Defense Attorneys Accuse Former Justice Becker of Conflict

The Las Vegas Sun reports that the attorneys from the Special Public Defender's Office have filed motions on three cases decided by the Court en banc, with former Supreme Court Justice Becker a member of the panel. The motions assert that Becker should have recused herself as she was negotiating with the Clark County District Attorney’s Office for what the Sun calls “a high paying, high ranking job” at the time the opinions were issued.   

The opinions in Johnson v. State, Thomas v. State, and Summers v. State were issued on December 28, 2006, after Becker had failed to win reelection to the Supreme Court. Each of the cases raised an issue of whether the defendant’s right to confront witnesses had been violated by the use of hearsay in the sentencing phase of the trial. The  convictions were affirmed, with Justice Becker siding with the majority in each of the 4-3 decisions. However, the minority opinion in each was a concurrence in the result, with the minority justices expressing the view that in future cases, objections to the use of hearsay in the sentencing portion of a death penalty case should be permitted.

Insurer-Chosen Counsel Represents Both Insured and Insurer

The Nevada Supreme Court upheld the disqualification of a law firm representing an insured in a bad faith claim in  Nevada Yellow Cab Corp. v. Dist. Ct.  The attorney working on the case had previously been a partner in the firm the insurer had hired to defend  the insured in the underlying personal injury matter. While he had not worked on the underlying claim, an associate who had joined him at his new firm had done extensive work on the case, and had acquired information regarding the insurer's handling of the claim.  The Court adopted the majority rule that counsel hired by the insurer to defend the insured represents both the insurer and insurer.  The previous rules regarding conflict, which did not permit creation of a "Chinese wall," applied to this case.