LAS VEGAS (KTNV) — Embattled Clark County commissioner Justin Jones got some good news this week after a preliminary hearing before a disciplinary board of the State Bar of Nevada went his way.
Jones stands accused of deleting text messages pertaining to a proposal by Gypsum Resources to develop homes atop Blue Diamond Hill near the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area. He ran for office in 2018, pledging to oppose the controversial development.
But attorneys for the State Bar sought to introduce evidence from an earlier case in which Jones was involved to suggest he had a pattern of concealing evidence in legal matters.
"It is not that he [Jones] acted before and therefore might act again — it is that his behavior then demonstrates a pattern of calculated decisions to evade discovery obligations, to delay justice, and to obscure the truth," wrote Daniel Hooge, a State Bar attorney. "These are the same choices that led to the deletion of text messages in the Gypsum case."
Back in 2011, Jones was an attorney at Holland & Hart, one of the law firms representing Las Vegas Sands Corp. in a wrongful termination case filed by Steven Jacobs, the former CEO of Sands Macau. During that hearing, a dispute arose over whether Sands' attorneys had possession of emails that Jacobs sought in the case. Attorneys told then-Clark County District Court Judge Elizabeth Gonzalez they did not; in fact, they did have a hard drive that contained the emails.
Gonzalez later imposed fines on Las Vegas Sands for the omission. Jones left the firm after the dispute came to light.
The State Bar argued in its briefs that Jones's conduct in the Sands case showed a pattern of misconduct that was similar to his alleged actions in the Gypsum case.
"Knowledge brings with it responsibility," Hooge wrote. "In this case, the Sands litigation provided Mr. Jones with the knowledge of what justice demands in the realm of discovery. His actions in the current [Gypsum] case reveal not a lack of understanding but an intentional departure from that understanding. The Sands case is, therefore, not merely relevant — it is indispensable in establishing that Mr. Jones knew precisely what he was doing when he failed to preserve the evidence entrusted to him."
But Gonzalez herself testified at Jones's hearing, saying she didn't think he'd done anything wrong in the Sands case. She repeatedly said no when asked if Jones had misrepresented facts during hearings. And when asked directly by Jones attorney Rob Bare if Jones had engaged in illegal conduct or "straight out lying to you," Gonzalez replied, "I did not believe so when I was sitting as a judge, and I do not believe so today."
As a result, hearing panel chairman Andrew Chiu concluded that the State Bar could not use the Sands case against Jones in the deleted texts case.
"Based on the January 14, 2025 ... testimony of Judge Gonzalez, who again this Chair considers the person most knowledgeable as to the findings of fact and law in the July 2011 and September 2012 hearings [in the Sands case], and the transcripts of said hearings, it is this Chair's finding that Bar Counsel has not proven by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent [Jones] committed bad acts" in the Sands case," Chiu wrote, "Hence the current Motion in Limine is denied and Bar Counsel will be precluded from introducing evidence involving the Jacobs matter at March's Formal Hearing."
In a statement, Jones welcomed the ruling: "I am grateful that Judge Gonzalez was able to correct mischaracterizations of her orders in the Sands case and clarify that she does not believe that I was dishonest with her," he wrote.
But the ruling isn't the end of the matter; Jones still faces the charges of deleting relevant text messages just hours after a key vote in the long-running Gypsum Resources development saga. In April, he acknowledged in court that the messages were deleted, but said he had no recollection of how it happened.
"I don't recall doing it, but I understand from [a forensic data company's] review of my cell phone records that that is what occurred," Jones said at the April hearing. "I have no explanation for that."
The State Bar is seeking to suspend Jones's law license for five years.
