BAR OFFICE CHIEF - Californiamembers.calbar.ca.gov/courtDocs/19-J-30260.pdfofficeofchieftrialcounsel melanie j.lawrence,no.230102 interimchieftrialcounsel miar.ellis,no.228235 assistantchieftrialcounsel

qumm-bwmn—

NHHI—Ib‘HHI—IHHH

gflgafifififioomqo‘mawnHo

STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIAOFFICE OF CHIEF TRIAL COUNSELMELANIE J. LAWRENCE, No. 230102INTERIM CHIEF TRIAL COUNSELMIA R. ELLIS, No. 228235ASSISTANT CHIEF TRIAL COUNSELSHERELL N. McFARLANE, No. 2 1 7357SUPERVISING ATTORNEYPAUL G. PRISSEL, No‘ 230793SENIOR TRIAL COUNSEL845 South Figueroa Street

Los Angeles, California 90017-25 1 5

Telephone: (213) 765-1218

STATE BAR COURT

HEARING DEPARTMENT - LOS ANGELES

In the Matter of: ) Case N0.

)

JOHN B. MARCIN, ) NOTICE OF DISCIPLINARY CHARGESNo. 148715, )

) (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6049.1; Rules Proc. 0f) State Bar, rules 5.350 to 5.354)

)

A Member ofthe State Bar. ) [OCTC Case No. 184-17942]

NOTICE - FAILURE T0 RESPOND!

IF YOU FAIL TO FILE A WRITTEN ANSWER TO THIS NOTICEWITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER SERVICE, 0R IF YOU FAIL T0 APPEAR ATTHE STATE BAR COURT TRIAL:

(1) YOUR DEFAULT WILL BE ENTERED;(2) YOUR STATUS WILL BE CHANGED TO INACTIVE AND YOU

WILL NOT BE PERMITTED T0 PRACTICE LAW;(3) YOU WILL NOT BE PERNIITTED TO PARTICIPATE FURTHER IN

THESE PROCEEDINGS UNLESS YOU MAKE A TIMELY MOTIONAND THE DEFAULT IS SET ASIDE, AND;

(4) YOU SHALL BE SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL DISCIPLINE.SPECIFICALLY, IF YOU FAIL TO TIMELY MOVE TO SET ASIDEOR VACATE YOUR DEFAULT, THIS COURT WILL ENTER ANORDER MCOMMENDING YOUR DISBARMENT WITHOUTFURTHER HEARING 0R PROCEEDING. SEE RULE 5.80 ET SEQ.,RULES 0F PROCEDURE OF THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA.

\OWQQUI-hWN—

NNn—Ir—Ir—Iw—r—Au—p—nw—

gfigfifififiwoeman§wuHo

The State Bar of California alleges:

JURISDICTION

1. John Bernard Marcin ("respondent") was admitted to the practice oflaw in the State

of California on December 4, 1990, was a member at all times pertinent to these charges, and

is currently a member of the State Bar of California.

PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT IN A FOREIGN JURISDICTION

2. On or about September 7, 201 8, the Supreme Court of the State ofNevada, case no.

75337, ordered that respondent be disciplined upon findings that respondent had committed

professional misconduct in that jurisdiction as set forth in the Order of Suspension dated

September 7, 201 8 (“Order”). Thereafter, the decision of the foreign jurisdiction became final.

3. A certified copy of the final Order of disciplinary action ofthc foreigI jurisdiction

is attached, as Exhibit 1, and is incorporated by reference.

4. A certified copy of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions ofLaw and

Recommendation, on which the final Order is based, is attached, as Exhibit 2, and is

incorporated by reference.

5. A copy of the statutes, rules or court orders of the foreign jurisdiction found to have

been violated by respondent is attached, as Exhibit 3, and is incorporated by reference.

6. Respondent’s culpability as determined by the foreign jurisdiction indicates that the

following California statutes or rules have been violated or warrant the filing ofthis Notice of

Disciplinary Charges:

a. Former Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-1 10(A) [failure to perform with

competence];

b. Former Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(A) [failure to maintain funds

received or held for the benefit of clients];

c. Former Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 4-100(B)(4) [failure to pay or deliver

requested funds of the client];

d. Business and Professions Code, section 6106 [misappropriation];

-2-

N

OOOQO‘UI#LQ

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e. Business and Professions Code, section 6106 [misrepresentation to client];

f. Business and Professions Code, section 6068(d) [misrepresentation to court];

g. Business and Professions Code, section 6068(m) [failure to respond promptly to

reasonable status inquires of clients and keep clients reasonably informed of significant

developments] ;

h. Business and Professions Code, section 6068(i) [failure to cooperate and

participate in a disciplinary investigation];

i. Business and Professions Code, section 6103 [violation of court order]; and

j. Business and Professions Code, section 6068(j) [failure to maintain membership

records address].

7. The specific findings in the foreign jurisdiction supporting each allegation are as

follows:

a. Respondent failed to properly retain and designate expert witnesses, timely file

expcrt reports and timely comply with discovery and motion deadlines, resulting in some of

the defendants being dismissed (Order, p.2), in willful violation of the former Rules 0f

Professional Conduct, rule 3-1 10(A);

b. Respondent misappropriated client funds when he accepted a settlement check of

$75,000 on behalf of the client, used some ofthat money to make a payment on his personal

residence, transferred a large portion to his operating account without permission and failed to

distribute the portion ofthe funds owed to the client (Order, p.2) in willful violation of the

former Rules of Professional Conduct, rules 4-100(A) and 4-100(B)(4) and Business and

Professions Code, section 6 1 06;

c. Respondent lied to the client and to the court about the status ofthc settlement

funds (Order, p.2) in willful violation ofBusiness and Professions Code, sections 6106 and

6068(d);

d. Respondent failed to communicate with the client about the status of the case

(Order, p.2) in willful violation ofBusiness and Professions Code, section 6068(m);

-3-

OWNQM¥WNH

NNNH—HHH—dl—t—IHH

e. Respondent lied to the coun about his out-of—pocket expenses and repeatedly

failed to appear at necessary hearings and comply with court orders (Order, p2) in willful

violation of the Business and Professions Code, sections 6068(d) and 6103; and

f. Respondent failed to properly register his law firm with the State Bar Membership

Services, update his SCR 79 address and contact information, or respond to the State Bar’s

lawful requests for information regarding these allegations (Order, p2) in willful violation of

the Business and Professions Code, section 6068, subsections (i) and (i).

ISSUES FOR DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

8. The attached findings and final order are conclusive evidence that respondent is

culpable of professional misconduct in this state subj ect oniy to the following issues:

a. The degree of discipline t0 impose;

b. Whether, as a matter of law, respondent’s culpability determined in the

proceeding in the other jurisdiction would not warrant the imposition of discipline in the Stars

of California under the laws or rules binding upon members ofthc State Bar at the time the

member committed misconduct in such other jurisdiction; and

c. Whether the proceedings of the other jurisdiction lacked fundamental

constitutional protection.

9. Respondent shall bear the burden ofproofwith regard to the issues set forth in

subparagraphs B and C ofthe preceding paragraph.

///

///

///

///

///

l/l

///

///

OOOQGUI#UJN—

Nt—IHI—IHHHHwflH

NOTICE - INACTIVE ENROLLMENT!

YOU ARE HEREBY FURTHER NOTIFIED THAT IF THE STATE BARCOURT FINDS, PURSUANT TO BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODESECTION 6007(c), THAT YOUR CONDUCT POSES A SUBSTANTIALTHREAT 0F HARM T0 THE INTERESTS 0F YOUR CLIENTS OR T0THE PUBLIC, YOU MAY BE INVOLUNTARILY ENROLLED AS ANINACTIVE MEMBER 0F THE STATE BAR. YOUR INACTIVEENROLLMENT WOULD BE IN ADDITION T0 ANY DISCIPLINERECOMMENDED BY THE COURT.

NOTICE - COST ASSESSMENT!

IN THE EVENT THESE PROCEDURES RESULT IN PUBLICDISCIPLINE, YOU MAY BE SUBJECT TO THE PAYMENT OF COSTSINCURRED BY THE STATE BAR IN THE INVESTIGATION, HEARINGAND REVIEW OF THIS MATTER PURSUANT TO BUSINESS ANDPROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 6086.10.

Respectfully submitted,

THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIAOFFICE OF CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL

DATED: June 3, 2019 ByQE‘KQAMQJv/LQPaul G. Prissel

Senior Trial Counsel

Exhibit 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

IN THE MATTER 0F DISCIPLINE 0F‘

No. 75337JOHN B. MARCIN, BAR NO. 7078.

F lL E,flSEP G7 2fl1fi

d7 5TH; txt_own

RT

vsxv-i'

a

II‘

en

:I

'w

ORDER OF SUSPENSION

This is an automatic review of a Southern Nevada Disciplinary

Board hearing panel’s recommendation that attorney John Marcin be

suspended for four years based on violations of RPC 1.1 (competence), RPC

1.3 (diligence), RPC 1.4 (communication), RPC 1.15 (safekeeping property),

RPC 3.2 (expediting litigation), RPC 3.3 (candor toward the tribunal), RPC

3.4(c) (fairness to opposing party and counsel), RPC 4.1 (truthfulness in

statements to others), RPC 7.5A (registration of multijurisdictional law

firms), RPC 8. 1(a) (bar admission and oiisciplinary matters), and RPC 8.4(c)

and (d) (misconduct).1 Because no briefs have been filed, this matter stands

= submitted for decision based on the record. SCR 105(3)(b).

iMarcin is currently administratively suspended for failing to comply

with continuing legal education requirements.

