Hawkins v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev.
| Decision Date | 28 December 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 71759,71759 |
| Citation | 407 P.3d 766 |
| Parties | X'Zavion HAWKINS, an individual, Petitioner, v. The EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT of the State of Nevada, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF CLARK; and the Honorable Joanna Kishner, District Judge, Respondents, and GGP Meadows Mall, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; Mydatt Services, Inc., d/b/a Valor Security Services, an Ohio Corporation; and Mark Warner, an individual, Real Parties in Interest. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Injury Lawyers of Nevada and David J. Churchill and Jolene J. Manke, Las Vegas, for Petitioner.
Backus, Carranza & Burden and Edgar Carranza, Las Vegas, for Real Parties in Interest Mydatt Services, Inc., dba Valor Security Services; and Mark Warner.
Lee, Hernandez, Landrum, Garofalo and David S. Lee and Charlene Renwick, Las Vegas, for Real Parties in Interest GGP Meadows Mall; Mydatt Services, Inc., dba Valor Security Services; and Mark Warner.
BEFORE HARDESTY, PARRAGUIRRE and STIGLICH, JJ.
In this petition for extraordinary writ relief, we address what the district court should have considered when awarding attorney fees sought for work done by a disqualified firm. We conclude that the district court must consider the factors from the Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers § 37 cmt. d (2000) when awarding attorney fees sought for a disqualified law firm's work.
At Meadows Mall in Las Vegas, petitioner X'Zavion Hawkins was shot multiple times by another patron while attending an event. Hawkins consulted with attorney Paul Shpirt at the Eglet Law Group concerning the shooting. Shpirt initially agreed to represent Hawkins, but later declined representation after reviewing the evidence. Hawkins retained a different attorney, who filed suit against real parties in interest GGP Meadows Mall; Mydatt Services, Inc., dba Valor Security Services; and Mark Warner (collectively, Meadows Mall) for premises liability and failure to provide adequate security.
Shpirt left the Eglet Law Group and began working at Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith (LBBS). In the underlying action, Meadows Mall retained LBBS to assist its separately retained counsel with its defense in the matter. Meadows Mall then sought discovery sanctions and moved to dismiss Hawkins' complaint based on Hawkins changing his version of events, providing false information, and/or omitting information required by NRCP 16.1 from his discovery responses.
When LBBS discovered the conflict stemming from Shpirt's prior representation of Hawkins and the firm's current representation of Meadows Mall, LBBS screened Shpirt from the case. However, LBBS did not notify Hawkins of the conflict. When Hawkins discovered the conflict involving Shpirt, he moved to disqualify LBBS. While that motion was pending, the district court scheduled an evidentiary hearing to determine whether to dismiss Hawkins' complaint. LBBS participated in the evidentiary hearing and argued for dismissal. The district court denied the motion to dismiss, but it granted as a discovery sanction a curative jury instruction for Hawkins' discovery abuses.
Thereafter, the district court disqualified LBBS because the firm failed to notify Hawkins and failed to obtain his informed consent regarding the conflict pursuant to RPC 1.9 () and RPC 1.10(e) (). Meadows Mall substituted LBBS with Backus, Carranza & Burden.
Following the order imposing sanctions for Hawkins' discovery abuses, Meadows Mall sought attorney fees, requesting $29,201 for LBBS; $13,681.50 for its other retained counsel; and $11,442.50 for Backus, Carranza & Burden. At the hearing on the motion for attorney fees, the district court expressed concern over the amounts requested. Meadows Mall explained that it had to do extra work to ensure that none of the work that was negatively impacted by LBBS's conflict was used. Counsel for Hawkins requested supplemental briefing to consider whether a disqualified law firm could receive attorney fees. Both parties provided supplemental briefing, and the district court ordered Hawkins to pay $41,635 for Meadows Mall's attorney fees, which was less than the total amount requested but which included $19,846 for work done by LBBS. The district court concluded that it had discretion to award attorney fees as sanctions, rejected Hawkins' contention that awarding fees to LBBS would be inappropriate, and noted that it reduced each of the law firms' awards from the amount requested because of "the number of lawyers and law firms involved in the Motion and Hearing at issue ... [and] to be consistent with the nature and scope of the record and applicable law."
