NV 8 Dept M 2020

Hughes got the thumb’s up from panelists with knowledge of the candidates, despite Mastin’s position as a hearing master. One said “I seriously question her competency,” adding that she “does not know the law.” Another agreed she is not well-regarded in the legal community. Hughes was said to be “a competent lawyer” but “not good on guardianship issues.”

Mastin has been licensed to practice law in Nevada for 23 years. She has been a hearing master for the Eighth Judicial District Court since 2014, presiding over domestic violence and child support matters. Prior to that, she was in private practice with a focus on family law and a hearing master pro tempore. She also prosecuted child welfare cases for the Clark County district attorney's Office from 2004 to 2007. Mastin’s self-reported cases involve typical Family Court matters that are not particularly significant for the purposes of voter information. The facts of the cases and their impact on Mastin can be found in her questionnaire. Mastin has never been sanctioned by the court for misconduct, has no history of ethics violations, and has no record of prosecutorial misconduct. 

Hughes has also been licensed to practice in Nevada for 23 years and has been in private practice focusing on family law matters. He has also served as a Family Court settlement master, a pro tempore judge and commissioner in multiple areas of law and a member of the Nevada Permanent Guardianship Committee, which prepares drafts of rules for the state in order to more uniformly apply guardianship rules and guardianship law. Hughes’ self-reported cases also involved typical Family Court matters, such as divorce and guardianship matters, and estate planning that are not particularly significant for the purposes of voter information. The facts of the cases and their impact on Hughes can be found in his questionnaire. Hughes has never been sanctioned by the court for misconduct or recieved a public reprimand for ethics violations. In 2019, he received a  a “Letter of Caution” from the State Bar of Nevada after a grievance was filed by a former client. However, this letter does not qualify as “discipline” and the complaint was ultimately dismissed and closed.