 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Discipline of Taves9/6/2002
file grievances against her. Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that it contains no evidence of selective prosecution. Both the divorce client and the bankruptcy client specifically denied being encouraged by anyone else to file a grievance against Taves. Also, even if Taves' claims of gender discrimination by certain members of the Las Vegas bankruptcy bar are true, they are irrelevant to a determination of whether she committed misconduct.
Accordingly, we approve the panel's recommendation in its entirety, and issue the public reprimand attached hereto as Exhibit A. Taves shall pay the costs of the disciplinary proceeding as set forth in the state bar's bill of costs. It is so ORDERED.
MAUPIN, C. J.
YOUNG, J.
SHEARING, J.
AGOSTI, J.
ROSE, J.
LEAVITT, J.
BECKER, J.
EXHIBIT A
Ms. Patricia Stutts retained you during March 1998 to handle an uncontested divorce with became contested at some point during the representation. You assigned this matter to your associate, as you were admittedly uncomfortable with your ability to adequately pursue Ms. Stutts' interests. Your associate subsequently left your employ. Despite your admitted unfamiliarity with this area of the law, you assumed representation of Ms. Stutts' case.
During the time you handled Ms. Stutts' case, there was great confusion between you and Ms. Stutts as to what you could do or were doing on her behalf. The problems with your representation were greatly exacerbated by your failure to adequately and regularly keep Ms. Stutts informed about the case. You would not communicate with Ms. Stutts for months on end, despite numerous attempts by her to contact you through your office. Although you finally procured a written support order on November 18, 1998, Ms. Stutts had received no support payments when she terminated your services in May of 1999.
Based upon your misconduct in representing Ms. Stutts, you are hereby publ=icly reprimanded for violation of the following Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct: SCR 151 (Competence) for failing to represent Ms. Stutts with the requisite legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation, SCR 153 (Diligence) for failing to act with reasonable diligence in representing Ms. Stutts and SCR 154 (Communication) for failing to keep Ms. Stutts reasonably informed about the case, failing to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, and failing to explain matters to the extent reasonably necessary to permit Ms. Stutts to make informed decisions regarding her representation.
In a second matter, you were contacted by Todd and Zola Williamson about filing for bankruptcy and filing a declaration of homestead on their residence. During the initial consultation, Mrs. Williamson informed you about her pending personal injury case and outstanding bills which required her to file for bankruptcy protection. Mrs. Williamson paid between $600 and $800 for a Chapter 7 petition and $50.00 for the homestead declaration.
Mrs. Williamson repeatedly had to initiate contact with your office to get services performed on her case. When your paralegal finally provided Mrs. Williamson with the bankruptcy petition for her review, Mrs. Williamson noticed several omissions. Your paralegal assured Ms. Williamson that the discrepancies would be corrected and requested that Mrs. Williamson sign the forms. Mrs. Williamson was apprehensive about the errors and later called to discuss her concerns with you about signing an inaccurate filing. During that call, you informed Mrs. William
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.
|
|