Judge in ad for firm is off its case

LAS VEGAS SUN ^ | August 03, 2007 | Sam Skolnik

[radar101]

For judges, little is more important than their reputation for rock-solid impartiality. It's an age-old rule: Don't play favorites in the courtroom - and make sure not to allow for the appearance of bias.

A former litigant in her court says District Judge Sally Loehrer may need to take a refresher course on the topic.

Loehrer recently agreed to recuse herself from a civil trial after one of the parties discovered that she had publicly endorsed the lawyers for the other side - a prominent Las Vegas law firm now called Jolley Urga Wirth Woodbury & Standish - in an advertisement.

In the 2004 Nevada Business Journal "advertorial," which until last week also appeared on the law firm's Web site, Loehrer is quoted as saying:

"As a practicing attorney, I had cases with Jolley, Urga, Wirth & Woodbury and also against them. They were always truly professional and nice people to deal with. Now for the past 11 years as a judge, it is a pleasure to have anyone from Jolley, Urga, Wirth & Woodbury in the courtroom."

Michael Zurowski, the former head of a local food distribution company involved in a legal tussle with Nevada State Bank, says he discovered the advertisement while doing an Internet search on the judge.

"I was shocked and upset" by the endorsement, Zurowski wrote in an affidavit. "It was upsetting to find out that she would endorse a particular law firm in such a manner, and also apparently be the only judge on their Web site to do so."

Zurowski's attorney, Thomas Tanksley, filed a motion on July 18, asking Loehrer to recuse herself from the case.

Loehrer's endorsement, Tanksley wrote, "is more than reasonably susceptible to the meaning that this judge leans favorably toward any attorney from that law firm. Indeed, that is the plain and almost inescapable meaning of the quoted language."

Loehrer's actions violated several canons of judicial conduct, Tanksley asserted, including one that mandates that a judge disqualify herself if she "has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party's lawyer."

Further, Tanksley said, because the judge's endorsement "was obviously intended by the firm to solicit business," she may have violated , at least in spirit, another conduct canon, which states that judges should not use the prestige of their judicial office to assist others in fundraising.

On July 23 Loehrer recused herself. The case since has been assigned to District Judge Jessie Walsh.

Loehrer said she recalled giving someone the quote, but that she didn't remember who m she gave it to, or the context in which it was given. She said she believed the person told her that he was collecting quotes from several judges.

She said she was "surprised and amazed" when she was alerted to the advertisement - and quickly conceded that it is "absolutely inappropriate" for a judge to make such statements for written, public display. That's why she readily agreed to recuse herself, she said.

But Loehrer said she didn't think the praise amounted to an endorsement of the firm.

William Urga, managing partner of Jolly Urga, said he didn't know why Loehrer, as opposed to any other judge, was asked for a quote . He said he believed that the quote, in and of itself, should not have been cause for Loehrer to recuse herself.

"To me, it says that we're prepared and we do a good job, not that we're going to win or lose (in her court)," Urga said. "I would think the fact that a judge would say those kinds of things wouldn't faze me if I were on the other side."

According to the Jolley Urga director of administration, Bill Spohrer, Loehrer wrote Gardner Jolley, the firm's senior member, on July 23, the same day she agreed to transfer the case to another judge. In the letter, he said the judge asked the lawyers to "modify the firm's profile." Within days, Jolley asked him to take the advertisement off the firm's Web site.

Connie Brennan, publisher and chief executive of the monthly Nevada Business Journal, said she did not know which freelancer wrote the ad's copy, or why the writer had contacted Loehrer for a quote.

There is no proof of any business ties between Loehrer and Jolly Urga, a point Tanksley also mentioned in his motion. Although she took in about $80,000 in her uncontested 2002 reelection race, it appeared that neither the firm nor any members of it donated to her campaign, according to the judge's 2002 campaign disclosure report.

Both Loehrer and the Jolley Urga firm are respected, well-established presences in Las Vegas' legal community.

Loehrer, 60, has served on the bench since 1993. She practiced law with the firm Wanderer & Wanderer in Las Vegas from 1984 to 1993, according to her biography on the Clark County Courts Web site. Before that she worked for the Clark County district attorney's office.

Loehrer faced some criticism last year when the Los Angeles Times published a lengthy series of stories regarding allegedly wayward conduct among Las Vegas judges. One article noted that of the 54 attorneys and law firms that contributed $500 or more to her 2002 campaign, 51 had cases pending before or assigned to her courtroom.

The story did not present evidence that Loehrer had showed bias toward those who contributed to her campaign.

Jeff Stempel, a UNLV Boyd Law School professor and legal ethics expert, said that at a minimum, Jolley Urga showed poor judgment by having run such an advertisement with Loehrer quoted in it.

Stempel agreed with what other local civil lawyers say regarding Loehrer - that she enjoys a stellar reputation in the local legal community as a smart, no-nonsense jurist. "I don't think for a minute that the ad is a reflection that she would sway cases toward Jolley Urga."

That said, Stempel added, "I think it could raise for the reasonable layperson the impression that Loehrer could be biased when there's a case involving a Jolley Urga attorney and a 'Brand X' attorney."

[nyyankeefan]

lib/dem judge!!!

[razorback-bert]

Urga said. "I would think the fact that a judge would say those kinds of things wouldn't faze me if I were on the other side."

Yea, right!