40

d e c e m b e r 2 0 0 9 N e V A d A L A W Y e rb

Ar

CO

un

SE

L r

EP

Or

TD

ECEM

BER

200

9

SOUTHERN NEVADA DISCIPLINARY BOARD

LETTERS OF (PRIVATE) REPRIMAND1

File No. 09-026-2557Letter of reprimand, advertising matter.

Client and his wife were sent correspondence fromAttorney dated January 14, 2009. Client noted thathis wife, who received the letter, perceived it to beanofficialdocumentandbecameveryupset. ItwasnotuntilClientcamehomethattheylearnedthattheletter did not threaten a lawsuit, but was instead a“specialoffer.”

Neither the envelope nor the letter contained thedisclaimerrequiredbyRuleofProfessionalConduct(RPC) 7.3(c) (Communications with prospectiveclients; Additional disclaimer on mailers or writtenadvertisementsorcommunications),whichstates,inpart,that:

Directorindirectmailenvelope,andwrittenmailcommunications or advertising circulars shallcontain,upontheoutsideoftheenvelopeanduponthecommunicationsideofeachpageofthecommunicationoradvertisement,inlegibletypethatisatleasttwiceaslargeasthelargesttypeusedinthebodyofthecommunication,inredink,thefollowingwarning:NOTICE: THIS IS AN ADVERTISEMENT!

The purpose behind RPC 7.3(c) is to allow theprospective client to immediately know that thecommunication froma lawyerseeking tooffer themlegalservices.Thisalsohelpsensure thatpotentialclientsarenotmisledorintimidatedintobelievingthataresponsetothecorrespondenceisrequired.Inthisinstance,iftheenvelopehadcontainedtheappropriatedisclaimer, Client’s wife would have immediatelyknownthattheletterwasanadvertisement.

Asnotedabove,Attorney’sletteralsofailedtoincludethe required disclaimer. Instead, the bottom of thecorrespondencestated,insize8font,“Pleasedonotbeoffendedbythisletter.Weobtainedyourinformationfrompublicrecords.ThisletterissenttoofferHELP.Ifyoudonotneedourhelp,throwtheletterawayorpassitontoafriendwhodoes.Thankyou.”

InhisresponsetotheStateBarofNevada,Attorneystatedthat:

[I]n respect to Rule 7.3, our law firm doessend out “mailers.” Our office uses a mailing

device which is programmed to stamp in red ink“NOTICE: THIS IS AN ADVERTISEMENT!” onevery letterandenvelopedmailed.Unfortunately,itappearsthatforaperiodofapproximatelytwotothreeweeksinJanuary2009thered-inkstampranoutofinkandthereforeseverallettersweremailedwithout the disclaimer appearing. This issue hassince been corrected and our mailings (as theyhaveinthepast)allhavetheRule7.3languageinredinsize24pointtype(whichislargerthananytelephonenumberinthemailings).

Areviewofstatebarrecordsindicatesthatthesolicitationletter at issue had not been previously filed with thestatebarandwasnot filedwith thestatebarwithin15daysoftheletterbeingsentasisrequiredbyRPC7.2A(AdvertisingFilingRequirements).

AttorneywasREPRIMANDED inthismatterforviolatingRPC7.2A(AdvertisingFilingRequirements)andRPC7.3(CommunicationsWithProspectiveClients).

File No. 08-172-2987Letter of reprimand appropriate when Attorney filed a non-meritorious claim.

ThismatterwasreferredtotheStateBarofNevadabyajudge.TheAttorneyfiledacomplaintonbehalfofClient,whohadgivenaNoteandDeedofTrustforpurchaseofahome.

The homeowner defaulted when the lender requiredpayment in full of the remaining balance. According tothe judge, “thehomeowner then tenderedabogusandfraudulent Silver Surety Bond certificate as payment,which the Defendant ultimately declined as this formofpaymentwasnot coveredunder theprovisionof theNote.”ThelenderthenfiledaMotiontoDismissPlaintiff’sComplaintforImproperForeclosure.

InAttorney’sresponsetoBarCounsel,heexplainedthataprior tenantwas livingwith thepriorownerwhenshepassedaway.Thepropertywastransferredthroughnewownership with the tenant and his family continuing toresideinthehomeasrentaltenantsuntilClientpurchasedthepropertyonJuly26,2006.

AttorneystatedthatClientattendedareal-estateseminarwherehemetanallegedspecialistinforeclosureactionswho informed Client about a process where distressedhomeownerscouldapply to theUnitedStatesTreasuryDepartment foracommercialdischargeor restructuringof theirmortgageobligations.UponestablishingaUCCContract Trust Account with the U.S. Treasury, thedebtorcansubmitthemortgagedebtforanapplicationofdischargeorrestructuringofthedebt.