{a 56028)

The facts and charges alleged in the complaint are deemed

admitted because Marcin failed to answar the complaint and to appear at

the disciplinary hearing? SCR 105(2). The admitted facts establish that

while repreSenting a client in a medical malpractice case, Marcin failed to

properly retain and designate expert witnesses, timely file expert reports,

and timely cemply with discovery and motion deadlines, resulting in some

of the defendants beiné dismissed. Marcin misappropriated client funds

when he accepted a settlement check of $75,000 on behalf of the client, used

some of that money to make a payment on his personal residence,

transferred a large portion to his operating account without permission, and

failed to distribute the portion of the funds owed to the client. Marcin also

lied to the client and to the court about the status of the settlement funds,

failed to communicate with the client about the status of the cage, lied to

the court about his out-of-pocket expenses, and repeatedly failed to appear

at necessary hearings and comply with court orders. Additionally, he failed

to properly register his law firm with the State Bar Membership Services,

update his SCR 79 address and contact; information, or respond to the State

Bar’s lawful requests for information regarding these allegations.

2The State Bar sent the investigative inquiries, the bar complaint, the

notice of intent to take a default, and other documents to Marcin through

regular and certified mail to his SCR 79 address as well as through email.

The State Bar also sent these documents to Marcin’s residence in California,

as well as other addresses Where he might be located, but Marc'm didnot

respOnd or appear at the disciplinary hearing. In addition;the State 'Bar

attempted to serve Marcin with these documents at his new address listed

on the California State Bar website but discovered that he had vacated that

address months earlier.

Swan: Goum‘0r

NEVADA

:0) 19m®

Turning to. the appropriate discipline, we review the hearing

panel’s recommendation de novo. SCR 105(3)(b). Although We “exercise

independent judgment,” the panel’s recommendations are persuasive. In re

Discipline of Schaefe'r, 117 Nev. 496, 515, 25 P.3d 191, 204 (2001). In

determining the appropriate discipline, we weigh four factors: “the duty

violated, the.1awyer’s mental state, the potential or actual injury caused by

the lawyer’s misconduct, and the existence of aggravating or mitigating

factors.” In re Discipline of Lerner, 124 Nev. 1232, 1246, 197 P.3d 1067,

1077 (2008).

Marcin violated duties owed to his clients (competence,

diligence, communication, safekeeping property, and truthfulness in

statements to others), to the legal system (expediting litigation, candor to

the tribunal, and fairness to Opposing party and counsel), and to the legal

profession (registratiOn of multijurisdictional law firms, and failure to

respond to lawful request for information from «disciplinary authority).

The allegations in the complaint support the panel’s finding that he acted

intentionally at least with respect to converting client funds and failing to

comply With court.orders. His client was injured because he- failed to

diligently litigate the medical malpractice case and failed to disburse

settlement funds to his client. His misconduct also harmed the mtegrity of

the legal system, as he made misrepresentations to the court, failed to

attend necessary hearings and comply with the district court’s orders, and

failed to move the litigation forward in an expedited manner. Further, his

failure to update his SCR 79 contact information and to cooperate in the

disciplinary investigation harmed the integrity of the profession, which

depends on a self-regulating disciplinary system.

SUPREME Countfl

NEVADA

(0) 1937A®

mm OmarDl'

Mun

(n) muw

Based 0n the most serious instances of-misconduct at issue, see

Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, Compendium of Professional

Rules and Standards 452 (Am. Bar Ass’n 2017) (“The ultimate sanction

imposed should at least be consistent with the sanction for the most serious

instance of misconduct among a number of violations.”), the baseline

sanction in this case before considering aggravating and mitigating

circumstances is disbarment, see id., Standard 4.11 (providing that

disbarment is appropriate when an attorney “knowingly converts client

property and causes injury or potential injury to a client”). The record

supports the panel’s finding of five aggravating circumstances (dishonest or

selfish motive; refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of conduct,

vulnerability ofthe victim, substantial experience in the practice of law, and

indifference to making restitution) and one-mitigating cirCumstance (lack

of-disciplinary history).

Considering all the factors, and because disbarment is

irrevocable in Nevada, see SCR 102(1), unlike in many-other states, see

Brian Finkelstein, Should Permanent Disbarment be Permanent?, 20 Geo.

J. Legal Ethics 587', 590—91 (2007) (recognizing that the majority of states

permit reinstatement after disbarment), we agree with the hearingpanel

that Marcin’s misconduct warrants alengthy suspension. We conclude that

the recommended suspension of four years is sufficient to-protect the public,

the courts, and the legal profession. See State Bar ofNev. v. Claiborne, 104

Nev. 115, 213, 756 P.2d 464, 527-28 (1988).

The hearing panel'also recommended that Marcin be required

to pay his client $75,000 in restitution, which is the entire sum of the

settlement received in the medical malpractice case. The record, however,

I'iu‘ E: ‘11 -

‘

,.. 1 .|-. I-k'ajfimi L

indicates that Marcin and his clients had a Contingency fee agreement

whereby Marcin would receive a certain percentage of any settlement

amount and also be reimbursed out-of-pocket expenses. While restitution

may be imposed as a condition ofreinstatement, see SCR 116(5), the amount

recommended by the panel, which does not account for Marcin’s fees or

expenses, is more akin to a fine, which may not be imposed in conjunction

with suspension under our rules. In, re Discipline ofReade, 133 Nev., Adv.

Op. 87, 405 P.3d 105 (2017) (holding that a monetary fine exceeds the scope

of sanctions that may be imposed with a suspension under SCR 102(2)). The

record does not reflect the exact amount Marcin owes to his client, as this

amount will not be determined until the district court enters an order

approving the petition for miner’s compromise. Accordingly, as a condition

of reinstatement, we order Marcin to pay restitution in the amount of

$75,000, less attorney fees and costs as determined by the district court in

its order approving the petition for miner’s compromise in Eighth Judicial

District Court case no. A-12-674268-C.

Finally; we consider the panel’s recommendation that Marcin's

trust account and operating account be frozen. SCR 102(4) provides this

court with authority to enter a temporary order restricting the attorney’s

handling of client funds upon the petition of bar counsel. No petition has

been filed by bar counsel and nothing in SCR 102 provides this with court

with the authority to freeze an-attorney’s bank accounts absent such a

petition. Thus, we decline to accept this recommendation.

Accordingly, we hereby suspend attorney John Marcin from the

practice of law in Nevada' for fOur years commencing from the date of this

order. Marcin shall pay $2,500 in administrative costs as provided by SCR

.

‘ h.‘h

l! _

w;:.~i-lzil 1391i.~

SUPREIE countOF

NEVADA

(a) mm 1%»

120(3), plus the actual costs of the disciplinary proceeding as authorized by

SCR 120(1) and set forth in the State Bar’s memorandum of costs Within 30

days from the date 'of this order. The parties shall comply with SCR .115

and SCR 121.1.3

It is so ORDERED.

Dg

CM? .J.

'i,J.

Cherry 1bbons

‘V

4W“?.J. llama .J.

Pickering J H&rdesty

J. MM. J.

Parraguirre Stiglich

cc: Chair, Southern Nevada Disciplinary PanelJohn B. MarcinBar Counsel, State Bar- of NevadaKimberly K. Farmer, ExecutiVe Director, State Bar of NevadaPerry Thompson, Admissions Office, U.S. Supreme Court

3In addition to the notices and disciosures required by SCR 121.1, the

State Bar shall send a copy of this order to the State Bar of California, whereMarcin also is licensed to practice law.

Exhibit 2

—L

AA A0

12

13'

14

15

16

17‘

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case Number: OBC17-0395FEB 25 2mg

STATE BAR0FNEVADA

BY: 0M. {L-

OFHCE 0FBARCOUNSEL

STATE BAR 0F NEVADA

SOUTHERN NEVADA DISCIPLINAR-Y BOARD

STATE BAR OF NEVADA,

Complainant.

vs. FIND!NGS 0F FACT,COMCLUSIONS OF LAW AND

JOHN BERNARD MARClN RECOMMENDATIONNV BAR N0. 7078 vvvvvv

v,vv

Respondent.

This matter came before a designated Formal Hearing Panel ("Panel") of the Southern

Nevada Disciplinary Board on January 19. 2018. The presiding Panel consisted Christopher

Lalli, Esq., Chair, Africa Sanchez. Esq. and Iay-member Harvey Weatherford‘ The State Bar

. of Nevada (“State Bar") was represented by Assis'tant Bar Counsel Janeen V. isaacson.

Respondent was not present.

Based upon the pleadings filed». the documents. admitted into evidence and witneSs

testimony, the’Panel. based on a unanimous decision. submits the following Findings of Fact,

Conclusion of Law and Recommendation.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. This; Panel was designated by the Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board Chair

and has jurisdiction over this matter.

2 Respondent was admitted to the Nevada State Bar- on December 4, 1990. He

was administratively suspended for failure to comply with CLE requirements on April 6, 2017.

See Hearing Exhibit 2.

wmflmmth—i

.L—Lg—L—L

th—to

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

3. Respondent was retained to represent three year old Aedan Prata (”Aedan")

and his parents after Aedan suffered damage to his ear resulting in hearing loss from medical

procedures performed at Southern Hills Hospital and UMC to remove a popcorn kernel from

his right ear. See Hearing Transcript. pages 31-32. lines 11-1 1.

4. Respondent filed a Complaint on behalf of’Aedan and his parents, Shannon

Praia (“Shannon”) and Michael Prata ("Michael") against Southern Hills Medical Center, LLC.

University Medical Center, Russell P. Clark. Ray Mathieson. Jay D. Fisher and Joan Brown,

Case No. A—12-674268-C. filed in the Eighth Judicial District of Clark County of the State of

Nevada. See Hearing Transcript. pages 31-32. lines 11-11 and Hearing Exhibit 3.

5. On Juiy 27, 201 5, Respondent prepared and submitted Plaintiffs‘ Initial Expert

Disclosures with a report provided by Albert Holtz, MD. See Heating Exhibit 4.

6. On August 3. 2015. the parties appeared at a discovery status check before

Commissioner Bonnie Bulla. The minutes noted that the time period for initial expert

disclosures, adding parties and amended pleadings was'iclosed. See Hearing Exhibit 5.

‘

7. On October 30. 2015, Defendants Russell P. Clark. MD. and Ray Mathieson

filed a Partial Motion for Summary Judgment as to Ptaintiffs' claims for Battery. This Motion

was joined by Defendant Joan Brown. See Hearing Exhibit 6.

8. Plaintifis' Opposition to the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment was due on

November 20. 2015. Respondent faiIed to timely file an Opposition, filing it five days late on

November 25, 2015. See Hearing Exhibit 6‘

9. Defendants Motion for Partial Summary Judgment was heard on December 1.

2015. The Court granted the Motion because Plaintiffs produced no evidence to create a

genuine issue of material fact to support the charges. See Hearing Exhibit 6.

(DQVQOIAGN—i

J

NNNMMMA—Ia—LA—LJ—n—A.‘

Ifl#deOOm\lmm#WN—‘O

10. In February, 2016. Plaintiffs settled their case with Defendant Joan Brown for

the sum of $75,000. See Hearing Transcript. page 35. lines 9-24. Hearing Exhibit 7 and

Hearing Exhibit 8.

11. On February 16, 2016. Defendant Joan Brown filed a Motion for Good Faith

Settlement. See Hearing Exhibit 7.

12. On February 23. 2016, Defendant Joan Brown's Motion for Good Faith

Settlement was granted without opposition. Respondent appeared telephonically and was

instructed by the Court to file a Petition for Minor's Compromise. See Hearing Exhibit 8.

13. On March 17. 2016. Respondent advised the Court and the Defendants during

a hearing“ that there was a "problem with expert, Dr. Holtz, and Plaintiffs may be filing papers

for leave.to augment expert witness list and find a replacement." The Court advised

Respondent to bring a Motion unless a stipulation was reached. See Hearing Exhibit 9.

14. 0n March 23, 2016, Defendants Russell P. Cla'rk MD and Ray Mathieson filed

a Motion to.Compel Deposition of Aibert Holtz. or in the alternative Motion to Strike Expert

after unsuccessfully attempting to take Dr. Holtz's deposition. See Hearing Exhibit 51.

15. On April 5. 2016, Respondent filed a Motion to Augment Expert Designation

and Extend Discovery. which was granted by the- Court on April 14, 2016. The Court limited

the opinion of the new expert to those based on the same documents reviewed by Dr. Holtz,

and within the same scope and designation. The Supplemental Designations were due no

later than July 15. 2016. See Hearing Exhibit 10.

16. On May 16. 2016. an Order was entered granting Defendant University Medical

Center‘s Motion for Summary Judgment which included Findings of Fact which set forth that

Plaintiffs had no des'gnated expert which opined any liability on the pan of University Medical

Center save Dr. Andrew Larson. who was de-designated by Respondent. See Hearing

Exhibit 12.

fi

DQNQUI#WN

NNNNNM—Ia—l—IAAJAA—L UlwaAOOONGO'I#wN-AO

17. In June. 2016, counsel for Defendant Joan Brown. attorney Anastasia Noe

(“Noe"). made multiple attempts to reach Respondent for the purpose of securing a signed

settlement agreement and getting Respondent to file a Petition for Miner's Compromise with

no success. See Hearing Exhibit 13.

18. 0n June 30. 2016. Noe sent a letter to Respondent stating that the settlement

check for $75,000 would expire on August 12, 2016 and setting forth what Plaintiffs needed

to do prior to delivery of the funds. including the filing of a Petition for Minofs Compromise.


19. On July 15. 2016, Respondent contacted Noe and stated that he had the

signed setflement agreement and wanted to exchange the release for the settlement check.

Noe reminded Respondent he still had to file the Petition for Miner's Compromise which he

promised to do that day. See Hearing Exhibit 13.'

20. 0n July 15. 2016. the date ef the final deadline for Plaintiffs to submit their

Supplements! Expert Designation. Respondent requested and obtained a one week

continuance from Defendants until July 22, 2016. See Hearing Exhibit 14.

21. Respondent failed to submit a Supplemental Expert Disclosure or file a Petition

for Miner‘s Compromise by July 22, 2016. See Hearing Exhblt 14.

22. 0n August 1. 2016. Respondent failed to appear at a status check before the

medical malpractice sweeps. See Hearing Exhibit 13.

23. On August 5, 2016. Noe filed a Motion to Enforce Settlement between~

Defendant Joan Brown and Plaintiffs and a Request for Sanctions. The Motion was set for

argument on August 16. 2016. See Hearing Exhibit 13.

24. 0n August 10. 2016, Defendants Russell P. Clark. M.D. and Ray Mathieson

("Clark and Mathieson") filed a Motion for Summary Judgment based on Plaintiffs' failure to

0’0!th

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

submit a supplemental disclosure of experts by the extended deadline on an order shortening

time. See Hearing Exhibit 14.

25. On August 15. 2016. Defendants filed a Notice of Non-Opposition to the Motion

for Summary Judgment due to Plaintifl‘s' failure to file an Opposition. See Hearing Exhibit 1D.

26. On August 16. 201 6, Respondent failed to appear at the designated heafing for

Defendant Joan Brown's Motion to Enforce Settlement and Request for Sanction; The

Court continued the hearing and issued an Order to Show Cause to Respondent set for

August 25, 2016. See Hearing Exhibit 16 and Hearing Exhibit 17..

27. The night before the scheduled hearing on Clark and Mathieson’s Motion for

Summary Judgment. Respondent filed an untimely Opposition to the Motion blaming experts

for the delay. See Hearing Exhibit 15.

28. On August 18. 2016, the Court heard oral argument on Clark and Mathieson's

Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court considered Respondent's late Opposition and set

an evidentiary hearing for August 25. 2016. the same date as the Order to Show Cause

Hearing for Respondent’s failure to appear on August 16, 2016. See Hearing Exhibit 15.

29. On August 24, 2016, at 5:36 p.m.. the night before the evidentiary hearing and

the show cause hearing. Respondent filed a Declaration of John Marcin in Response to

OSC. The Declaration attached a new expen report from a Dr. Bronston dated August 24.

2016. Respondent claimed a missed flight was the reason he missed the August 1. 2016

status check and that he didn't know anything about the August 16. 2016 hearing. He further

claimed that he still had his Las Vegas office. but was working on new procedures for the

handling of pleadings. He also claimed he couldn't finalize the settlement with Defendant

Joan Brown without a new expert report. See Hearing Exhibit 16.

28. 0n August 25. 2016. the court held an evidentiary hearing on Clark and

Mathieson's Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court allowed the filing of the August 24.

-5-

(DGNOOIhOJN—I

.A O

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2016 report by Dr. Bronston. but determined that it failed to demonstrate deviation fram the

accepted standard of care or causation of the alleged injury as to Clark or Mathieson. The

Court further determined that even if the report had met NRS 41A. it was six weeks late and

ignored the Court's specific restn'ctions in limiting new opinions. The Motion for Summary

'

Judgment was granted as to both Defendants. See Hearing Exhibit 17.

30. On August 25. 2016. the Court also heard the Motion to Enforce Semement

and Request for Sanctions filed by Defendant Joan Brown. The Court considered

Respondent's late flled Declaration. but granted the Motion to Enforce and awarded attorney

fees and costs to Defendant Joan Brown for having to bring the Motion. See Hearing Exhibit

18.

31. Judge Kishner issued a written Order Granting Motion to Enforce Settlement

:and Request for Attorney Fees and Costs. Respondent was ordered to deliver an executed

settlement agreement; Stipulation and Dismissal and Petition for Minor's Compromise by

September 15, 2016. Respondent was also ordered to pay $2,500 in attorney fees and

costs. See Hearing Exhibit 18.

32. Respondent provided a Stipulafion and Order for Dismissal wifl1 Prejudice to

Defendant Brown and filed a Petition for Miner's Compromise on September 19. 201 6. See

Hearing Exhibit 19 and Hearing Exhin 20.

33. 0n September 19. 2016. Respondent received a check for $75,000 for the

Prata satflement and deposited the check into his Wells Fargo IOLTA account ending in

0591. See Hearing Transcript, pages 49-50. lines 23-9 and Hearing Exhibit 21.

34. On the same day, September 19. 2016. Respondent issued a check in the

amount of $2.500 from his Wells Fargo IOLTA account ending in 0591. Those tunds were

used. without the permlssion of the clients, to pay the sanctions issued against Respondent.

9,-’.

CIA

omflm

1o

11

12

13

14

15

1e

17

1'8

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

f

w

Sée Hearing Transcript. pages 52-54,. lines 21-10. Hearing Transcript. pages 37-38. lines 4-

. 14. Hearing Exhibit 21 and Hearing Exhibit 52.

35. On ”September 23. 2016, Respondent transferred the sum of $11,049.05

directly from his Wells Fargo IOLTA account ending in 0591 to JP Morgan Case for direct

payment of the foreclosure amount due on Respondent's personal residence in California.

The transaction referenced “Prata' and left the IOLTA account balance at $67,830.62. below

the $75,000 he should have been safekeeping in his trust account for the Pratas.

Respondent did not disclose this transaction to the Court or his clients. See Hearing‘

Transcript,pag'e

42. lines 16-21 , Hearing Transcript. pages 51 -52. lines 6-20, Hearing Exhibit

21 and Hearing Exhibit 53.

36. On September 28. 2016. the Court issued an Order to Shaw Cause Re:

Contempt of Court requiring Respondent to appear on September 29. 2016 at 11:00 a.m.

after he failed to appear at a continued Order to Show Cause hearing that had been set for

September 22. 2016. See Hearing Exhbit 22.

37. On September 29. 2016. Respondent appeared at the Ordet to Show Cause

hearing. at which time the Court addressed on the record the non-compliance issues with the

'

Petition for Minor’s Compromise. The Judge ordered an amended Petition be filed no later

than October 5. 2016. She also sanctioned Respondent $1.000 for his repeated failum to

comply with Orders and appear at hearings. See Hearing Exhibit 23.

38. On October 4, 2016. at approximately 8:42 p.m., Respondent emailed the

Pratas telling them he had to submit an amended Petition by October 5. 2016. and enclosing

a new Verified Supplemental Petition claiming. among other things. $51,490.35 in out of

pocket expenses. He also mentions plans to open a bank account for the funds once a

Petition was signed. Respondent instructed them to return it signed the next morning and

#WN

OGNO’UI

1o

11

12

13

14

15

1e

17‘

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

stated "Sorry for so late minute. The Court didn't give me much time from last week." See

Hearing Transcript. pages 38-39, lines 15-23 and Hearing Exhibit 24.

39. On October 5, 2016 issued himself check payable to Marcin Lambirth, LLP in

the amount of $7.000 directly from the IOLTA account leaving the balance at $60.830.62.

I

Respondent did not request permission from or disclose the transaction to the Court or the

clients. See Hearing Transcript. pages 41-42, lines 24-9. Hearing Transcript. page 55. lines

2-9 and Hearing Exhibit 21.

40. 0n October 6. 2016. Respondent filed Plaintiffs Motion to File a Petition for

Miner's Compromise and Approval of Settlement. The Petition alleged that Respondent had

incurred $51,490.35 in “out-of-pocket costs' associated with the case. An analysis of the

IOLTA and operating bank account records demonstrated costs and expenses from January

1. 2014 to the use's conclusion to be approximately $17.852.95. See Hearing Transcript.

pages 56-59. lines 15-14. Hearing Exhibit 21. pages 7-18 and Hearing Emibit 24. page 10.

I

41. On October 10. 2016. the Court issued a Memorandum to Respondent stating

that the Petition {or Minors Compromise was still defective and listed what needed 'tu be

corrected. See Exhibit 26.

42. 0n October 14. 2016. Respondent took more money from the $75,000 Prata

settlement by issuing a'n $11,000 check to Marcin Lambiflh. LLP directly from the We'lls

Fargo IOLTA trust account leaving the balance at $49,830.62. Respondent did not obtain

permission from or disclose the transaction to the Court or his clients. See Hearing

Transcript. pages 41-42. lines 24-9. Hearing Transcript. page 55. lines 10-14 and Hearing

Exhibit 21.

43. On October 17, 2016. Respondent filed Plaintiffs Motion to File Second

Amended Petition for Miner's Compromise and Approval of Settlement. See Hearing Exhibit

27.

DQ‘IO)0‘I#WN

1O

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

44. 0n October 14. 2016. Respondent took more money from the $75,000 Prata

settlement by issuing a $1,500 check to Marcin Lambirth. LLP directly from the Wells Fargo

IOLTA trust achount leaving the balance at $48,330.62. Respondent did not obtain


'

Transcript. pages 41-42. lines 24-9. Hearing Transcript. page 55. lines 15-25. Hearing Exhibit

21 and Hearing Exhibit 27.

45. On October 21. 2016. the Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion to File Second

'

Amended Petition despite Respondent's failure to comply with Motion requirements. A

written Order was enteied ‘on October 25, 2016. See Hearing Exhibit 28.

46. On October 25. 2016. Respondent took additional funds from the $75,000 Prata

settiement by issuing a $9.000 check to Marcin Lambirth. LLP directly from the Wells Fargo

IOLTA trust account leaving the balance at $39,330.62. Respondent dld not obtain


Transcript. plges 41-42. lines 24-9. Hearing Transcript. page 55. Iines 15-25 and Hearing

‘E'Xhib'it 21 .,

47. 0n November 3. 2016. the Court issued another Memorandum citing the same

deficiencies with the Petition for Miner's Compromise which included a failure to fully set forth

the medical expenses and provide the necessary waiver or subrogation information required

by NRS 41.200. See Hearing Exhibit 30.

48. On November 4. 2016. the Court held a chambers status check noting that

Respondent had paid his $1.000 sanctions but was still non-compliant with the Petition for

Miner's Compromise. See Hearing Exhibit 30.

49. On November 29. 2016. Respondent sent an email to the Pratas stating that

the Court was refusing to approve the Petition for Minor's Compromise because of the failure

to obtain a waiver. He stated the Judge's actions forced hlm to deal with ERISA. who was

.9-

omflmmth-l

[\J

N

N

M

M

.L

A

.5

—L

—l

.5

.n

A

.s

.5

h

03

N

—l

O

(O

m

V

Q

UI

h

(9‘

N

—|

O

N0|

demanding payment for reimbursement of medical expenses in the amount of $6.046.75 paid

through MGM Health. When referencing ERISA. Respondent stated that “(I flbbed and told

him that we we‘re taking the fulI-amount of what we are allowed..." and complained they

"...have no heart.” He suggested the money come out of Shannon Prata's portion of the

settlement. and concluded with telling the Pratas "l have been diligent on this..." Respondent

did not disclose he had already taken all but $39,330.62 of the $75,000 for himself. See

Hearing Transcript. pages 41-42. lines 14-21 and Hearing Exhibit 32.

50. On November 30, 2016. Respondent submitted a Declaration of John B. Marcin

in Support of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Petition for Minor‘s Compromise and Approval of

Settlement enclosing documentation for the $6,046.75 lien and noting that Shannon Prata’s

portion of the settlement would now be $1 .37929. See Hearing Exhibit 33.

51. On December 1. 2016. Respondent took additional funds from the $75,000

Prata settlement by issuing a $2.000 check to Marcin Lambirth, LLP directly from the Wells

Fargo IOLTA trust account leaving the balance at $37,330.62. Respondent did not obtain


Transcript. pages 41-42. lines 24—9, Hearing Transcript, pages 55-56. lines 15-14 and

Hearing Exhibit 21 .

52. 0n December 7. 2016, the Court issued another Memorandum to Respondent

noting further deficiencies in the Petition for Minor‘s Compromise. Specifically. the Cour!

stated that the proposed Order impermissibly stated that the funds would be placed in

Respondent’s ciient trust account verses a blocked account as required by statute. and

requested that a date be provided by which the blocked account would be opened. See

Hearing Exhibit 34.

N

OQNQU'I#@

1o

11

12'

13

14

15

16

17

18

19"

20

21

23

24

25

53. On December 8. 2016. the Court issued an Order to Show Cause requiring

Respondent to attend a December 15, 2016 hearing to discuss Respondent's repeated

failures to comply‘with the Court's Orders and NRs 41.200. See Hearing Exhibit 35.

54. 0n December 15, 2016, instead of appearing personally for the Order to Show

Cause Hearing. Respondent sent attorney Shawanna Johnson in his place. who informed the

Court that Respondent was at mediation in Los AngeUes. No information was ”provided

regarding putting the funds in a blocked account See Hearing Exhibit 36.

55. 0n January 3. 2017, Shannon Prata emailed Respondent atmm'

telling him Aedan had damaged his hearing aid which needed repair. and asked about the

status of the settlement. When she received no response. she re-sent the email on January

10. 2017. S‘ee Hearing Transcript. page 43-44. lines 1-2 and Hearing Exhibit 37.

56. On January 11. 2017. Respondent sent a response from the same email

address stating that he submitted a new proposed Order and would “make arrangements

With you two." See Hearing Exhibit 37.

57. On January 25, 2017. the Courtissued an Order to Show Cause Re: Contempt

of Court requiring Respondent to appear in person on February 2. 2017 to address his failure

to appear at the December 15, 2017 hearing and his continued failure to provide the

necessary information for the Petition for Miner's Compromise. See Hearing Exhibit 38.

58. On February 2. 2017. Respondent failed to appear at the Show Cause hearing.


59. The Court set a follow-up Show Cause hearing for March 9. 2017. Respondent

failed to appear at the March 9. 2017. See Hearing Exhibit 40.

60. On March 30. 2017, Respondent was contacted by the State Bar by telephone

and via email at imemamin.m after being contacted by Judge Kishner about

-11-

~J-

—L_|_‘.a

wN-BO

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

@mflmtflwa

N

Respondent's multiple failures to attend hearing and submit a compliant Petition for Miner's

Compromise. Respondent failed to respond. See Hearing Exhibit 41.

61. Tris State Bar made continued efforts to reach Respondent over the next 3O

days without success. The State Bar also became aware that Membership Services of the

State Bar was als‘o having continued issues reaching Respondent regarding his MJP

abplication. See Hearing Transcript. pages 20-21. lines 4-4 and Hearing Exhibit 46.

62. On May 5. 201 7. the State Bar sent a follow-up letter to Respondent detailing

the State Bar's attempts to reach him and requesting additional information regarding

transactions in his IOLTA trust account and hls failures to appear on the Prata case.

Respondent failed to provide a response to the State Bar. See Hearing Exhibit 42.

63. On May 7. 2017. Shannon Prata sent an email to Respondent stating that she

hadn't heard from him in a long time and wanted to know what was going on with the

settlement See Hearing Transcript, pages 42-44, lines 22-9 and Hearing Exhibit 43.

64. On May 17. 2017, Respondent sent a return email stating “Bob: I'll‘cell you

sometime tomorrow? Someone got into the email account and was wreaking havoc on it. I

was lucky to see yours. | should have a new email up and running within days and will let

you know. But I'll call tomorrow. J". See Hearing Transcript, pages 42-44. lines 22-9 and

Hearing Exhiblt 43.

65. Respondent never called the Pratas and they have not heard from him since

that date. He never disclosed the funds he took from the trast account and never remitted

the remaining funds to the Pratas or the Court. See Hearing Transcript. pages 44-45. lines

3-4. Hearing Transcript. page 60. lines 8-11 and Exhibit 21.

66. Mrs. Prata's brother-in-Iaw. Robert Prata, is a licensed attorney in the State of

California who also made multiple effouts to contact Respondent with no success. See

Hearing Transcript, page 44. lines 3-23.

