In re Harris
| Decision Date | 24 February 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 57507.,57507. |
| Citation | 381 P.3d 623 (Table) |
| Parties | In the Matter of DISCIPLINE of Stephen R. HARRIS, Esq., Bar No. 1463. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
David Clark, Bar Counsel
Kimberly K. Farmer, Executive Director
Lemons, Grundy & Eisenberg
This is an automatic review, pursuant to SCR 105(3)(b), of a Northern Nevada Disciplinary Board hearing panel's findings that attorney Stephen R. Harris violated two rules of professional conduct and its recommendation that Harris serve a three-year suspension with two years and nine months stayed if Harris complies with certain conditions. We conclude that clear and convincing evidence supports the panel's findings concerning Harris's misconduct. We also approve the panel's recommended discipline.
Harris and the Nevada State Bar do not dispute the facts that underlie this matter. Harris has been licensed to practice law in Nevada since 1974. Between January 2008 and September 2009, Harris misappropriated approximately $788,000 from client trust accounts and his firm's general client trust account, using the funds for his personal gain.
On November 5, 2009, Harris self-reported his misconduct to the State Bar. The State Bar received no client or third-party complaints regarding Harris's misappropriation of the client trust funds. Prior to Harris's disciplinary hearing, Harris repaid all of the money to the client trust accounts with interest, denied himself access to his firm's business and trust accounts, and allowed another attorney to supervise his performance on his cases. Harris continues to deny himself access to these accounts and receive supervision from another attorney. Harris also successfully completed treatment for alcoholism and other mental disorders.
The panel held Harris's disciplinary hearing on November 9, 2010. Because Harris admitted his misconduct, the panel focused on the aggravating and mitigating evidence in Harris's case and the appropriate discipline to recommend. At the hearing, Harris testified about his remorse for his behavior and his efforts at recovery. Harris's psychologist also testified that Harris's alcohol dependence and mental disorders caused his misconduct and that Harris's current treatment plan would arrest any further misconduct. Several other attorneys, including Harris's wife and law partner, testified on Harris's behalf as well. These attorneys discussed Harris's prior professionalism, his skill as a bankruptcy attorney, and the burden that a lengthy suspension would impose on Harris's family, existing clients, and the public. Finally, one of the two clients from whom Harris misappropriated funds submitted a written declaration expressing his belief that Harris should not be suspended from the practice of law and his desire to continue as Harris's client.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the panel found that Harris had violated RPC 1.15 (safekeeping of property) and RPC 8.4 (misconduct). Based upon these violations, four members of the panel recommended that Harris receive a three-year suspension with two years and nine months stayed if Harris complies with certain conditions. These conditions require that Harris (1) have no client trust account access during the entire three-year suspension period; (2) have a mentor throughout the entire three-year suspension period, other than Jeffrey Hartman, Esq., and this mentor shall file a report with the State Bar every six months; (3) pay a $50,000 fine to the State Bar's Client Protection Fund within one year of this order; (4) refrain from the use of alcohol or any other controlled substance, unless prescribed by a licensed medical doctor, throughout the three-year period; (5) continue with his outpatient recovery therapy and attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous, and submit to random alcohol/urinary analysis tests during the three-year suspension period, with his therapist submitting a report and test results to the State Bar on a quarterly basis; and (6) write a letter to each of the persons who had funds in the accounts which were misappropriated within 90 days of this order and include a copy of this order with the letter. The panel also recommended, pursuant to SCR 120, that Harris pay the costs of the disciplinary proceedings. The panel chair dissented from this recommendation because she was in favor of a harsher discipline.
Clear and convincing evidence supports the panel's findings of misconduct and the panel's recommended discipline is appropriate
While the findings and recommendations of a panel are persuasive, this court reviews a panel's decision recommending suspension de novo. SCR 105(3)(b) ; In re Stuhff, 108 Nev. 629, 633, 837 P.2d 853, 855 (1992). The findings of misconduct by the panel must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. SCR 105(2)(e) ; In re Stuhff, 108 Nev. at 635, 837 P.2d at 856. Because Harris admitted to the violations, we conclude that the panel's findings of misconduct are supported by clear and...
To continue reading
Request your trial