13

N e V A d A L A W Y e r d e c e m b e r 2 0 0 9

41

bA

r C

Ou

nS

EL

rE

PO

rT

D

ECEM

BER

2009

COnTInuEd On PAgE 42

Clientwassuccessful inestablishing theaccountandprovided Bar Counsel with a copy of the Motion ofIndefinite Stay filed on May 30, 2008. The economicdischarge process Client attempted with the property,if successful, would have resulted in the Defendantreceiving a treasurer’s check from the Department ofTreasury.Client’ssilverbondwasnotbeingusedasatenderofpaymentbutwas tosetupan initialdepositwith the U.S. Treasury to establish his UCC ContractTrustAccount.

Inthiscase,thebilltenderedbyClientisnotanegotiableinstrumentbecauseitisnotmade“payabletobearerorto order” as required by section 3-104 of the UniformCommercialCode.Additionally,althoughacheckmaybeanegotiableinstrumentevenwhennotmadepayabletobearerortoorder,thebill isnotacheckbecauseitwasnotdrawnonabank.

As discussed above, Client did not tender “payment”but,rather,apieceofpaperthatwasentirelylackinginvalue.Therefore,thebilldidnotdischargehisobligationtopaythemortgage.

Attorney was REPRIMANDED for violating RPC3.1 (Meritorious Claims and Contentions), RPC 3.4(FairnesstoOpposingPartyandCounsel)andRPC4.1(TruthfulnessinStatementtoOthers).

File No. 08-226-2619Letter of Reprimand, various matters.

Attorney’sofficefaxedcorrespondencetoDefendant’snew employer. The correspondence made variousallegations and stated it was a final warning beforeAttorney would be forced to contact the police, thedistrictattorney,theStateBarofNevadaandfileacivilcomplaint inDistrictCourt.Aresponse letterwassentto Attorney by Defendant’s supervisor, who advisedAttorney thathisactionshaddisrupted theoperationsofherdepartment.Thesupervisorfurtherstatedthatinthefuture,allpersonalcorrespondenceshouldbesentdirectly toDefendant’s residenceandnotherplaceofemployment.

The testimony at the informal hearing before theSouthern Nevada Disciplinary Board was disputed.AttorneystatedthatDefendanttoldhimtofaxthelettertoherworkplace incareofhersupervisor.DefendantdeniedgivingAttorneytheseinstructions.Nevertheless,even assuming Attorney’s testimony was correct, thepanelfeltAttorneyshouldhaveknownbetterthansendsuchalettertoDefendant’swork,whichservedonlytoembarrassherinfrontofhernewemployer.

InAttorney’sresponsetothestatebar,AttorneystatedthatDefendant“hashadplentyofopportunitiestoresolvethismatteramicably.EvenasrecentlyasSeptember23,2008,Iofferedtodismisstheclaimsagainstheraslongasshepaidforthefilingandservicefees,returnedthefiledocumentspertainingtotheEstateandwithdrewherBarcomplaint.”Thispeaceofferingwasfaxedandwasgood for sevendays.Theofferwasextendedbeyonddeadlinedatetoavoidanyfurtherlitigationexpenses.

The Informal Hearing Panel agreed that Attorney’sstatement to Defendant requesting the withdrawal ofherbarcomplaintwas,inandofitself,isinviolationofRPC8.4

Attorney was REPRIMANDED for violating RPC 4.4(Respect for Rights of Third Persons) and RPC 8.4(Misconduct-EngageinConductthatisPrejudicialtotheAdministrationofJustice).

File No. 08-226-2619Attorney received a Letter of Reprimand for failure to respond to the State Bar of Nevada.

OnMay19,2008,ChiropractorcomplainedtothestatebarthatAttorneyhadfailedtopayhisliens.ChiropractorhadpreviouslytreatedoneofAttorney’sclientsregardinginjuries she sustained in two separate automobileaccidents.

Attorney’sinitialresponsetothestatebar,datedJune4,2008,acknowledgedtheliensandstatedthatAttorneywasattemptingtonegotiatethemthroughChiropractor’scounsel. However, Attorney noted that neither of theunderlyingpersonalinjurymattershadyetsettled.

ThestatebarsummarilydismissedthematteronJune24,2008,as the twopersonal injurymatterswerestillpending and, as such, Attorney could not make anydisbursements.Chiropractorwasinformedthathewasfree to contact the state bar again if he encounteredanydifficultyinreceivingpaymentaftereithercasewascompleted.

OnJuly31,2008,Chiropractor informed thestatebarthatoneofthemattershadsettledandattached“ThirdRequest”forpayment,whichreferencedpriorrequestsbeingmadeonJuly14andJuly18,2008.

