The Nevada Supreme Court sidestepped broader questions last week as it dismissed a petition filed by a Nye County judge who had sought Attorney General Aaron Ford’s office to represent her over a judicial misconduct complaint.

The ruling from three supreme court justices declined to decide the broader legal question as to whether the attorney general’s office is required to represent judicial officers in proceedings before the Commission on Judicial Discipline. 

Instead, the court ruled narrowly that Judge Kimberly Wanker’s request for representation from Ford was premature since she had not yet been formally charged by the commission.

Both Wanker and the attorney general’s office did not return multiple requests for comment. 

The commission investigates claims of judicial misconduct or a judge’s disability and doles out punishment accordingly. In 2023, it reviewed 228 complaints.

After receiving a complaint, the commission determines if there is “a reasonable probability” that the evidence warrants disciplinary action. In such cases, judges are asked to respond to the complaint. The commission takes their response into consideration as it decides whether to bring formal charges and begin public proceedings. 

In June 2025, Wanker received a letter from the commission asking her to respond to a complaint filed against her, but she had not yet been formally charged in the case. Wanker requested legal representation from the attorney general’s office, and after the office denied her request, she filed her petition with the state supreme court.

The court pointed to the commission’s multistep review process to conclude that Ford was not required to represent Wanker “in the investigation phase” and before charges were filed.

By law, the attorney general’s office represents the state of Nevada, state agencies, state employees and “any present or former local judicial officer” in civil court proceedings.

The Commission on Judicial Discipline declined to comment, citing the pending misconduct case.

Judge sought legal representation in misconduct hearing

Wanker’s case revolved around whether the attorney general’s duty under state law to represent any “local judicial officers” in any “civil action” also requires representing judges in misconduct proceedings. 

The complaint against Wanker was filed by First Assistant Attorney General Craig Newby, although the substance of his complaint is not public. Because the complaint was brought by a staffer in Ford’s office, Wanker had requested counsel that avoided a conflict of interest.

In her petition, Wanker argued the state law referencing representation in civil actions meant the attorney general has a duty to represent state judges as soon as they receive notice of a complaint from the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline.

In a response to Wanker in September, the attorney general’s office filed a lengthy rebuttal. Jeffrey Conner, an attorney for Ford’s office, refuted Wanker’s assertion that the judicial commission’s investigations count as “civil actions” or actions initiated in a court of law, arguing instead that judicial misconduct cases are administrative.

The law Wanker cited in her request for representation “is about protecting public employees who have been sued for damages, not providing representation for judges in proceedings before the Commission,” Conner wrote in his response.

Ford’s attorney also argued that even if the supreme court ruled Ford was required to represent judicial officers in misconduct proceedings, he still gets to determine whether Wanker is “entitled to representation at public expense.” State law grants the attorney general’s office discretion over representing public employees, the attorney general's office wrote.

It’s rare for states to promise public counsel to judges facing misconduct complaints, although some states offer to reimburse judges’ legal costs if they are exonerated. Other states, including California, New Mexico and Texas, prohibit judges from being reimbursed by the state in all circumstances, including exoneration.

Wanker was appointed in 2011 by Gov. Brian Sandoval, a Republican, and is running for re-election to the Nye County Circuit Court. She was the state’s first female district court judge in a rural area and trained as a professional racecar driver before entering the legal field.

Wanker had already been reprimanded by the commission at least once for inappropriately holding a defendant in contempt of court. As part of the conditions of the reprimand, Wanker vacated the finding of contempt and agreed to take two courses on management skills and ethics in the courtroom.