LAS VEGAS (KLAS) — The legal professional overseeing Clark County Commissioner Justin Jones’ upcoming disciplinary listening to earlier than the state bar dominated in favor of the embattled public official, prohibiting the bar counsel from introducing so-called “prior bad acts,” public information present.
Jones is below fireplace for deleting textual content messages from his phone associated to a improvement on Blue Diamond Hill that ended up in a court docket case during which the county misplaced an $80 million judgment. In April 2023, a federal court docket Justice of the Peace choose discovered Jones deleted these messages and the state bar now has a disciplinary listening to in March the place Jones faces disbarment or suspension of his license to apply legislation.
However in a ruling dated Feb. 4, panel chair Andrew Chiu denied the state bar’s movement to incorporate proof that Jones “admitted to making misrepresentations” in Clark County District Courtroom when he was representing Las Vegas Sands. The Sands wished to broaden internationally, and Jones answered with “lack of candor” to a query the presiding choose requested him with regard to sure digital data being mentioned in that court docket listening to, the state bar argued.
2025.02.04-Order-Denying-Mt-in-LimineDownload
Retired choose Betsy Gonzalez, nonetheless, testified voluntarily on Jones behalf on the January listening to.
“I’ve known Justin a long time,” Gonzalez testified. “When he told me what was happening related to the Sands Jacobs [case], I thought there must be misunderstanding about what happened. So I am trying to clarify it.”
Jones’ attoney, Rob Naked, mentioned statements Jones made in court docket and in a listening to Gonzalez performed, after which she fined the Sands $250,000 however didn’t sanction Jones.
“Did Justin Jones, in your opinion commit a crime wrong or bad act?” Naked requested.
“I can’t give you an opinion,” Gonzalez mentioned. “But I can tell you based upon the facts, it did not appear to me that he committed anything that would have caused me to issue any discovery, sanctions or the type of sanctions that were issued in these two orders.”
Because of this, Chiu issued a written ruling in favor of Jones.
“Bar Counsel has not proven by clear and convincing evidence thatRespondent committed bad acts,” Chiu wrote.
Dan Hooge, the bar counsel, offered the 8 Information Now Investigators with this written assertion over e mail, which reads, in its entirety: “I respect the panel chair’s decision. We will proceed to a formal hearing in March. The State Bar remains committed to protecting the public and upholding the integrity of the profession.”
Hooge will oversee the state bar’s effort to self-discipline and probably disbar Jones at a three-day listening to in March.
Jones, in his first public feedback in regards to the state bar disciplinary motion, additionally commented over e mail.
“I am grateful that Judge Gonzalez was able to correct mischaracterizations of her orders in the Sands case and clarify that she does not believe that I was dishonest with her,” Jones wrote.
