 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Discipline of Taves9/6/2002
ORDER APPROVING PUBLIC REPRIMAND
This is an appeal from a Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board hearing panel's recommendation that attorney Barbara Taves be publicly reprimanded and ordered to pay the costs of the disciplinary proceeding. The panel found that Taves violated SCR 151 (competence), SCR 153 (diligence), and SCR 154 (communication) in representing a divorce client, and that she had violated SCR 153 and SCR 154 in representing a bankruptcy client. Other charges based on Taves' representation of these clients were dismissed, as well as two counts unrelated to these clients. The state bar's bill of costs includes only the costs incurred in preparing the transcripts of the hearings, not other allowable costs, and thus is substantially lower than it might have been.
We conclude that clear and convincing evidence supports the panel's findings. We further conclude that in light of Taves' previous three private reprimands, a public reprimand is an appropriate form of discipline.
Taves raises some procedural arguments that must be addressed. First, she asserts that a state bar's subpoena to her for records was burdensome and oppressive, because compiling and copying the requested documents was time-consuming (about four hours) and expensive (about $75). Taves argues that the panel should have granted her request to quash the subpoena. We conclude that the burden imposed was not unreasonable, and that the panel's decision was correct.
Taves next argues that the method for exercising peremptory challenges is flawed, because she was required to exercise her two challenges as to the entire eighty-four member list of Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board members and alternates, rather than as to an already-designated five-member panel. Having reviewed SCR 105(2)(a), which governs peremptory challenges of board members, we conclude that the state bar's practice is based on a reasonable reading of the rule. In addition, Taves has not demonstrated how she was prejudiced, since she exercised her challenges against two members she believed would be biased against her. Also, she made no effort to disqualify any member for cause until the third day of the evidentiary hearing. This was too late, as a request for disqualification must be made before the commencement of a trial or evidentiary hearing. In addition, the grounds for disqualification asserted by Taves are without merit. Two of the panel members had previously sat on a screening panel concerning another grievance against Taves; a judge similarly situated would not be obliged to abstain simply because he or she had presided over another case concerning an individual.
Taves next argues that the panel erred in receiving an affidavit setting forth her disciplinary history at the close of evidence, before the panel had found any misconduct. The record reflects that the affidavit, prepared by the state bar's custodian of records, was submitted without discussion at the close of evidence, before the panel retired to deliberate. The panel specifically stated that the affidavit would be referred to only if a finding of misconduct was made, in order to determine the appropriate discipline. A lawyer's prior discipline history is relevant to the discipline to be imposed, and so was admissible for this purpose. Other courts have concluded that the introduction of discipline history during the evidentiary portion of a hearing is not prejudicial error. Here, the panel appropriately limited its consideration of the affidavit, and no error occurred.
Finally, Taves asserts that the proceedings against her were the result of selective prosecution and gender discrimination, and that her clients were encouraged to
Page 1 2 3 Nevada Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|