A disciplinary panel on Monday night declined to strip Clark County Commissioner Justin Jones’ law license, an action the State Bar of Nevada had requested.
The three independent panelists, who deliberated for hours after a four-day hearing, instead issued a public reprimand and ordered that Jones stay out of trouble with the bar for six months.
“Mr. Jones’ guilt couldn’t possibly be any clearer,” said Daniel Hooge, chief bar counsel for the regulatory organization, at the start of his closing arguments.
The bar alleged that Jones committed bribery and took deceitful actions related to a controversial housing development on Blue Mountain Hill.
The disciplinary hearing — which began last week — reiterated allegations that came up in the since-settled legal battle between Clark County and developer Jim Rhodes’ Gypsum Resources LLC, which last year cost the county an $80 million settlement.
The bar’s complaints focused on an alleged “illicit” deal between commission candidate Jones and then-former Commission Chairman Steve Sisolak to come out against Gypsum’s project, and also the mass deletion of text messages from Jones’ cellphone after a crucial vote in 2019 after he had joined the board.
Panel Chairman Andy Chiu said the panel unanimously determined that the interaction between both Democrats was “political activity.”
“We did not feel like a bribe occurred,” said Chiu, a lawyer.
The panel split its decision about the messages.
“We felt that, obviously, the texts were deleted, but no explanations were given as to why the deletion occurred,” Chiu said. “We felt that there was a lack of truthfulness there.”
A cadre of professional colleagues testified favorably about Jones’ character. Hooge said the “true measure of integrity” is judged on how someone treats their enemies rather than their friends.
Jones had not issued a statement as of late Monday.
What’s next?
The Nevada Supreme Court will take an independent look at the disciplinary case, Hooge said late Monday.
Hooge said the deliberations “went as anticipated” because the panels rarely agree with the bar.
“We anticipated that the panel would reject our arguments and recommendations. However, the panel’s conclusions of law and recommendations are non-binding on the Supreme Court of Nevada,” Hooge wrote to the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
Justices will review thousands of pages of evidence and the panel’s conclusions, he said.
“This means they will consider the case ‘of new’ or without deference to the panel’s conclusions or recommendations and arrive at a principled and reasoned decision,” Hooge said.
‘Illicit’ deal scrutinized
At the time of the alleged “quid pro quo” arrangement, Jones was an attorney representing the Save Red Rock conservation group that had opposed the housing development.
Jones reached out to Sisolak’s campaign for governor, offering an endorsement in exchange for Sisolak’s opposition to the project.
The bar alleged that the action amounted to bribery.
“Justin Jones entered into an illicit deal with Steve Sisolak and then deleted all his texts to cover it up,” Hooge said.
‘Bribery or American politics?’
Testifying last week, Jones acknowledged deleting the messages but maintained that he didn’t particularly remember why, describing it as a “stupid” mistake.
His attorney, former District Judge Rob Bare, theorized that it could have been for reasons as simple as a “political cleansing” so Jones could put the controversy behind him.
But Bare said the endorsement deal was a matter of free speech because there was no monetary benefit.
“Was this bribery or was this American politics?” asked Bare, arguing that it was the latter.
He said the deal was neither inappropriate nor a secret.
“Justin Jones is an asset to the public. He’s a good man. Flat out, he’s a good man,” Bare said. “He did something stupid and paid one heck of a penalty for it.”
Bare suggested the panel could fashion a public reprimand that may or may not cost him his job in the next election cycle.
“The ballot box, that’s where he’s ultimately going to have to answer,” the attorney said.
Jones has held his Nevada law license since 2003 with no disciplinary action against it. He is eligible to run for another commission term in 2026.
Hooge said that anything short of Jones admitting wrongdoing and showing remorse — which Hooge said he hadn’t — should lead to the loss of his license.
The bar launched its investigation in 2023, shortly after a federal judge sanctioned Jones in the Gypsum case.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Elayna Youchah had declined to recommend an investigation for misconduct, prompting the bar to launch one anyway.
“Justin Jones doesn’t deserve to stand among us, not after this, not after he deleted those texts to save himself,” Hooge said. “He lied to cover it up, and now he’s continuing with this story that’s ridiculously unbelievable on its face.”