-12.

ii:

‘

“R

OQVQW§CAMA

MNMNNM—Ad—LAAAAAJA

m-FwNAOOQVOCH‘wN-to

67. On June 29, 2017. the State Bar sent Respondent a letter stating that his failure

to respond to the State Bar constituted a violation of RPC 8.1(b)(Bar Admission and

Disciplinary Mattérs). He was provided one more opportunity to respond Io the allegations

against him. He'failed to respond. See Hearing Exhibit 45.

68. At all times relevant herein. Respondent has listed his SCR 79 address as 3960

Howard Hughes parkway, 5‘“ Floor. Las Vegas. NV 89169. See Hearing Transcript pages'

13-14, lines 9-25.

69. During the course of the investigation of this matter, it was subsequently

determined that Respondent had abandoned his registered SCR address and had failed to

properly advise the State Bar of his current location in violation of the statute. See Hearing

Transcript. pages 13-14. lines 9'25.

70. The State Bar performed a separate investigation as to the location of

Respondent including conducting an Accurint Search as well as utilizing Google and social

media. Additional addresses were located and utilized in an effon to Serve Respondent all

of the mail and pleadings in this case. See Hearing Transcript, pages 14-16. lines 1-7.

71 . The State Bar also obtained reporting information from the California State Bar

where Respondent is also licensed to practice law. Respondent updated his contact

information with the California State Bar on September 20. 2017. See Hearing Transcript.

pages 16-17. lines 8-21 .-

72. The address provided by Respondent to the California State Bar on September

20. 2017 was utilized by the State Bar in an attempt to personally serve Respondent with all

pleadings including a Request for Entry of Default on December 5, 2017. The process sewer

verified with the Law Office of Wasserman 8. Camden that Respondent had rented an office

but had vacated the premises prior to September 20, 2017. See Hearing Transcript, pages

16-17. lines 8-21 and Hearing Exhibit 55.

UI¥QM

(DG‘IQ

1O

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

1.8

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

73. The State Bar also attempted to email ReSpondent on a number of occasions

to provide him information and documentation regarding the investigation at the email

addms provided to the Nevada State Bar Membership Services office. He did not respond.

See Hearing Transcript. page 15. lines 1-14 and Hearing Transcript. pages 19-20, lines 8-3.

74. The State Bar also attempted to contact Respondent via telephone on

numerous occasions at telephone numbers provided to the State Bar and the California State

Bar. Messages were left unretumed and the telephone numbers were subsequently

disconnected. See Hearing Transcript. page 20. lines 4-8 and Hearing Exhibit42.

75. The State Bar also located the name and address of a person associated with

Respondent, Barbara Petrovic (“Petrovic”). Her addresses were also utilized in an effort to

serve Respondent with relevant pleadings. See Hearing Transcript. pages 18-19, lines 10-6.

76. Respondent did not file an Answer to the Complaint and at no time panicipated

in the Formal Hearing proceedings. See Hearing Transcript. pages 9-10. lines 24-6. Hearing

Transcript. pages13-1 7. lines 6-21 and Hearing Exhibit. pages 33-65.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact. the Panel hereby issues the following

Conclusions of Law:

1. The Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board has jurisdiction over Respondent and

the subject matter of these proceedings pursuant to SCR 99 and SCR 103(9).

2. Respondent was provided adequate notice of the proceedings pursuant to SCR

105 and Nevada Rule of Disciplinary Procedure 11(b)(1). W

3. Respondent failed to competently represent Aedan Prata. Shannon Prata and

Michael Prata (“The Pratas") in violation of Rule of Professional Conduct (“RPC”) 1.1

(Competence) in the medical malpractice case against Southern Hills Medical Center. LLC.

University Medical Center. Russell P. Ciark. Ray Mathieson. Jay D. Fisher and Joan Brown.

~14-

F‘"7J”

F«1'-

y

("A

OQVQ

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17‘

18

19

20

.21.

22

23

24

25

Case No. A-1 2—674268-6. filed in the Eighth Judicial District of Clark County of the State of

Nevada (“The Litigation”). He lacked competence by failing to properly retain and designate

necessary expert witnesses, failing to file necessary expert reports and failing to timely

'comply with discovery and motion deadlinas resulting in the dismissal of defendants to the

case.

4. Respondent failed to diligently represent The Pratas in The Litigation by failing

to timely comply with discovery and motion deadIines, failing to attend necessary hearings

"and failing to file a sufficient Motion for Miner’s Compromise in violation'of RPC 1.3

(Diligence).

5. Respondent failed to adequately communicate with his clients regarding the

status of The Litigation and the disbursement of settlement funds received on their behalf in

violation o‘f RPC 1.4 (Communication).

6. Respondent failed to properly safe-keep the $75,000 collected in settlement

‘

funds from The Litigation in violation of RPC 1.15 (Safekeeping Property),

7. Respondent failed take measures to move The Litigation forward in an

expedited manner in violation of RPC 3.2 (Expediting Litigation).

8. Respondent made misrepresentafions to the Court regarding the out of pocket

expenses actually incurred by him i_n The Litigation and failed to disclose that portions of the

$75.000 of The Pratas' settlement funds were taken by him in violation of RPC 3.3 (Candor

Toward the Tn'bunal).

9. Respondent repeatedly failed to appear at Order to Show Cause Hearings and

other scheduled hearings in violation of RPC 3.4(c) (Fairness to Opposing Party and

Counsel).

(Dmflmolthd

_|. O

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

r...

10. Respondent made misrepresentations to others regarding the $75.000

settlement and whether or not it was properlysafe-kept in compliance ethiml guidelines in

'

violation of RPC 4.1 (Truthfulness in Statements to Others).

11. Respondent failed to properly regismr his law firm with Nevada State Bar

Membership Services in compliance with RPC 7.5A (Registration of Multijurisdictional Law

Firms).

12. Respondent knowingly failed to provide me State Bar with a means of

contacting him and thus failed to respond to the allegations against him in violation of RPC

8.1(a) (Bar Admission and Discipiinary Matters).

13. Respondent engaged in conduct involving dishonesty In vlolation of RPC 8.4(c)

(Misconduct).

14. Respondent engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in

violation of RPC 8.4(d) (Misconduct).

15. Respondent's removal of a miner’s settlement funds from his tmst‘ account

without permissioh from the Court or his clients and failure to abide by Court Orders rises to

the level of being considered “intentional" as defined in the ABA Standards of Impasing

'

Sanctions as “when a lawyer acts with a conscious objective or purpose to accomplish a

particular resuft' ln this case. the result intended was for the Court and the clients to have a

false sense of security that the $75,000 in settlement funds was being safe kept in

Respondent's client trust account.

16. Respondent's actions have caused emotional and economic injury to The

Pratas.

17. Pursuant to SCR 102.5 (Aggravatlon and mltlgation). the Panel found several

aggravating factors in this me. Specifically. Respondent's misconduct in this matter was

aggravated by:

-16.

NGUI#OJN

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18’

1 9

20

21

22

23

24

25

(1) Dishonest or selfish motive. See SCR 102.5(1)(b);

(2) Refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of conduct. See SCR102.5(1)(g);

(3) Vulnerability of the victim. See SCR 102.5(1)(h):

(4) Substantial experience in the practice of law. See_SCR 102.5(1)(i): and

(5) Indifference to making restitution. See SCR- 102.5(1)(i).

The Panel found Respondent's lack of disciplinary history to ba a mitigating factor in

reaching their decision and recommendations. See SCR 102.5(2)(a).

DECISlON AND RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. in light of the

evidence presented and the seriousness of the violations at issue. the Panel, by unanimous

vote. concludes and respectfully recommends to the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada

the following in order to protect the public and the integrity of the bar:

1. That Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for four years;'

2. That Respondent pay the sum of $75.000 to The Pratas:

3. That Respondent's Wells Fargo trust and operating accounts be frozen; and

4. That Respondent be ordered to pay SCR 120 costs of $2.500 and hard costs

of the proceedings within thirty (30) days of his receipt of the State Bars Bill of

Fees and Costs in this matter.

DATED this LE day of February. 2018.

Chfistopher-Lé .Esqr. chair'

‘

v» -a_. WM'

Panelgrit”GY

authem ‘er ~Va Disciplinary Board

i. V _ 7, .

.17.

1O

11

‘12

13

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Respectfully submitted:

STATE BAR 0F NEVADA

' saacson. Assistant Bar Counsei0 est Charleston Boulevard. Suite 100

Las Vegas‘ Nevada 891 02(702) 382- 2200

‘Attorney for the State Bar of Nevada

I certify that this document is

Exhibit 3

Nev. Rules of Prof'l Conduct 1.1

Current through rules promulgated and received through March 11, 2019

Nevada Court Rules > NEVADA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT > CLIENT-LAWYERRELATIONSHIP

Rule 1.1 . Competence

A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client Competent representation requires the legalknowledge. skill. thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the represenmtion.

History

Added eff. 5-1 -06

Annotations

Notes

MODEL RULE COMPARISON—2006 —Rule 1.1 (formedy Supreme Court Rule 151) is the same as ABA ModelRule 1.1 .

Case Notes

EDITOR‘S NOTE. --Some of the following cases were decided under former similar rules.

FAILURE TO NEGOTIATE AND INVESTIGATE. —-Attorney's failure to attempt to negotiate for reduction of personalinjury clients' medical bills and to adequately investigate a company to whom he referred the clients for that servicewas incompetence. In re Discipline ofLaub, 124 Nev. 1477, 238 P.3d 822 (2002).

REMOVAL AS COUNSEL 0F RECORD. --Where, in an appeal of a second degree murder conviction, thestatement of facts in the appellant's opening brief consisted of only one—half page. although the trial transcript wasover 700 pages long, the statements in the appellate bn‘efwere conclusory, and unsupported by any argument, theappellant's argument failed to provide any citations to the record on appeal or the trial transcript, and counsel for meappellant failed to file a reply brief to distinguish the state's arguments or to otherwise rebut them, the appellant'scounsel was removed as counsel of record, counsel was ordered to pay a $1 ,000 fine to the county and to return tothe county any expenses and fees recelved, and the district court was informed of the lack of diligence andprofessionallsm demonstrated by the attorney in prosecuting the appeal. Cuzdez v. gate, 103 Nev. 575. 742 P.2dWWhere firm has failed to file a timely brief for the second time in one year after being appointed as counsel, it was

proper for the court to remove the firm as counsel for appellant, remand this matter to the district court for theappointment of new counsel, impase monetary sanctions against counsel, direct that me firm be removed from thecrlminal appointment list for the Eighth Judicial Disirict Conn, and refer this matter to the State Bar of Nevada forfurther investigation. Burkg v. State, 1 10 Nev. 1366. BBZ P.2d 267 (19941.

Paul Prissel

Page 2 of 2‘Nev. Rules of Profl Conduct 1 .1

MICHIE‘S NEVADA COURT RULES ANNOTATEDCopyrigm 201 9 Matthew Bender & Company, lnc.. a membat of the LadsNexls Group. All rights reserved.

End of Document

Paul Ptissel



Nevada Court Rules > NEVADA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT > CLIENT-LAWYERRELA TIONSHIP

Rule 1.3. Diligence

A Sawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in represenh'ng a client.

History

Added efi. 5-1 -06

Annotations

Notes

MODEL RULE COMPARISON—ZOOB —Rule 1.3 (formerly Supreme Court Rule 153) is the same as ABA ModelRule 1.3.

MICHIE'S NEVADA COURT RULES ANNOTATEDCopyrlght 201 9 Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., a member ofthe LexisNads Group. All right reserved.

End ofDocument

Paul Pdssel


Currentthrough rules promulgated and received through March 11. 2019


Rule 1.4. Communication

(a)A lawyer shall:

(1)Prompfly inform the client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which the client's informedconsent is required by these Rules;

(2)Reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client's objeciives are to beaccomplished:

(3)Keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter:

(4)Promptly comply with reasonable requests f‘or information; and

(5)Consult with the client about any relevant limitation on the lawyer's conduct when the lawyer knowsthat the client expects assistance not permitted by the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law.

(b)A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informeddecislons regarding the representation.

(c) Lawyer's Biographical Data Form.Each lawyer or law firm shall have available in written form to beprovided upon request of the State Bar or a client or prospective client a factual statement detailing thebackground, training and experience of each lawyer or law film.

(1)The form shall be known as the "Lawyers Biographical Data Form” and shall contain the followingfields of information:

(i)Fu|l name and business address of the lawyer.

(ii)Date and jurisdiction of initial admission to practice.

(lil)Date and jurisdiction of each subsequent admission to practice.

(iv)Name of law school and year of graduation.

(v)The areas of specialization in which the lawyer is entitled to hold himself or herself out as aspecialist under the provisions of Rule 7.4.

(vi)Any and all disciplinary sanctions imposed by anyjurisdiction and/or court, whether or not thelawyer is licensed to practice law in thatjun‘sdiction and/or court. For purposes of this Rule,disciplinary sanctions include all private reprimands Impo‘sed after March 1. 2007, and any and allpublic discipline imposed. regardless of the date of the imposition.

(vii)lf the lawyer is engaged in the private practice of law, whether the lawyer maintainsprofessional liability insurance, and if the lawyer maintains a policy, the name and address of thecarrier.

(2)Upon request, each léwyer or law firm shall provide the following additional information detailing thebackground, training and experience of each lawyer or law firm. including but not limited to:

(i)Names and dates of any legal articles or treatises published by the lawyer. and the name of thepublication In Mich they were published.

Paul Pn'ssel

Page 2 of 2Nev. Rules of Profl Conduct 1.4

(II)A good faith estimate of the number ofjury trials tried to a verdict by the lawyer to the presentdate. identifying the court or courts.

(lll)A good faith estimate of the number of coun (bench) trials med to a Judgment by the lawyer tothe present date, identifying the court or courts.

(lv)A good faith estimate of the number of administrative beatings tried to a conclusion by thelawyer, identifying the adminis1raflve agency or agencies.

(v)A good faith estimate of the number of appellate cases argued to a court of appeals or asupreme court, in which the lawyer was responsible for writing the brief or orally arguing the case,identifying the court or courts.

(vi)The professional activities ofthe lawyer consisting of teachlng or lecturing.

(vii)The names of any volunieer or charitable organlzations to which the lawyer belongs. which thelawyer desires to publish.

(viil)A description of bar activities such as elective or assigned committee positions in a recognizedbar organization.

(3)A lawyer or law firm that advertises or promotes services by written communlcation not involvingsolicitation as prohibited by Rule 7.3 shalt enclose with each such written communication theinformation described in paragmph (c)(lXi) through (v) of this Rule.

(4)A copy of all information provided pursuant to this Rule shall be retained by the lawyer or law firm fora pen'od of 3 years after last regular use of the Information.

History

Added eff. 5-1 -06; Amended eff. 9-1 -07; Amended 10-22-08, eff. 11-21-08

Annotations

Notes

MODEL RULE COMPARISON—2007 —Rule 1.4 (formerly Supreme Court Rule 154) is the same as ABA ModelRule 1.4, except that the 2007 amendments include language in paragraph (c) that was previously part of repealedRule 7.2A(a) through (d) and (f) (formerly Supreme Court Rule 196.5) which is Nevada-specific language and hasno counterpart in the Model Rules.

MICHIE’S NEVADA COURT RULES ANNOTATEDCopyright 2019 Matthew Bender& Company. Inc., a member of the LexisNads Group. All rbhu reserved.

End ofDocument

Paul Prissel


Current through rules promulgated and received through March 11. 2019


Rule 1.15. Safekeeping Property

(a)A lawyer shall hold funds or other property of clients or third persons that is in a lawyer‘s possession inconnection wifl1 a representation separate from the lawyer‘s own property. All funds received or held for thebenefit of clients by a lawyer or firm, includlng advances for costs and expenses, shall be deposited in one ormore identifiable bank accounts designated as a trust account maintained in the state where the lawyer's officeis situated, or elsewhere with the consent of the client or third person. Other property in which clients or thirdpersons hold an interest shall be identified as such and appropriately safeguarded. Complete records of suchaccount funds and other property shalt be kept by the lawyer and shall be preserved for a period of seven yearsafter termination of the representation.

(b)A lawyer may deposit the lawyer‘s own funds In a client trust account for the sole purpose of paying bankservice charges on that account, but only in an amount necessary for that purpose.

(c)A lawyer shall deposit into a client trust account legal fees and expenses that have been paid in advance, tobe wlthdrawn by the lawyér only as fees are earned or expenses incurred.

(d)Upon receiving funds or other property in which a client or third person has an interest. a lawyer shallpromptly notify the client or third person. Except as stated in this Rule or otherwlse permitted by law or byagreement vw‘th the client, a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client or third person any funds or otherproperty that the client or third person is entitled to receive and, upon request by the client or third person, shallpromptly render a full accounting regarding such property.

(e)When in the course of representation a lawyer is in possession of funds or other property in which two ormore persons (one of whom may be the lawyer) claim interests, the property shall be kept separate by thelawyer until the dispute is resolved. The lawyer shall promptly distribute all portions of the funds or otherproperty as to which the interesis are not in dispute.

History

Added eff. 5-1 -06

Annotations

Notes

MODEL RULE COMPARISON--2006 --Rule 1.15 (formeriy Supreme Court Rule 165) is the same as ABA Mode]Rule 1.15 with modifications In paragraph (a) to specify that cllent trust accounts must be designated as such.

MICHIE'S NEVADA COURT RULEs ANNOTATEDCopyright 2019 Matthew Bender & Company. lnc., a memberoflhe LoxlsNexis Group. All tight reserved.

Paul Prissel

Page 2 of 2Nev. Rules of Prof‘l Conduct 1.1 5

End ofDocument

Paul Prissel



Nevada Court Rules > NEVADA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT > ADVOCATE

Rule 3.2. Expediting Litigation

(a)A lawyer shall make reasonable effods to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client.

(b)The duty stated in paragraph (a) does not preclude a lawyer from granting a reasonable request fromopposing counsel for an accommodation, such as an extension of time, or from disagreeing with a client'swishes on administrative and tactical matters. such as scheduling depositions, the number of depositions to betaken. and the frequency and use of written discovery requess.

History

Added eff. 5-1-06

Annotations

Notes

MODEL RULE COMPARISON--2006 —Rule 3.2 (formerfy Supreme Court Rule 171) is the same as ABA ModelRule 3.2 with me exception of paragraph (b). Paragraph (h) is a Nevada-specific provision with no Model Rulecounterpart.

MICHIE'S NEVADA COURT RULES ANNOTATEDCopyright 2019 Matthew Bender & Company, lnc., a member ofme LexisNexis Group. All rights reserved.

End ofDocument

Paul Prissel

Nev. Rules ofProf’I Conduct 3.3

Currentthrough rules promulgated and reoelved through March 11, 2019

Nevada Court Rules > NEVADA RULES OFPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT > ADVOCATE

Rule 3.3. Candor Toward the Tribunal

(a)A lawyer shall not knowingly:

(1)Make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fall to correct a false statement of material factor law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer:

(2)Fai| to disclose to the trlbunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to bedirectly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel: or

(3)0ffer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer, the lawyer‘s client, or a witness calledby the lawyer, has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falslty, the lawyershall take reasonable remedial measures. including. If necessary. disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyermay refuse to offer evidence, other than the tesiimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that thelawyer reasonably believes is false.

(b)A lawyer who represents a client in an adjudicative proceeding and who knows that a person intends toengage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceedlng shall takereasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.

(c)The duties stated in paragraphs (a) and (b) continue to the conclusion of the proceeding, and apply even if

compliance requires disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6.

(d)ln an ex pane proceeding. a lawyer shall inform the hibunal of all material facts known to the lawyer that willenable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse.

