Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada

Decision Date21 February 1990
Docket NumberNo. 20149,20149
Citation106 Nev. 60,787 P.2d 386
PartiesDominic P. GENTILE, Appellant, v. The STATE BAR OF NEVADA, Respondent.
CourtNevada Supreme Court

Galatz, Earl, Catalano & Smith and Timothy C. Williams, Las Vegas, for appellant.

Donald J. Campbell, Chairman, Southern Nevada Disciplinary Bd., Mary St. Clair, Executive Director, John Howe, Bar Counsel, State Bar of Nevada, Las Vegas, for respondent.

Kevin Kelly, Las Vegas, for amicus curiae Nat. Ass'n of Crim. Defense Lawyers.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

The Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board of the State Bar of Nevada (the Board) recommended a private reprimand of attorney Dominic P. Gentile based on comments he made at a press conference regarding a pending criminal matter in which he represented the accused. In appealing the Board's decision, Gentile has expressly waived his right to confidentiality in these proceedings. Because we find that clear and convincing evidence supports the Board's recommendation, we affirm.

Appellant Dominic P. Gentile represented a client accused of taking money and drugs from a safety deposit box rented by undercover police officers. To respond to adverse publicity about his client, Gentile held a press conference the day after his client was indicted. He stated that he had evidence to prove that his client was innocent, and characterized his client as a scapegoat of the police. In addition, he criticized potential witnesses and their motives, and stated that they were convicted money launderers and drug dealers. He also named a certain police detective as the likely perpetrator and implied that the detective abused drugs. Gentile had researched the disciplinary rules regarding trial publicity prior to the conference.

A jury trial was held approximately six months later. Gentile's client was acquitted of all charges.

The State Bar of Nevada subsequently filed a complaint alleging that Gentile's remarks at the press conference violated Supreme Court Rule 177. Following a hearing, the Board found that Gentile had violated the rule and recommended that he be privately reprimanded. Gentile appeals the Board's decision.

Supreme Court Rule 177 states, in pertinent part:

1. A lawyer shall not make an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that it will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding.

2. A statement referred to in subsection 1 ordinarily is likely to have such an effect when it refers to ... a criminal matter ... and the statement relates to:

(a) The character, credibility, reputation or criminal record of a party, suspect in a criminal investigation or witness....

SCR 177(1)-(2)(a).

To determine questions of fact, a higher degree of proof is required in disciplinary matters than in ordinary civil matters. In re Miller, 87 Nev. 65, 72, 482 P.2d 326, 330 (1971). The standard is whether the findings are supported by clear and convincing evidence. SCR 105(2)(e); Copren v. State Bar, 64 Nev. 364, 379, 183 P.2d 833, 840 (1947). However, the Board's recommendations, though persuasive, are not binding on this court. We must review the record de novo and exercise independent judgment to determine whether and what type of discipline is warranted. State Bar v. Claiborne, 104 Nev. 115, 126, 756 P.2d 464, 471 (1988); In re Kenick, 100 Nev. 273, 276, 680 P.2d 972, 974 (1984).

Based on our independent review of the record, we find that the discipline meted out by the Board was appropriate. Clear and convincing evidence supports the conclusion that appellant knew or reasonably should have known that his comments had a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing the adjudication of his...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Westfall, Matter of, No. 72022
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • May 3, 1991
    ...45, 76, 25 S.Ct. 539, 547, 49 L.Ed. 937 (1905).4 See Swafford v. Miller, 711 S.W.2d 211, 213 (Mo.App.1986).5 In Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 106 Nev. 60, 787 P.2d 386 (1990), the Supreme Court of Nevada tried to one-line the First Amendment issue in a disciplinary action involving a lawy......
  • Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 27, 1991
    ...Court affirmed, rejecting his contention that the Rule violated his right to free speech. Held: The judgment is reversed. 106 Nev. 60, 787 P.2d 386 (1990), Justice KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts III and VI, concluding that, as interpreted by the Nevada Supr......
  • Discipline of Stuhff, In re
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court
    • August 20, 1992
    ...330 (1971). The standard is whether the findings are supported by clear and convincing evidence. SCR 105(2)(e); Gentile v. State Bar, 106 Nev. 60, 62, 787 P.2d 386, 387 (1990). To be clear and convincing, evidence "need not possess such a degree of force as to be irresistible, but there mus......
  • Young v. Ninth Judicial Dist. Court, In and For County of Douglas
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court
    • September 30, 1991
    ...exercise an independent judgment and review the record de novo when reviewing findings of a disciplinary nature. Gentile v. State Bar, 106 Nev. 60, 62, 787 P.2d 386, 387 (1990), overruled on other grounds, 501 U.S. 1030, 111 S.Ct. 2720, 115 L.Ed.2d 888 (1991). We agree with the district cou......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT