In Re: Discipline Of Aaron A. Aquino ( 2022 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
IN THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINE OF No. 83339
AARON A. AQUINO, BAR NO. 11772.
FILED
JAN 27 2022
A. BR
plot
ORDER OF DISBARMENT EF DEPLRY CLERK
This is an automatic review of a Southern Nevada Disciplinary
Board hearing panel's recommendation that attorney Aaron A. Aquino be
suspended from the practice of law for three years based on three
violations of RPC 1.15 (safekeeping property); two violations of RPC 1.3
(diligence); and one violation each of RPC 1.4 (communication), RPC 1.16
(declining or terminating representation), RPC 1.5 (fees), RPC 8.1 (Bar
admission and disciplinary matters), and RPC 8.4 (misconduct). The State
Bar has filed a brief opposing the panel's recommendation and instead
seeking disbarment. Aquino has not filed a brief.
We employ a deferential standard of review with respect to the
hearing panel's findings of fact, SCR 105(3)(b), and thus, will not set them
aside unless they are clearly erroneous or not supported by substantial
evidence, see generally Sowers v. Forest Hill Subdivision, 129 Nev. 99, 105,
294 P.3d 427, 432 (2013); Ogawa v. Ogawa, 125 Nev. 660, 668, 221 P.3d 699,
704 (2009). In contrast, we review a disciplinary panel's conclusions of law
and recommended discipline de novo. SCR 105(3)(b).
The State Bar has the burden of showing by clear and
convincing evidence that Aquino committed the violations charged. In re
Discipline of Drakulich, 111 Nev. 1556, 1566, 908 P.2d 709, 715 (1995). We
defer to the panel's findings of fact in this matter as Aquino and the State
SUPREME COURT
Bar stipulated to them during the disciplinary proceedings. Based on those
OF
NEVADA findings, we agree with the panel's conclusions that the State Bar
()) 1947A affgaira
established by clear and convincing evidence that Aquino violated the
above-listed rules by misappropriating approximately $700,000 in client
funds, failing to properly communicate with clients, and failing to respond
to inquiries from the State Bar.
In determining whether the panel's recommended discipline is
appropriate, we weigh four factors: "the duty violated, the lawyer's mental
state, the potential or actual injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct, and
the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors." In re Discipline of
Lerner, 124 Nev. 1232, 1246, 197 P.3d 1067, 1077 (2008). We must ensure
that the discipline is sufficient to protect the public, the courts, and the legal
profession. See State Bar of Nev. v. Claiborne, 104 Nev. 115, 213, 224, 756
P.2d 464, 527-28, 535 (1988) (noting the purpose of attorney discipline).
Aquino violated duties owed to his clients, to the public, and to
the legal profession. Because Aquino knew his accounts were out of balance,
misled clients regarding their funds, and could not explain how the personal
purchases from his accounts related to client costs, Aquino knowingly
violated his ethical duties. Aquino's misconduct caused injury to his clients
as they did not receive their funds or their lienholders were not paid. Based
on the most serious instance of misconduct at issue, see Standards for
Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, Compendium of Professional Responsibility
Rules and Standards 452 (Am. Bar Ass'n 2018) (The ultimate sanction
imposed should at least be consistent with the sanction for the most serious
instance of misconduct among a number of violations . . . ."), we agree with
the State Bar that the baseline sanction before considering aggravating and
mitigating circumstances is disbarment. See id. Standard 4.11, at 455
(Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly converts
client property and causes injury or potential injury to a client."). The
record supports the panel's findings of two aggravating circumstances (prior
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
0.11 I 947A 44MISE,
discipline and "the almost uniform failure to monitor what was going on
with [his] accounte). But to the extent the record supports the mitigating
circumstances found by the panel (acceptance of responsibility,
inexperience in the practice of law, personal and emotional problems, and
remorse), we conclude they do not warrant a downward deviation from
disbarment.
Accordingly, we hereby disbar attorney Aaron A. Aquino from
the practice of law in Nevada. Such disbarment is irrevocable. SCR 201(1).
Aquino shall pay the costs of the disciplinary proceedings, including $3,000
under SCR 120, within 30 days from the date of this order if he has not
already done so. The parties shall comply with SCR 115 and 121.1.
It is so ORDERED.
Parraguirr
, J. , J.
Hardesty Stiglich
Cadish
6,fic , J. LIZeMi.A_) , J.
Silver
Piektfay
v , J.
Pickering Herndon
cc: Chair, Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board
Pitaro & Fumo, Chtd.
Bar Counsel, State Bar of Nevada
Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada
SUPREME COURT Perry Thompson, Admissions Office, U.S. Supreme Court
OF
NEVADA
3
(01 19.47A etlgem
•
, :•