December 2007

OFFICE OF BAR COUNSEL REPORT- Dec 2007

 

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

 

In re:            Steven Sorenson                  

Bar No:         6128

Supreme Court Docket Nos.  49635; 50047

Filed Nov. 1, 2007

         

ORDER OF DISBARMENT (No. 50047)

 

Disbarment appropriate based upon continued egregious misconduct involving multiple clients,  including practicing law while CLE inactive/suspended, abandoning litigation, failure to properly maintain client trust funds, failure to communicate with clients and opposing counsel, and failure to respond to the State Bar.     

 

This is an irrevocable disbarment pursuant to SCR 102(1) as amended effective March 1, 2007. 

 

These [two matters] are automatic appeals from a Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board hearing panel’s recommendation that attorney Steven Sorenson be suspended or six months and one day (Docket No.  49635), and its later recommendation that Sorenson be disbarred from the practice of law, based on his continued misconduct (Docket No. 50047).   In reaching its ultimate recommendation of disbarment, the panel found that Sorenson deviated from professional conduct rules in the following manner: six violations of RPC 1.3(diligence); six violations of RPC 1.4 (communication); two violations of RPC 1.15(safekeeping property); one violation of RPC 3.4(fairness to opposing party and counsel); two violations of RPC 5.5(unauthorized practice of law); nine violations of RPC 8.1(b)(bar admission and disciplinary matters); and one violation of RPC 8.4(misconduct).1   

 

Having reviewed the record, we conclude that clear and convincing evidence supports the panel’s findings2 and that disbarment is warranted.  With regard to the disciplinary problems set forth in Docket No. 49635, Sorenson failed to respond to over thirty letters related to the underlying client grievances that the bar served upon him, and although Sorenson eventually answered three of the bar’s formal complaints, his answers were late and failed to sufficiently address the issues raised in the complaints.  At the formal disciplinary hearing, he admitted that the bar could prove by clear and convincing evidence the allegations set forth in the complaints (with the exception of two counts, which were dismissed).  With regard to the complaint in Docket No. 50047, Sorenson failed completely to respond to the proceedings and did not participate in the formal disciplinary hearing.3      

 

In formulating its recommendation, the panel took into consideration Sorenson’s explanations, which mitigated the negative weight of his conduct; however, since his professional conduct violations were numerous and serious, and he had not responded to or cooperated with the state bar in resolving the complaints pending against him, the panel recommended disbarment.  We agree that the pattern of misconduct demonstrated by the grievances, together with Sorenson’s failure to respond to the bar or cooperate in the disciplinary matters, warrants disbarment.

 

Accordingly, the panel’s recommendation of disbarment is approved in full, and Sorenson is disbarred from the practice of law in this state.4   Sorenson shall pay the costs of the disciplinary proceedings ($4009) within thirty days of this order’s date, as well as any money owed to the clients involved in the underlying grievance matters, as found by the hearing panel.  The parties shall comply with SCR 115’s notice requirements. 

 

  

SOUTHERN NEVADA DISCIPLINARY BOARD

 

LETTERS OF (PRIVATE) REPRIMAND5

File No.  06-135-2400

Lawyer reprimanded and fined for dilatory response to the State Bar.

Attorney A was contacted by the State Bar concerning a former client’s allegation that Attorney A would not turn over the client’s file to new counsel.

While Attorney A did return the file, it took three subsequent letters and the eventual opening of a grievance file to finally elicit a response from the attorney.   In addition to receiving a Private Reprimand for violation of RPC 8.1(b)(failure to timely respond to a request from a disciplinary authority), Attorney A was fined $500 in accordance with SCR 102(6).  

 

File No.  07-006-0747

Lawyer reprimanded and fined for misconduct arising from  terminating representation without notice to the client, failing to pursue client’s matter,  failing to keep the Bar apprised of a current address as required by SCR 79, and failing to timely respond to the State Bar.

Attorney B received an $850 retainer from Client C to handle an uncontested divorce action, but thereafter failed to adequately communicate with the client and did not complete the divorce.  Attorney B ultimately effectively terminated the representation without notice and the client contacted the State Bar for assistance.

