NV 8 Dept 21 2020

Our legal panel largely agreed that both candidates in this race are good. One said it “is too bad they are both running for the same seat.” Clark-Newberry was said to be “a good attorney” who is “professional” and “hard-working.” One panelist noted that Reynolds “has done a lot of pro bono” work and has “a good temperament.” 

Reynolds and Clark-Newberry are both private attorneys. Reynolds has been practicing in Nevada for 14 years and is employed as senior counsel at Hutchison & Steffen. His practice largely focuses on complex commercial litigation, asset protection litigation and constitutional issues. He has represented multi-billion dollar corporations, politicians for both political parties before the ethics commission and single-person companies pro bono. He has represented clients at all levels of the Nevada court system and also has experience representing clients in federal district and appellate courts.  

Clark-Newberry has been practicing in Nevada for 13 years. She is a partner in her own law firm and has been a mediator for the Eighth Judicial District Court for the last three years. Her practice focuses on bankruptcy, consumer protection, foreclosure defense, eviction defense, estate planning and short sales. She did not complete our questionnaire, so we cannot discuss self-reported cases. Of the handful of cases that the law school research team was able to find and review, none of them were particularly noteworthy for the purposes of voter information. However, she does have extensive civil litigation practice in state and federal courts. Clark-Newberry was one of many plaintiffs in Sevick v. Sandoval, a high-profile case involving the legality of same-sex marriage under Nevada law. 

Most of Reynolds’ self-reported cases involve complex litigation matters that are not particularly significant for the purposes of voter information. However, a synopsis of those cases and their importance to Reynolds can be found in his questionnaire. Reynolds also reported two cases in which he represented Republican candidates. In Victoria Seaman et al. v. Meghan Smith et al., Reynolds represented Republican Assemblywoman Seaman’s legal challenge to disqualify Democrat Smith as a candidate in the 2014 election because Smith allegedly violated a statute that requires candidates to “actually reside” in the districts they wish to represent at least 30 days before the filing cutoff for that office. Reynolds was able to show that Smith was knowingly not a resident of the district until several weeks after the deadline. Even though the case was before a judge that had significant ties to the Democratic Party, Reynolds did not ask for a different judge. Reynolds was successful at the trial level and the ruling was upheld on appeal. In Dora J. Guy et al. and Plaintiff Intervenors Ken King et al. v. Ross Miller, Reynolds represented several individuals, including the Republican Party of Nevada, in a suit that alleged that the Legislature failed to pass a bill to redraw Nevada’s voting districts to comply with constitutional requirements. The case was resolved after months of expert testimony with the redrawing of the voting districts.

Both candidates appear to be passionate about civil rights and volunteer to provide legal and community services to indigent populations. Neither candidate has been sanctioned or disciplined by a court and neither has a record of ethical violations.