzalez signed an uncontested decree of divorce for Luciaetta and Phil Ivey. Phil then donated $5,000.00 to the campaign of Judge William Gonzalez in April 2010. Thirteen months later, in May 2011, a dispute arose over Phil’s alimony obligation to Luciaetta. Luciaetta asked that Judge Gonzalez be disqualified from hearing the case. The district court denied her request and the matter was submitted to the Nevada Supreme Court on a writ. On March 28, 2013, the Nevada Supreme Court that Luciaetta’s due process rights were not violated by allowing Judge Gonzalez to decide Phil’s case.
I am not aware of any other litigants ever contributing to the campaign of a family court judge who was going to make a decision on that litigant’s case. This case was even more egregious because the contribution was $5,000.00. This $5,000.00 contribution was the largest by any individual to Judge Gonzalez’ campaign and one of the few $5,000.00 campaigns made to a family court judge. If you are wondering if this situation is common, it is not. First, few litigants have the means or the audacity to contribute to the family court judge who is assigned to his or her case. Further, one may also assume that most family court judges’ who receive a campaign contribution from a litigant would voluntarily recuse from the case.
Phil contributed $5,000.00 to Judge Gonzalez and barely a year later received a favorable ruling from the same judge. In any other context this looks like a bribe. I am not saying this was a bribe, I am saying it looks like a bribe and the standard of whether or not a judge should hear a case is whether or not there is the “appearance of impropriety.” It cannot be reasonably argued that this does not raise at least the “appearance of impropriety.”
This decision undermines the integrity of the judiciary and the public’s confidence in the judiciary in Nevada. I have already been asked whether a litigant will feel compelled to contribute to a judge who is assigned to his or her divorce case. What about if one spouse makes a contribution? Will the other spouse then be compelled to make a similar contribution? This decision certainly helps incumbent judges raise campaign funds.
I do not believe that the Nevada Supreme Court fully appreciated the difference of a $5,000.00 contribution in a family court race versus a supreme court race. That being said, although I adamantly disagree with its decision, I maintain a tremendous amount of respect for the court. The court did not have to consider our petition in the first place. It could have swept in under the rug and it never would have seen the time of day. If they had ruled in favor of Luciatta Ivey it could have undermined efforts of the justices to raise funds for their own campaigns. Nevertheless, the court addressed the issue head on.
Although we were on the losing end of a 7-0 decision, there are indications in the concurring opinions that campaign contributions to judges from litigations could be problematic. Justice Saitta specifically wrote that she has “concerns with the current judicial campaign contribution rules.” Hopefully, this decision will be the catalyst for a comprehensive review for future modifications to the rules. Unfortunately, the public has seen this as a case between two divorced parties arguing over money. This case was not about money, but about whether or not a judge who accepted $5,000.00 from a party should be permitted to make decisions on that party’s divorce case. If the public really understood this case, I believe there would have been much more of an outcry.
By Bruce Shapiro, family law attorney at PECOS LAW GROUP