On Monday, February 23, 2026, The Nevada Independent reported that the Nevada Supreme Court sidestepped a key legal question regarding whether the state’s Attorney General is obligated to represent judges facing misconduct allegations.
The decision came as the court dismissed a petition filed by Nye County Judge Kimberly Wanker, who sought legal representation from Attorney General Aaron Ford’s office in response to a judicial misconduct complaint.
The Supreme Court justices declined to rule on the broader issue of whether the Attorney General’s office is required to represent judicial officers in proceedings before the Commission on Judicial Discipline. Instead, the court narrowly concluded that Wanker’s request was premature because she had not yet been formally charged by the commission.
The case originated when Wanker received a letter from the commission in June 2025, requesting her response to a complaint. Wanker sought legal representation from the Attorney General’s office, but her request was denied, prompting her to file a petition with the state Supreme Court.
The court’s decision emphasized the commission’s multi-stage review process, asserting that Ford was not obligated to represent Wanker during the investigation phase, before formal charges were filed.
Nevada law stipulates that the Attorney General’s office represents the state, its agencies, employees, and any current or former local judicial officer in civil court proceedings. Wanker’s case centered on whether this duty extends to representing judges in misconduct proceedings. The Commission on Judicial Discipline declined to comment on the matter, citing the pending case.
Wanker argued that the state law mandating representation in civil actions should apply to judges upon receiving notice of a complaint from the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline. However, in a response filed in September, the Attorney General’s office, through attorney Jeffrey Conner, refuted Wanker’s claim, asserting that judicial commission investigations are administrative rather than civil actions or actions initiated in a court of law.
Conner argued that the law cited by Wanker was intended to protect public employees sued for damages, not to provide representation for judges in proceedings before the Commission. He further contended that even if the Supreme Court ruled Ford was required to represent judicial officers in misconduct proceedings, the Attorney General’s office retains discretion over who receives representation at public expense.
While some states offer to reimburse judges’ legal costs if they are exonerated, others, such as California, New Mexico, and Texas, prohibit reimbursement in all circumstances.
Judge Wanker, a Republican appointed in 2011 by Gov. Brian Sandoval, is seeking re-election to the Nye County Circuit Court. She is noted as the state’s first female district court judge in a rural area, with a background as a professional racecar driver.
Wanker had previously been reprimanded by the commission for inappropriately holding a defendant in contempt of court, leading her to vacate the finding and undertake management skills and ethics courses.
Source: The Nevada Independent