History

Added err. 5-1-06

Annotations

Notes

MODEL RULE COMPARISON—2006 -Rule 3.3 (formerly Supreme Court Rule 172) is the same as ABA ModelRule 3.3.

Case Notes

EDITOR'S NOTE. —Some of the cases in the following annotations were decided under former similar rules.

ATTORNEY'S UNETHICAL CONDUCT IN SUBMITTING A PARTIALLY FALSE AFFIDAVIT does not create civllliabiiity. EikelbeLqer V, Tololti, 96 Nev. 525, 61 1 P.2d 10§§ (19802.

Paul Prise!

Page 2 of 2_


OMISSION OF PORTIONS 0F DOCUMENT AS FRAUD. —An attorney has no obligation to proffer evidence thathelps the opponent; but if an attorney represents that he or she is proffering an entire document. omitting pertinentportions of that document is a blatant fraud. Sierra Glass & Mirror v, Viking Indus, Inc., 107 Nev. 119, 808 P.2d 512(19912.

FACTUAL MISREPRESENTATIONS IN BRIEF. --ln an appeal of the trial court's decision denying attorney fees inan action filed by two discharged police officers to compel arbitration of the city's decision to terminate them,sanctions were imposed upon the officers' attorney because the offlcers' reply appellate briefs advanced argumentswithout citation to legal authority, contained assertions that lacked citation to the appendix, and contained factualmisrepresentations; the officers' brief accused the city of fabricating the charges against the officers, retaliation.harassment, racial and ethnic slurs. physical assault, and attempted vehicular homicide, and asserted that the cityhadabandoned its appeal rather than faoe a Nev. R. Civ. P. 11 violation; hoWever, none of the assenions weresupported by citation to the record, and nothing in the record supported those assertions. Thomas v. City of N. LasLeggs; 122 Nev. 82. 127 P.3d 1057 {2006).

MICHIE'S NEVADA COURT RULES ANNOTATED_

Copyright 2019 Matthew Bender & Company. Inc., a member ofthe LexisNexls Group. All right reserved.

End ofDocument

Paul Prissel



Nevada Court Rules > NEVADA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT > ADVOCATE

Rule 3.4. Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel

A lawyer shall not:

(a)Unlawfully obstruct another party's access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal adocument or other material having potential evidentiary value. A lawyer shall not counsel or assisianother person to do any such act.

(b)FaIsify evidence, counsel or assist a wltness to testify falsely, or offer an inducement to a witnessthat ls prohibited by law;

(c)Knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on anassertion that no valid obligation exists;

(d)|n pretrial procedure, make a frivolous discovery request or fail to make reasonabry diligem effort hocomply with a legally proper discovery request by an opposing party;

(e)ln trial, allude to any matter that the lawyer does not reasonably believe is relevant or that will not besupported by admlssible evidence. assen personal knowledge of facts in issue except when testifyingas a witness, or state personal opinion as to the justness of a cause, the credibility of a witness, theculpability of a civil litigant or the guilt or innocence of an accused; or

(flRequest a person other than a client to refrain from voluntarily giving relevant information to anotherparty unless:

(1)The person is a relative or an employee or omer agent of a client; and

(2)The Iawyer reasonably believes that the person's interests will not be adversely affected byrefraining from giving such information.

History

Added eff. 5-1 -06

Annotations

Notes

MODEL RULE COMPARISON--2006 —Rule 3.4 (formedy Supreme Court Rule 173) is the same as ABA ModelRule 3.4.

Case Notes

EDITOR'S NOTE. —Some 0f the cases in the following annotations were decided Under former similar rules.

Paul Prissel

Page 2 of 2Nev. Rules of Prof'l Cohduct 3.4

AN ATTORNEY WHO ENGAGES IN PROHIBITED COMMUNICATIONS violates the attorney's ethical duty to obeythe obllgations of the tribunal. Since the procedure for discovery is well established. an attorney may also be inviolation of the rule prohibiting conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Erickson v. Nswmar Com, 87F.3d 298 (9th Cir. 1996).

EXPERT WITNESS VIOLATIONS. --An attorney violates an ethical duty when the attorney has ex parte contactwith the opposing party's expert witness. Erickson v. Newmar Corp., 87 F.3d 298 (9th Cir. 1996).

By his employment of the plaintiff's expert witness, the defendant's attomey entirely circumvented the discoveryrules because the defendant's attorney had unsupervised access to the plaintiffs expert. Erickson v. Newmar Com,87 F.3d 298 (9th Cir. 19962.

EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT FINDING OF VIOLATION. --Violation was supported by clear andconvincing evidence given that the record demonstrated that the attomey deliberately included an award of costs tohimself in an order he prepared when the district court had not awarded any costs, and he subsequently refused tostipulate to a modification of the order, forcing opposing counsel to file a motion to amend. In re Schaefer, 1 17 Nev.496, 25 P.3g 191, modified on other grounds. rehearing denied, 31 P=3d 365 (Nev. 20012, cert. denied, 534 U.S.1131, 122 S. Ct. 1072, 151 L. Ed. 2d 974 (2002).

MISCONDUCT WAS HARMLESS. -The interview with the witness took place after the trial. Therefore. theprosecutor's actions in instructing the wltness not to talk to defense counsel did not frustrate defense counsel'sefforts to prepare a defense, and any misconduc1 on the pan of me prosecutor at the interview dld not violate thedefendant‘s right to due process. Ligle v. State, 113 Nev. 540, 937 P.2d 473 (19972.

PROSECUTOR'S WILLFUL FAILURE T0 COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS and district court orderspertaining thereto may constitute professional misconduct. Schlafer v. State. 1 15 Nev. 167. 979 P.2d 712 (1999).

ATTORNEY'S PERSONAL OPINION NOT ALLOWED. —Attomey's comments to the jury reflected his personalopinion about the justness of personal injury litigants' causes and the defendants‘ culpability; by representing to thejury his personal oplnion that the plaintiffs' cases were worthless, the attorney not only violated his ethical duties, healso prejudiced the jury against the plaintiffs. Lioce v. Cohen. 124 Nev. 1. 1 74 P.3d 970 (2008).

MICHIE’S NEVADA COURT RULES ANNOTATEDCopyright 2019 Mauhew Bender 5 Company, Inc.. a member ofthe LexisNexis Group. All fights mowed.

End ofDocument

Paul Pn'ssel

Nev. Rules of Prof'l Conduct 4. 1

Current through rules promulgated and received through March 11. 2019

Nevada Court Rules > NEVADA RULES OFPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT > TRANSACTIONSWITH PERSONS OTHER THAN CLIENTS

Rule 4.1. Truthfulness in Statements to Others

In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly:

(a)Make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; or

(b)Fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting acriminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6.

History

Added eff. 5-1 -06

Annotations

Notes

MODEL RULE COMPARISON-2006 —Rule 4.1 (formerly Supreme Cour! Rule 181) is the same as ABA ModelRule 4.1.

MICHIE'S NEVADA COURT RULES ANNOTATEDCopyright 2019 Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., a member oflhe LexisNexis Group. All right reserved.

End o! Document

Paul Prissel

Nev. Rules of Praf'l Conduct 7.5A


Nevada Court Rules > NEVADA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT > INFORMATIONABOUTLEGAL SERVICES

Rule 7.5A. Registration of Multijurisdictional Law Firms

(a) Applicability ofruIe.A|| law firms having an office in Nevada and in one or more otherjurisdiclions shallregister wim the State Bar of Nevada and shall pay an annual fee of $ 500 for such regisiration.

(b) Definitionsfor purposes of this Rule:

(1)"Law firm" means a solo pracfitioner or a group of lawyers.

(2)"Nevada client" means a natural person residing in the State of Nevada, a Nevada govemmenmlentity, or a business entity doing business in Nevada.

(3)"Resident member" means a Nevada-licensed lawyer who maintains a full-time presence in theNevada office of the multijurisdictional firm.

(c) Procedure and requirements for registeringAn application fo‘r registration to practice under this Rule,along with the appropriate fee. shall be flled with me executive director of the State Bar of Nevada, on a formsupplied or approved by the State Bar of Nevada, a1 its Las Vegas, Nevada, office. The application shall includethe following:

(1)The names and addresses of all lawyers employed by the firm, the jurisdictions in which each lawyeris licensed. and verification that each lawyer is in good standing in thejun'sdictions in which eachlawyer is licensed;

(2)Any pending disciplinary action or investigation against a lawyer employed by the firm;

(3)The address and telephone number of a permanent office located within the State of Nevada thatwill be maintained by the firm;

(4)The name, address, and telephone number of a member of the firm who shall be resident in mefim1's Nevada office and who shall be the designated agent for service of process In this state. Theresident member of the firm in the Nevada office must be an active member in good standing of theState Bar of Nevada; and

(5)A certification that:

(|)The film will maintain a permanent office In Nevada wim a resident member of the firm who is

also an active member in good standing of the State Bar of Nevada at all times the firm is practicingin Nevada and will notify the state bar of any change of status or address within 30 days of thechange in status or address;

(ii)The firm agrees to disclose in writing to its Nevada clients whether all of its lawyers are licensedto practice in Nevada and, if any of its lawyers are not so licensed, to dlsclose what legal work will

be performed by lawyers not admitted to practice in this state. Upon request of the State Bar ofNevada, the firm shall provide documentation evidencing its compliance wlth these disclosurerequirements:

Paul Prissel

Page 2 of 37

Nev. Rules of Prof'l Conduct 7.5A

(lll)The firm agrees to maintain trust accounts in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 78.5. with allfunds arising from any matter in Nevada maintained solely in those accounts. The firm shall Identifythe financial institution where the trust account has been established; and

(iv)The firm agrees to comply fully with Rule 7.5.

