LAS VEGAS (KLAS) — Attorneys for the State Bar of Nevada want to introduce so-called prior bad acts of Clark County Commissioner Justin Jones in its efforts to confiscate his law license for deleting text messages related to a land deal near Red Rock National Park and then trying to conceal his conduct and mislead the courts, documents first obtained by the 8 News Now Investigators reveal.
Jones, the documents say, improperly deleted text messages from his phone in an effort to hide communications with then-commissioner and gubernatorial candidate Steve Sisolak with regard to a decades-long dispute between the county and a developer, Gypsum Resources.
The county settled with Gypsum, in part because of Jones’ role as counsel for neighbors opposing the deal, for $80 million in June. The threat of losing in court with more than $2 billion on the line forced the county toward resolving the litigation, the county manager told commissioners at the time.
In a recording of a lengthy public hearing from Nov. 21, also first obtained by the 8 News Now Investigators, the assistant bar counsel and Jones’ attorney argued whether the panel determining whether to forbid – or perhaps suspend – Jones from the practice of law in Nevada should consider his misconduct in a 2010 case when he represented Las Vegas Sands against claims it wrongfully terminated one of its top executives.
“Clearly in this case this evidence would be very relevant to show aggravating circumstances of dishonesty, self-motive, pattern misconduct, multiple offenses,” James Sweetin, assistant bar counsel, said at the hearing.
The state bar’s motion to allow the panel to consider misrepresentations Jones made in the 2010 Sands case rehashes certain misrepresentations Jones made under oath to the presiding Clark County District Court judge. The motion says Jones admitted to making those misrepresentations, which centered around whether he reviewed certain critical documents. Ultimately, the court fined Jones’ clients, the Sands, $25,000 in 2012 and an additional $250,000 in 2015.
“Both of these cases, the prior case as well as this case, involved acts of – basically – dishonesty perpetrated upon the upon the court,” Sweetin argued. “And respondent [Jones] does not even contest the relevance of this evidence in his opposition.”
Jones’ attorney, Rob Bare, argued the panel should conduct its own hearing with regard to the Sands case.
“I can present evidence and I can show you what really happened in this scenario,” Bare said, noting that the alternative would be to “piece it together” from the decade-old District Court records.
Bare also said the judge in the Sands case, Elizabeth “Betsy” Gonzalez, would have penalized Jones personally for the alleged dishonesty.
“I guarantee you if some lawyer came in there and lied straight out to her and committed illegal conduct in front of her, the bar’s going to know about it,” Bare said.
Gonzalez retired from the bench in 2021, her biography page on an alternative dispute resolution firm says. Bare was also a District Court judge until 2021, having begun his tenure in 2011. He also served as the state’s bar counsel for 17 years, according to information readily available from the Clark County Bar Assocation’s website.
The bar wants to admit the details of the Sands case to bolster its argument that he should be disbarred for his role in the Gypsum case.
“His conduct in this willful planning and perpetration of a lie upon the court on that prior occasion is very probative in this case,” Sweetin argued. “Now to show that these text messages were not deleted by mistake or an instance of respondent, not just having a memory of deleting these things.”
Jones had previously argued, among other things, that he did not remember deleting the texts related to Gypsum. A federal magistrate judge in April 2023, however, disagreed.
“Mr. Jones deleted his texts for the improper use of attempting to prevent discovery of his conduct and the deal giving him time to make good on a campaign promise to kill Gypsum’s Property development,” the magistrate judge, Elayna Youchah, wrote. Jones and Sisolak won their elections in November 2018 for county commissioner and governor, respectively.
Jones’ attorney admits his client – the sitting county commissioner for District F – committed some wrongdoing.
“This panel has to determine at the time that Justin deleted the texts – and yes, he deleted the texts,” Bare argued. “Did he act negligently? Did he act knowingly or did he act intentionally? The panel has to determine that.”
The attorney overseeing the hearing, known as the panel chair, seemed to indicate that he would conduct a hearing on the matter.
A scheduling order from Friday Nov. 22 shows a related hearing scheduled on Jan. 14. It also lists a three-day formal hearing beginning March 11, 2025. That hearing, should it go forward at that time, will ultimately result in the panel’s decision on how, if at all, to penalize Jones.
‘A felony bribery offense’
Bare, Jones’ attorney, and the bar counsel, Daniel Hooge, also argued whether the court should consider the federal magistrate judge’s findings with regard to the deleted text messages. The state bar does not want to relitigate the issue, and Jones’ attorney said the original federal proceedings were not substantial enough to have bearing on the disbarment hearing.
“We are going to retain an expert regarding … the … allegation that essentially alleges that Justin committed a felony bribery offense,” Bare said at the hearing. He said the panel should make its own decision and not follow the federal court’s sanctions order – written by the Youchah, the federal magistrate, because it did not address Jones’ standing with the bar.
“She was not convened as a disciplinary judge,” Bare argued with regard to the state bar’s motion for summary judgment. “That was not a disciplinary court that Justin Jones was in.”
But Hooge, the bar counsel, disagreed.
“Her order was very, very thorough,” Hooge argued. “I will note also that she held evidentiary hearings on this matter. Mr. Jones did participate both as a county commissioner but also as an individual. He had his own counsel that he hired to represent him throughout the process. He submitted affidavits. He was heavily involved in the process.”
The panel chair told the parties he would decide these motions shortly after the Thanksgiving holiday.