Local judge disciplined for ‘favor’
Andress-Tobiasson violated ethics codes
A Las Vegas judge who used the power of her office to do a favor for a friend has been fined $1,000 and publicly reprimanded after a disciplinary panel found “clear and convincing evidence” that she violated professional ethics codes.
The Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline announced the sanctions in a Thursday ruling against Las Vegas Justice of the Peace Melanie Andress-Tobiasson. The ruling follows a disciplinary hearing earlier this month at which the judge tearfully admitted wrongdoing.
The punishment amounts to a slap on the wrist for the judge, who will get to keep her lucrative government job that comes with a salary of roughly $170,000 a year. It marks the end of a chapter in a three-year legal saga that began when Andress-Tobiasson improperly intervened in a Canadian divorce case on behalf of Las Vegas attorney Jennifer Bolton.
“It doesn’t seem like the type of reprimand or punishment for what took place,” said Las Vegas attorney Cal Potter, who represents Bolton’s ex-wife, Vivian WrightBolton.
Bolton and the judge knew each other through work and had interacted at “various social gatherings,” the disciplinary commission found.
State disciplinary commissioners who heard Andress-Tobias-
son’s case were concerned with two core questions:
Did the judge betray the public’s trust by allowing her friendship with Bolton to affect decisions made in her official capacity as a county employee?
Did she act outside her limited jurisdiction when she issued an order in a case that was neither pending in Las Vegas Justice Court nor attached to any case in Las Vegas Justice Court?
The answer to both those questions is yes, according to last week’s ruling.
Andress-Tobiasson’s involvement in the case began in February 2014, when Bolton came into the judge’s chambers and asked for help.
Bolton was in the midst of divorce proceedings in Canada with her estranged spouse. She was dying of cancer and wanted her divorce finalized.
Andress-Tobiasson delivered. She issued what is known as an “ex parte” — or one-sided — order, which compelled a Canadian court to approve the divorce. Wright-Bolton was neither consulted nor given an opportunity to be heard by the court.
The judge later was forced to rescind the order. Bolton died in April 2014.
According to the commissioners’ ruling, the signing of the order exceeded Andress-Tobiasson’s “lawful judicial power” as a justice of the peace.
When the judge signed the order, the disciplinary commission found, she “knew that Jennifer and Vivian were no longer romantically together as Jennifer had introduced another woman … as her girlfriend at var- ious social gatherings.”
Andress-Tobiasson knew that the girlfriend had adopted Bolton’s children. Signing an order regarding “parties and domestic issues with which she was familiar” is a “clearly established violation” of professional ethics, commissioners wrote in their ruling.
She also was found to have violated ethics codes by signing the order without holding a hearing or providing notice to Wright-Bolton. LESSER PENALTY REQUESTED
The fine and public reprimand were consistent with the punishment requested by the prosecuting officer in the case. A prosecuting officer had issued a formal statement of five charges against the judge, and the commission found “clear and convincing” evidence for all but one of them. The commission found “factual proof was insufficient” to sustain a charge that Andress-Tobiasson allowed Bolton’s terminal illness to influence her decision to sign the order.
Andress-Tobiasson has 90 days to pay the fine to the Clark County Law Library. Her lawyer, William Terry, had requested that disciplinary panelists issue a lesser penalty and a letter of warning.
“We appreciate the ultimate verdict,” Terry said Monday. He said that when Andress-Tobiasson signed the order, she “believed at that point in time that she had the power to issue that type of a finding of fact … based on the Canadian law.”
The attorney said she had a “good faith belief” that she could issue the order, but since has realized that she was wrong in that belief.