ThestatebarsubsequentlyaskedAttorneytoprovideanupdateregardingthepersonalinjurymattersbyAugust14,2008.Noresponsewasreceived,however,andtworeminderlettersweresenttoAttorneyonSeptember17

42

d e c e m b e r 2 0 0 9 N e V A d A L A W Y e rb

Ar

CO

un

SE

L r

EP

Or

TD

ECEM

BER

200

9

DISCIPLINE KEYResignation with charges pending: SCR 98(5)(b) Types of possible discipline listed generally: SCR 102Attorneys convicted of crimes: SCR 111Conditional guilty plea agreements (discipline by consent): SCR 113Reciprocal discipline: SCR 114Disbarred/Suspended attorneys: SCR 115Reinstatement: SCR 116Disability Inactive: SCR 117

Supreme Court Rules (SCRs): www.leg.state.nv.us/CourtRules/SCR.html

DISBARMENT – License to practice revoked.

SUSPENSION – License suspended for a time certain, ineligible to practice. More than 6 months requires petition for reinstatement and court order.

DISABILITY INACTIVE – Ineligible to practice until further order of the Court. In the interim, disciplinary proceedings held in abeyance.

INTERIM TEMPORARY SUSPENSION – Interim suspension based on showing of a substantial threat of serious harm to the public, in effect until further Court order, usually after hearing.

RESIGNATION WITH CHARGES PENDING – Ineligible to practice. Requires Bar Counsel approval. Resignation is irrevocable, with readmission only possible upon application as a new admittee. PUBLIC REPRIMAND – Misconduct found and public censure issued, including attorney’s name and the underlying facts and charges. Published in Nevada Lawyer and made available to the press. Remains eligible to practice law.

LETTER OF PRIVATE REPRIMAND – Lowest level of discipline. Not published, but disclosed upon request under the new rules. May also include up to a $1,000 fine. Remains eligible to practice.

ADMINISTRATIVE SUSPENSION/INACTIVE STATUS – Attorneys may be administratively suspended for failure to pay bar fees (SCR 98(12)), and/or placed on CLE inactive status for failure to complete and report the required Continuing Legal Education hours (SCR 212). While these are not disciplinary suspensions, the attorney is ineligible to practice law until the deficiency is remedied and the procedures to transfer back to active status completed as set forth in the applicable rules.

andDecember10,2008,bothsentviacertifiedmailwithreturnreceiptrequested.

Prior to the December 10 reminder letter being issued,thestatebarhadspokenwithAttorney,onNovember5,2008,toconfirmAttorney’scurrentaddressasAttorney’spriorfirmhadrecentlydissolved.Duringtheconversation,AttorneywasinformedthatanupdatehadbeenrequestedregardingChiropractor’sgrievance.

Attorney provided an update on December 20, 2008,claiming that he was waiting for the second personalinjury matter to resolve before paying Chiropractor infull for both cases. Attorney’s letter expressed concernthatifChiropractorwerepaidinfullforthefirstcase,Chiropractorwouldnotbecooperativeinreducingthesecondlien,whichwasforasmallerdollaramount.

Attorneyalso informed thestatebar that thesecondmatter recently settled and that his client would besigningthereleasewithinthenextfewdays.Assuch,AttorneyanticipatedpayingChiropractorbytheendoftheyear.

OnJanuary12,2009,Chiropractorinformedthestatebar that he had yet to receive any payment fromAttorney. The state bar asked Attorney to updateregardingthetwomattersbyJanuary30,2009.

However, Attorney failed to respond. Two reminderlettersweresubsequentlysenttoAttorneyonFebruary3andFebruary24,2009,bothsentviacertifiedmailwithreturnreceiptrequested.ThelatterletterinformedAttorneythatfailuretorespondwouldbeconsideredaviolationofRPC8.1(BarAdmissionandDisciplinaryMatters). Attorney again failed to respond and theinstantgrievancefilewasopenedonMarch17,2009.

AttorneyfinallyupdatedthestatebaronApril3,2009,indicatingthatthesecondcheckhadissuedinJanuary2009,butwasmadepayabletotheincorrectfirm.Theinsurance company reissued the check in February2009,andwasdepositedonMarch10,2009.

Attorney’s April 3 letter also attached a copy of acheck made payable to Chiropractor, in the amountof $7,564.13, dated March 22, 2009. The amountappearstobethetotalforthetwoliens.However,asofJune22,2009,Chiropractormaintainedthathehadnotreceivedthecheck.

AlthoughChiropractorwasaggressiveinhiscollectionefforts,itdoesnotabsolveAttorneyofhisobligationsto respond to a lawful demand for information fromthestatebarpursuanttoRPC8.1(b)(BarAdmissionand Disciplinary Matters). The panel, in considering

Attorney’sfailuretotimelyresponsetotheStateBarofNevada,notedthatAttorneyhadbeenpreviouslyissuedaPublicReprimandinMarch2007forfailingto comply with deadlines in regard to four ordersfromtheSupremeCourtofNevadainanappellatecaseinwhichhewascounsel-of-record.

Attorney was REPRIMANDED in this matter forviolatingRPC8.1(b)(BarAdmissionandDisciplinaryMatters).

1. See SCR121(Confidentiality)asamendedeff.March1,2007.