LAS VEGAS (KTNV) — Clark County Commissioner Justin Jones said Tuesday he was relieved after a four-day State Bar of Nevada hearing ended with a public reprimand, rather than permanent disbarment.
So, what comes next? I met with Jones after the panel to find out
Sitting in his sixth-floor office in the county government center under a picture of pristine Red Rock Canyon, Jones praised the three-member panel of the State Bar that spared him from what for lawyers is the equivalent of the death penalty.
"It was, really, a giant relief," said Jones, who has been an attorney in Nevada since 2003.
"I appreciate that the panel members really took a look at all the evidence. ... I just really appreciate that they put so much time and effort into it and I think it was a fair result under the circumstances."
But he also criticized the Bar, saying it's complaint against him was too harsh and characterized by "vitriol."
Jones was accused of destroying evidence after he deleted all the text messages on his personal phone following a key April 2019 vote on a proposal to develop thousands of homes atop Blue Diamond Hill, which overlooks the Las Vegas Valley and sits next to Red Rock Canyon.
Jones has long opposed the development, first as a private, pro bono attorney for the nonprofit group Save Red Rock and later as an elected Clark County Commissioner.
Bar Counsel Dan Hooge also accused Jones of bribery, because Jones offered the endorsements of environmental groups to then-Clark County Commissioner Steve Sisolak in exchange for a delay in a key vote on the Blue Diamond Hill development.
Neither Jones nor Sisolak was ever investigated or charged with bribery in connection with the offer, which Jones's attorney, Rob Bare, said the offer was simply politics. The Bar panel agreed, saying no bribery took place.
Jones admitted he'd deleted the texts, saying it was not to destroy evidence, but rather a "political cleansing" at a key point in a long-running development battle. Jones has maintained he does not have a specific memory of deleting the texts.
"As I've said before, that was a dumb mistake on my part six years ago," Jones said. "It was something when I first started in this position, I shouldn't have done and I regretted a lot but it definitely didn't merit the level of vitriol, public vitriol, that came from the State Bar here."
Asked for comment, Hooge said he still rejects Jones's explanation for the deletions, and pointed to a ruling from a federal magistrate judge who came to the same conclusion.
"I respectfully disagree with the panel’s view that Justin Jones’ text deletions were a mere innocent attempt to avoid embarrassment," Hooge's statement reads. "[U.S. District Court Magistrate] Judge [Elayna J.] Youchah’s findings suggest a more troubling intent to hide evidence, which deserves scrutiny.
"If Mr. Jones feels my advocacy brought undue vitriol to this process, then I am saddened because it was not my intent. But as a public servant and attorney, I’m duty-bound to uphold accountability — especially when public trust is at stake. The Supreme Court of Nevada will now review this anew, and I’m optimistic it will weigh the facts fairly. Politics aside, Nevadans deserve clarity and integrity from their leaders."
The Supreme Court of Nevada will review the Jones case — including the exhibits and arguments from both sides — and could adjust the discipline if justices disagree with the panel's ruling.
In the meantime, the Blue Diamond Hill project is still pending. The county settled a lawsuit with the developer, Jim Rhodes and his Gypsum Resources LLC company, paying him $80 million and agreeing to help him get a road approved across Bureau of Land Management land to access the development site.
Jones said he hasn't been as involved with the Blue Diamond Hill project since the lawsuit and the accusations against him, and isn't sure if he'd participate in a vote if the matter came before the commission in the future. But his views on the matter haven't changed, he said.
"I think anyone will tell you that's been involved would say the infrastructure costs are astronomical in order to get water, sewer, roads, etc. up to the top of that mountain," Jones said. "I still think it's a very challenging development to move forward. So I think that's a tough question to answer. I still think it's an unwise place to put development."
Although Jones can continue to practice law in Nevada, whether he'll be able to continue to practice politics is another matter. The public reprimand — not to mention the public hearing and months of headlines surrounding the case — will undoubtedly be recycled into political TV ads and mailers.
But Jones said evidence-hiding allegations came up in his 2018 race — in which he beat Republican Tisha Black 54% to 46% — and his 2022 race — where he very narrowly defeated Republican Drew Johnson by just 0.32 percentage points.
"And so the people want me in this office, right? I ran on a platform of running to preserve Red Rock Canyon and also to do other things that are important to this constituency," Jones said. "And so I think the people have spoken twice in terms of the county commission. They'll have the opportunity again in a year or so. So I guess we'll leave it to the people of my district to decide whether this [reprimand] was something that was important enough to them to disqualify me from office."
Asked if he was definitely going to run for a third and final term in 2026, however, Jones said he hadn't made a final decision yet.
Watch my full interview with Commissioner Justin Jones
Do you have questions about politics, elections or government? Email us using the Ask Steve link on our website.
Local News