The sole issue we address in this opinion is whether the district court abused its discretion in failing to consider LBBS's disqualified status in awarding sanctions in the nature of attorney fees.1
Hawkins maintains that a disqualified law firm which, like LBBS, violates its duty of loyalty to a former client should not collect attorney fees for the work it completed while violating that duty and that, therefore, Meadows Mall should not be awarded such fees as a sanction against him. Meadows Mall argues that the district court had broad discretion to impose sanctions against Hawkins for his failure to comply with the discovery obligations, and thus, the sanctions were appropriate. We conclude that the district court failed to analyze the Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers factors regarding attorney fees sought for a disqualified law firm, and we therefore grant writ relief.
Writ relief is warranted
It is solely within our discretion whether to entertain a writ of mandamus. Anse, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 862, 867, 192 P.3d 738, 742 (2008). "A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act which the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station, or to control a manifest abuse or an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion." Cote H. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 36, 39, 175 P.3d 906, 907–08 (2008) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). "A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue if the petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law." State v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 118 Nev. 609, 614, 55 P.3d 420, 423 (2002). However, we will consider a writ of mandamus even where there is an adequate remedy at law "under circumstances of urgency or strong necessity, or when an important issue of law needs clarification and sound judicial economy and administration favor the granting of the petition." Id. Because this case involves an important issue of law and judicial economy is served by our prompt consideration of that issue, given its isolation from the merits of the claims below, we grant this petition to clarify the appropriate factors a district court should consider when imposing sanctions that include attorney fees sought for a disqualified law firm.
Factors courts must consider before awarding attorney fees as a sanction
The district court's decision to impose discovery sanctions is committed to its discretion. GNLV Corp. v. Serv. Control Corp., 111 Nev. 866, 869, 900 P.2d 323, 325 (1995). The district court has authority to impose sanctions through NRCP 37 and its inherent equitable powers, including "sanctions for discovery and other litigation abuses not specifically proscribed by statute." Young v. Johnny Ribeiro Bldg., Inc., 106 Nev. 88, 92, 787 P.2d 777, 779 (1990). Discovery sanctions can include an order to pay "reasonable expenses incurred ... including reasonable attorney's fees." NRCP 37(c)(2).
In this writ petition, Hawkins does not dispute that he violated his discovery obligations. Rather, he contends that awarding fees to a disqualified law firm, LBBS, was inappropriate. In his supplemental briefing to the district court, Hawkins provided California authority that relied on the Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers § 37 (2000), but the district court expressly rejected that authority.2 The Restatement provides that "[a] lawyer's improper conduct can reduce or eliminate the fee that the lawyer may reasonably charge." Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers § 37 cmt. a (2000). The Restatement also includes factors for the district court to consider in analyzing "whether violation of duty warrants fee forfeiture." Id. § 37 cmt. d. The factors are (1) "[t]he extent of the misconduct," (2) "[w]hether the breach involved knowing violation or conscious disloyalty to a client," (3) whether forfeiture is "proportionate to the seriousness of the offense," and (4) "[t]he adequacy of other remedies." Id.
The Restatement further explains that for flagrant violations, forfeiture is justified even where no harm is proved, but for minor violations, merely reducing the fee may...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parkinson v. Bevis
...Other jurisdictions have reached similar conclusions. See, e.g., Hawkins v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct. in and for Cnty. of Clark, 133 Nev. 900, 407 P.3d 766, 769 (2017) (holding that a court must apply Restatement factors in determining whether to award fees for work done by a disqualified law f......
- Boca Park Martketplace Syndications Grp., LLC v. Higco, Inc.
-
Arik v. Meyers
...attorneys' fees in Meyers's possession. Meyers opposes summary judgment and requests relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). In Hawkins v. Eighth Judicial District Court, the Supreme Court of Nevada addressed under what circumstances "[a] lawyer's improper conduct can reduce or ......
-
Wright v. Scoma
... ... 2:22-cv-01282-APG-NJKUnited States District Court", D. NevadaApril 25, 2023 ... \xC2" ... express or implied.” Nev. Rev. Stat. § 42.005(1) ... Wright ... practice of law. Hawkins v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., ... 407 P.3d 766, ... ...