(d) Disposition of application for registrationfl'he executive director of the siate bar shall have 30 days fromreceipt of the application to review the application and determine whether it has been completed and filed incompliance with the requirements of this Rule. Upon approval of the application, the executive director shallnotify the applicant and shall also give notice of the registration to the supreme court clerk and the district courtclerk for the county in which the law firm's Nevada office is located. If the application is incomplete, theexecutive director shall give the applicant written notification of the deficiencies in the application. The applicantshau have 30 days from the date of mailing of the notice of the deficiencies to cure the deficiencies andcomplete the application. If the application is not completed within the allotted time. the executive director shallreject the application.

(e) Application or certificate conmining false informatlonA lawyer who causes to be filed an application orcertificate containing false information shall be subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Slate Bar of Nevadawlth respect to such action and the firm shall be disqualified from registering to practice in Nevada.

(f) Violafion ofcondifionst the State Bar of Nevada determines that the firm is in violation of the conditionsset fonh in paragraph (c)(5) of this Rule, the executive director of the state bar may. upon 20 days' notice,revoke the registration and the n'ght of the firm to practice in Nevada. The execufive director shall notify thesupreme court clerk and the district court clerk for the county in which the law finn's Nevada office is located ofthe suspension.

(g) Renewal afmgisfiafionfln or before the anniversary date of the filing of the application with the State Barof Nevada. a firm registered under this Rule must renew is registrafion, providing current information andcertlfication as required under paragraph (c) of this Rule. The renewal shall be accompanied by payment of anannual fee of $ 500.

(h) Failure to renew.A law firm reglsiered under this Rufe that continues to practice law in Nevada but fails toprovide the proper information and certification or pay the renewal fees set forth in paragraph (f) of this Ruleshall be suspended from practicing law In Nevada upon expiration of a period of 30 days after the anniversarydate. The executive director of the state bar shall notify the firm, the supreme court clerk and the district courtclerk for the county in which the law firm's Nevada office is located of the suspension.

(l) Reinstatemenfihe firm may be reinstated upon the compliance with the requirements oi paragraph (f) ofthls Ruie and the payment of a late penalty of $ 100. Upon payment of all accrued fees and the late penalty, theexecutive director of the state bar may reinstate the firm and shall notify the firm, the supreme court clerk andthe district court clerk for the county in which the law firm's Nevada office is located of the reinstatement.

(j) Responsibilm'es of Nevada-Iicensed members.The members of the firm who are admitted to practice inNevada shall be responsible for and actively participate as a principal or lead lawyer in all work performed forNevada clients and for compliance with all state and local rules of practice. It is the responsibility of the Nevada-lioensed members of the firm to ensure that any proceedings in this jurisdiction are tried and managed inaccordance with all applicable procedural and ethiwl rules and that out-of-slate members of the firm complywith Supreme Court Rule 42 before appearing in any proceedings that are subject to that rule.

(k) Confidentiality.The State Bar of Nevada shall not disclose the application for’reglstration to any thirdparties unless necessary for disciplinary investigation or criminal prosecution for the unauthorized pracfice oflaw.

History

Added eff. 5-1 -06

Paul Priuel

Page 3 of 3Nev. Rules of Prof'l Conduct 7.5A

Annotations

Notes

MODEL RULE COMPARISON—2006 «Ruie 7.5A (formerly Supreme Court Rule 199.1) is a Nevada-specific Rule; it

has no counterpart in the ABA Model Rules.

MICHIE‘S NEVADA COURT RULES ANNOTATEDCopyright 2019 Mauhew Bender & Company, Ina, a member of the LexisNexis Group. All rights rawrved.

End ofDocument

Paul Prissel

Nev. Rules of Prof'l Conduct 8. 1

Current through mles promulgated and recelved through Mamh 11, 2019

Nevada Court Rules > NEVADA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT > MAINTAINING THEINTEGRITY OF THE PROFESSION

Rule 8.1. Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters

BarAdmission and Disciplinaly Matters. An applicant for admission to the bar, or a lawyer in connecflonwith a bar admission application or in connection with a disciplinary matter. shall not:

(a)Knowineg make a false statement of material fact or

(b)Fai| to disclose a fact necessary to correct a misapprehension known by the person to have arisen inthe matter. or knowingly fail to respond to a lawfu1 demand for infomlation from an admissions ordisciplinary authority, except that ‘his Rule does not require disclosure of information oihewviseprotected by Rule 1.6.

History

Added eff. 5-1 ~06

Annotations

Notes

MODEL RULE COMPARISON--2006 -- Rule 8;1 (formedy Supreme Court Rule 200') ls the same as ABA ModelRule 8.1.

MICHIE'S NEVADA COURT RULES ANNOTATEDCopyright 2019 Matthew Bender & Company, Inc, a member ofme LaxisNuis Group. All flghu reserved.

End ofDmmun

Paul Prissel



Nevada Court Rules > NEVADA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT > MAINTAINING THEINTEGRITY OF THE PROFESSION

Rule 8.4. Misconduct

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

(a)Violate or athempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another todo so, or do so through the acts of another:

(b)Commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer‘s honesty. trustworthiness or fitness as alawyer in other respects;

(c)Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, ftaud, deceit or misrepresentation;

(d)Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administratlon ofjustioe;

(e)State or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official or to achieve resultsby means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law; or

(flKnowingly assist a judge orjudicial officer In conduct that is a violation of appfimble rules ofjudicialconduct or other law.

History

Added eff. 5-1 -06; amended and eff. 2-1 0-2017; Amended and eff. 2-1 0-2017

Annotations

Notes

COMMENT T0 8.4(B) —[1] Because use. possession, and distribution of marijuana in any form still violates federallaw, attorneys are advised that engaging in such conduct may mult in federal prosecution and trigger disciplineproceedings under SCR 11 1.

MODEL RULE COMPARISON—2006 —Rule 8.4 (formerly Supreme Court Rule 203) is the same as ABA ModelRule 8.4.

MlCHlE‘S NEVADA COURT RULES ANNOTATEDCopyright 201 9 Matthew Bender 8. Company. Ina, a member of the LexisNexis Group. All lights reserved.

End nf Document

Paul Prissel

DECLARATION OF SERVICEby

us. msrcmss MAIL/ us. cmmpmn MAIL/ OVERNIGHT DELIVERY/pAcsmrmammomc TRANSMISSION

CASE NUMBERG): OCTC Case No. 18-J-1 7942

K. the undemigned. am over the age ofafghan (18) years and nota parly 10 the wlhln action, whose business address and piece of employmem b the State Bar of

California. B45 South Figueroa Susel. Los Angela. California 90017-2515, dedare that:

- on the dale shown below. I mused to be served a flue copy of the within document ducn'bed as follows:

NOTICE 0F DISCIPLINARY CHARGES

D By u.s. FIrst-class Man: (ccp §§ 1013 and 1013(a» By u.s. Certified Mail: (CC? §§ 1013 and 1013(a»-

Eimzdanolgawm the practice oflhe Smte Barof Calibrnla for coliew'on and processing of mail. I depos‘ned or placed foroullaw‘on and nailiru in me City and County- cs nge

D By Overnight Delivery: (COP §§ 101 3(0) and 1013M)-

I am readily familiar with the State Bar of Calibmia’s practice for collection and processing of correspondence tor ovemlghldelively by the Unned Parcel Service ('UPS').

D By Fax Transmission: (CCP §§ 1013(e) and 1013(0)Based on wreement of the parfias b accept service by fax transmission. | faxed the documenm to the persons atthe fax numbers listed herein below. No enorwasreported by 1113 fax machine that I used. The original record of the fax transmission is refined on file and available upon request

D By Electronic Service: (ccP g 1010.6)

Based on a court order or an aqteement of the parliss Io 3mm service by electronic ttansmission, l caused the documents m he sent to the person(s) at the ebamnicaddram listed herein below. dld not renews. wnhln a reasonable tlme aflerthe transmlsslon, any electronic message or other Indleaflon that the mmission wasunsuccessful.

D (torus nut-chunu; in a sealed envelope placed for collection and mailing at Los Angeles, addressed to: (see below)

X warmth» in a sealed enva‘ope placed for collection and trailing as certified trail, reium receipt requested,

Articie No.2 M147266£99+2111102§035§W H M _ ‘ _ n _ ‘ W at Los Angeles, addressed to: (seebelow)

DWWW”) together wilh a copy of this declaration. in an envelope, or package designated by UPS,

Tracking No.:I ‘ _ W A ‘ g

addressed to: {sse below)

Mon 50nd‘

Bumu-Rulflnflal AddmrH '

Fax Numbu}

Couréuyuaemnlc Copln To:

John Bernard Marcia 5567 Reseda Blvd., Ste. 320}

Marcin LLP anzana, CA 91356-2673

i

I am readily tammarwltn me State'a'ér'bicmifomia'é pra'cxiéé'fSFbouecuon and pmessin oroompondavm'fé'r7hailing wan ma Unwed Slam Postal Service, a'nd

ovamightdalivery by me Uniled Parcel Service ('UPS') In the ordinary coutsa a! me Slab Bar of alliomia's practice, correspondence oolected and processed me Stain Bar ofgallfomh would be deposfled with me United Slates Postal Service lhatsame day. and f0! overnight dafivery, deposited with delivexy fees paid or provided for. wi UPS that sameay.

| am aware that on motion of the party sewed. semioe is mesumed inva'id 'rf posh! eanoeIhh'on dab or postage mebr da1e on the enve or adage ls more man one daam date of deposit for mailing conmlned ln the affldavlt.

I we p y

| declare under penafiy of perjury, under the laws oftha State of Cailfomla. that the foregoing is true and correct, Executed at Los Angeles.

California, on the date shown below._

V

’

DATED: June 3, 2019 SIGNED:

Declarant

State Bar of California

DECLARATION 0F SERVICE

Documents

BAR OFFICE CHIEF - Californiamembers.calbar.ca.gov/courtDocs/19-J-30260.pdfofficeofchieftrialcounsel melanie j.lawrence,no.230102 interimchieftrialcounsel miar.ellis,no.228235 assistantchieftrialcounsel