Assembly committee hears bill to make judicial-discipline minutes public, add trial-experience requirement for district judges

CARSON CITY — The Assembly Judiciary Committee on Feb. 20 took public testimony on Assembly Bill 141, a proposal that would require the Commission on Judicial Discipline to make written minutes of its proceedings available while leaving the commission’s private deliberative sessions closed, and that would add a trial-experience qualification for candidates for Nevada district judge.

Sponsor Assemblymember Yuwing Wing, who represents Assembly District 8, said the bill seeks to strengthen public confidence in Nevada’s judiciary by improving transparency around disciplinary actions and ensuring district judges have practical trial experience. “The commission has exclusive jurisdiction over public censure, removal, involuntary retirement, and other discipline of judges,” Wing told the committee. She said the bill balances transparency with privacy and includes a proposed amendment to broaden how trial experience is counted.

The bill is structured in separate parts. Section 1 would require that minutes from proceedings of the Commission on Judicial Discipline be accessible to the public while protecting personal and security-sensitive details. Section 2 would add a qualification that a candidate for district judge must have “served as counsel in at least 10 trials or arbitrations in any court form in the state,” language the sponsor said she is willing to refine to include other forms of material trial participation. Section 4 clarifies the sponsor’s intent that the new qualification not affect the current term of any district judge serving in office as of Oct. 1, 2025.

Supporters said the changes would help voters make more informed choices. Vivien Perez, an intern for the sponsor, testified, “Currently, Nevada does not require trial experience for district judge candidates… This bill fixes that by requiring candidates to have served as counsel in at least 10 trials or arbitrations in a Nevada district court.” Trial lawyers and free-press groups also voiced support for better public access to discipline records.

Court officials and legal groups raised reservations. Chief Justice Douglas Herndon of the Nevada Supreme Court said he supported the bill’s goal of improving the bench but opposed a rigid numeric threshold. “I do not believe… a hard cap metric on a specific thing an attorney does is the best way” to qualify judges, he said, arguing that years of practice, continuing judicial education and varied legal experience also prepare attorneys to serve.

Paul Eyhle, general counsel for the Judicial Discipline Commission, told the committee the public already can access orders, findings of fact and transcripts once a case becomes public and cautioned against requiring publication of private deliberative minutes. “There is no secret discipline. There’s no silent discipline of the commission,” Eyhle said, adding that stipulations and trial transcripts are already made public when formal charges are filed.

Committee members asked several detailed questions about how the bill would treat out-of-state trial experience, whether civil or criminal experience should be weighted differently, and how the sponsor chose the number 10 as the threshold. The sponsor said stakeholders proposed the number and that she is open to amendments to broaden the kinds of qualifying trial work to include arbitrations and material participation in hearings and bench proceedings.

No vote was taken in the hearing. Members and the sponsor indicated they expect to work with stakeholders, including the Supreme Court, the Judicial Discipline Commission and organized bar groups, to refine language on both the public-record provisions and the judicial-qualification language before the bill advances.

The committee closed the hearing on AB141 without action and opened a separate hearing on AB302.