Judicial Complaint: What a Mother Alleged About Judge Bridget Robb
Judge Briget Robb isn’t new to controversy. Several women have told me about their experiences in her court. One shared her detailed story with me, and it is revealing.
Feb 18, 2026
In November 2019, Reno resident Robin Mercer submitted a detailed complaint to the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline regarding her experience in Washoe County Family Court, before Judge Bridget Robb, who was then presiding over Department 13.
I have read the statement and reviewed the details with Robin, but I have not published it at Robin’s request due to the personal information it contains.
The complaint does not argue that Judge Robb reached the “wrong” outcome in a complex family-law case. Instead, Mercer alleges that a lack of judicial temperament compromised the process, that inconsistent application of rules occurred, and that conduct undermined impartiality and the right to be heard.
What follows is a structured explanation of Mercer’s allegations, how judicial disciplinary bodies typically evaluate such complaints, and why this document is material in the broader context of public confidence in the courts.
What this judicial complaint is (and is not)
Mercer filed a judicial conduct complaint, not an appeal. Mercer did not request that the Commission reverse a custody or relocation decision. She does not challenge Judge Robb’s legal authority to rule. Instead, she invokes the Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct, alleging violations of:
Canon 1 (Integrity, impartiality, and appearance of propriety)
Canon 2 (Impartial performance of judicial duties)
Rule 2.6 (The right to be heard)
That distinction is critical. Judicial discipline bodies evaluate whether a judge’s conduct, demeanor, and adherence to ethical standards meet the obligations of judicial office. Given the recent controversy, this complaint is premonitory.
The Judge, the Senior Partner, the Junior Lawyer and the Scandal
This article concerns the current stalking scandal involving Judge Robb, Senior Partner at McDonald Carano, Matthew Addison, and Kelci Binau, his romantic partner.
The case background, briefly
Mercer states that she appeared before Judge Robb in February 2018 to seek permission to relocate with her daughter following her husband’s loss of employment. She states that she entered the process knowing that relocation cases are complex and that her chances of success were limited.
Her expectation, she says, was simple: the opportunity to present her case to a neutral judge and receive a decision based on the statutory best-interest factors.
Instead, she alleges a process characterized by delay, repeated interruptions, dismissive comments, and unequal treatment between the parties.
Allegation: judicial demeanor and tone (Canon 1)
A central theme of the complaint is judicial demeanor.
Mercer alleges that throughout the two-day hearing, Judge Robb:
Interrupted counsel and witnesses mid-sentence
Made sarcastic or dismissive “quips.”
Injected personal commentary unrelated to legal standards
Spoke in a tone Mercer describes as snapping, demeaning, and discouraging
Mercer repeatedly acknowledges that tone is difficult to capture in writing, but emphasizes that the proceedings were recorded and are subject to review.
Judicial discipline standards do not require judges to be warm or deferential. They do require conduct that promotes public confidence in the court’s independence and impartiality. Mercer argues that the cumulative effect of the comments and interruptions did the opposite.
Editorializing and personal beliefs from the bench
Beyond tone, Mercer alleges Judge Robb repeatedly substituted personal opinions for neutral adjudication.
Examples cited in the complaint include:
Anecdotes about Judge Robb’s own childhood home and family size
Commentary about adolescent behavior and brain development
Statements expressing a preference for small towns over large cities
Closing remarks rejecting legal distinctions between blood relatives and step-relations based on the judge’s personal beliefs
Mercer’s argument is not that judges may never speak from the bench, but that when personal beliefs appear to displace statutory standards, they create an appearance of impropriety and bias. Judges are to rule on the evidence, not give commentary.
Inconsistent application of evidentiary rules (Canon 2.2)
One of the most detailed sections of the complaint concerns unequal evidentiary rulings.
Mercer alleges a pattern in which:
Her testimony was excluded as hearsay when it was based on school websites and published materials.
Similar testimony from the opposing party, relying on the same sources, was admitted.
Speculation was permitted when offered by the opposing party, but barred when offered by her counsel.
Documents she offered were rejected for lack of “indicia of reliability,” while older or less-supported documents from the other side were admitted.
Judicial discipline bodies are typically reluctant to second-guess evidentiary rulings. However, Mercer frames these rulings not as isolated decisions, but as a pattern of asymmetry favoring one party, which she argues evidences partiality rather than mere discretion.
Alleged gender and socioeconomic bias (Rule 2.3)
The complaint also alleges bias on the basis of gender and socioeconomic status.
Mercer asserts that Judge Robb’s comments and reasoning reflected:
Disparagement of stay-at-home parents
Stereotypes about women who do not work outside the home
Elevation of step-parent roles while minimizing the biological mother’s role
Dismissal of Mercer’s own professional history in favor of assumptions about dependency
Notably, Mercer does not allege overt hostility or slurs. She alleges implicit bias, reflected in language, framing, and credibility judgments.
Judicial discipline authorities evaluate such claims cautiously, but they do consider whether a judge’s comments could reasonably be perceived as reflecting bias.
The right to be heard (Rule 2.6)
Mercer further alleges that she was denied a meaningful opportunity to be heard, citing:
Repeated interruptions are preventing the completion of the testimony
Demeaning responses when she sought clarification as a first-time witness
Curtailment of testimony on statutorily relevant factors
Time pressure was imposed while the judge referenced a personal appointment
The right to be heard is foundational to due process. Mercer argues that courtroom management crossed the line into discouragement and the exclusion of relevant evidence.
Washoe court flags 21 cases tied to Judge Robb, sexual partner’s firm.
See the RGJ article linked above for details. Evidence that Judge Robb acted in ways that violated the rules is mounting. The court’s filing related to its investigation states that the relationship with Addison was previously undisclosed.
Fees and the appearance of punishment
Finally, Mercer points to the court’s fee award ordering her to pay most of the opposing party’s attorney fees, despite findings that:
Her relocation request was made in good faith
It was not intended to frustrate the other parent’s relationship
Standing alone, fee awards are not evidence of misconduct. Mercer argues that, in combination with the alleged bias and procedural barriers, the fee award functioned as a penalty for bringing a legitimate motion.
Strengths and limits of the complaint
From an institutional standpoint, the complaint has notable strengths:
Extensive transcript citations
Focus on patterns rather than single rulings
Grounding in judicial canons rather than emotional grievance
Careful distinction between tone, bias, and legal disagreement
It also has limits:
Many allegations involve discretionary rulings
Some claims rely on interpretation rather than explicit statements
Judicial discipline bodies historically act cautiously, absent corroboration
The complaint constitutes a documented, timestamped record of concerns regarding Judge Robb’s courtroom conduct, which is now being reviewed.
Why this document matters
The Mercer complaint matters less for how it was resolved — judicial discipline proceedings are often confidential — and more for what it establishes: Years before Judge Robb’s name became associated with broader controversy, a litigant articulated detailed, transcript-based concerns about demeanor, impartiality, and the appearance of bias in Family Court Department 13.
In systems built on public trust, patterns of conduct demand scrutiny.
Support independent journalism. Click to donate to: Mike’s Reno Report.