WANKER FOR FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT v. Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline, Real Party in Interest. (2026)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This original petition challenges the Nevada Attorney General's refusal to provide counsel to a judge in a judicial discipline matter. Real party in interest Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline (Commission) sent petitioner the Honorable Kimberly A. Wanker a letter requesting a response to a complaint lodged against her. Judge Wanker requested respondent Aaron D. Ford, in his capacity as Nevada Attorney General, to provide counsel to represent her in the Commission proceedings. Ford declined, and Judge Wanker filed this petition seeking a writ of mandamus requiring Ford to provide her with legal representation.

A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an office. NRS 34.160. It is a petitioner's burden to demonstrate that our extraordinary relief is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Having reviewed the petition, answer, reply, and supporting documents, we conclude that Ford did not err by denying Judge Wanker's request for representation. See Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 124 Nev. 193, 198, 179 P.3d 556, 559 (2008) (“Statutory interpretation is a question of law that we review de novo, even in the context of a writ petition.”).

NRS 41.0339(1) provides that the Attorney General “shall provide for the defense ․ of any present or former local judicial officer ․ in any civil action brought against that person based on any alleged act or omission relating to the person's public duties or employment.” The statute explains that the judicial officer can request representation by submitting a written request to the Attorney General “[w]ithin 15 days after service of a copy of the summons and complaint or other legal document commencing the action.” NRS 41.0339(1)(a)(1).

Even if NRS 41.0339 requires the Attorney General to provide representation to judges in Commission proceedings, which we do not decide here, we conclude that Judge Wanker's request was premature because she has not yet been served with a formal statement of charges that would commence an adjudicative proceeding before the Commission. See Jones v. Nev. Comm'n on Jud. Discipline, 130 Nev. 99, 106, 318 P.3d 1078, 1083 (2014) (explaining that “due process rights generally do not attach during the investigatory phase of judicial discipline proceedings” and that the adjudicatory phase does not begin until the Commission files formal charges against a judge). Because Judge Wanker failed to meet her burden of demonstrating that Ford was required to provide her with representation in the investigation phase of the Commission's proceedings, we are not convinced that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. See Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.¹

FOOTNOTES

1.   In light of this order, we lift the stay of proceedings imposed by our November 20, 2025, order.