Attorney B thereafter failed to respond to four letters from the State Bar, the latter three via certified mail.  As a result, Bar Counsel opened a grievance file to which Attorney B likewise failed to respond.  Thereafter, the State Bar utilized a process server who served a member of Attorney B’s family.   Attorney B finally provided a response.

That response alleged that Attorney B did not receive the State Bar’s mailed letters because the address in the State Bar’s official records was no longer valid.  However, Attorney B did not then, or at any time prior,  provide a current address pursuant to SCR 79.   It was not until several weeks later when Attorney B transferred to inactive status that a new (out-of-state ) address was provided.  

In mitigation, Attorney B refunded the client’s full retainer.  

Attorney B received a Letter of Reprimand for violating RPC 1.3 (Diligence), RPC 1.4 (Communication), RPC 1.16 (Declining or Terminating Representation), and RPC 8.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters).  The Panel also imposed a $500 fine pursuant to SCR 102(6) and ordered that Attorney B reimburse the State Bar for the cost of personal service.

  

COMMITTEE & BOARD VACANCIES

 

ADVERTISING REVIEW COMMITTEES   

 

The Advertising Committees in the North and South are accepting applications.  These working Committees shall meet at least once per month to (1) review all advertisements submitted pursuant to rule RPC 7.2A as amended and (2) render advance advisory opinions upon request.  Because review & communication will largely be accomplished though electronic mediums, Committee members should be proficient with computers, email, and Internet use.

 

Interested persons should send: (1) a cover letter, (2) C.V., (3)  references, and (4) level of computer proficiency to:  State Bar of Nevada: attn:  AD Committee, 600 E. Charleston Blvd., Las Vegas, NV 89104, or via e-mail louisew@nvbar.org, or call (702) 317-1433 for more information.   Lawyers will also need to fill out a State Bar Committee Application form.

 

ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY COMMITTEE

 

The Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility is now accepting applications for volunteer lawyers. 

 

The primary functions of this working committee include: (1) responding to requests from all persons and entities seeking advisory opinions concerning the ethical and professional standards of practicing law;  (2) assisting the supreme court through the board of governors by studying and recommending additions, amendments to, or repeal of rules of professional conduct of the state bar or other laws governing the conduct of attorneys, and perform other such functions as may be assigned to the committee by the court or the board; and (3) assisting the public, including lawyers and judges, to understand the professional obligations of members of the state bar, which assistance shall include, but is not limited to, sponsoring educational programs and conferences. See Supreme Court Rules (SCRs) 222-228 for more information.

 

Interested members should send a completed Committee Application (available on the forms page at www.nvbar.org), cover letter, c.v., and references to:  State Bar of Nevada: attn: Gale Skala, 600 E. Charleston Blvd., Las Vegas, NV 89104, or via e-mail gales@nvbar.org.   

 

 

DISCIPLINARY BOARD VACANCIES

 

The Southern and Northern Nevada Disciplinary Boards are accepting applications for both volunteer lawyer, and layperson professionals, to review allegations of attorney misconduct.  Specific hearing panel assignments are flexible and will work around your schedule.

 

Interested persons should send a cover letter, c.v., and references to:  State Bar of Nevada: OBC, 600 E. Charleston Blvd., Las Vegas, NV 89104, or via e-mail tarad@nvbar.org.  Lawyers will also need to fill out a State Bar Committee Application form.

 

 

ENDNOTES

 

1.               The rules governing professional conduct were substantially revised after the state bar instituted the underlying complaints against Sorenson. Although the former rules apply to some of the conduct at issue, for consistency, this memorandum references the new rules; other than renumbering, no significant changes were made to the provisions relevant to this matter.

2.               See SCR 105(2)(e).

3.               The record reflects that bar counsel did more than was required by both serving Sorenson personally and by certified mail, see SCR 109(1)(requiring that the formal disciplinary complaint be served by personal service or certified or registered mail to the address on file with the state bar), and that the panel was correct in proceeding on a default basis, see SCR 105(2), (providing that “[i]n the event the respondent fails to plead, the charges shall be deemed admitted”).  

4.               We decline to impose the panel’s recommendation for a 6-month plus one day suspension in Docket No. 49635 [because it] is moot in light of this order of disbarment.

5.               See SCR 121(Confidentiality) as amended eff. March 1, 2007.