In Re: Discipline Of John P. Parris ( 2022 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
IN THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINE OF No. 83790
JOHN P. PARRIS, BAR NO. 7479.
FILE
FEB 1 6 2022 _
ELIZABETH A. BROWN
CLERK OF SPPREME COURT
By 5 >1 0
DEPUrf CLERK
ORDER OF SUSPENSION
This is an automatic review of a Southern Nevada Disciplinary
Board hearing panel's recommendation that attorney John P. Parris be
suspended for six months and one day, to run consecutive to the suspension
imposed in In re Discipline of Parris, No. 83370, 2021 WL 5176743 (Nev.
Nov. 5, 2021) (Order of Suspension). This matter concerns violations of RPC
3.4(c) (fairness to opposing party and counsel: knowingly disobeying an
obligation under the rules of a tribunal), RPC 8.1(b) (disciplinary matters),
and RPC 8.4(d) (misconduct). Because no briefs have been filed, this matter
stands submitted for decision based on the record. SCR 105(3)(b).
The State Bar has the burden of showing by clear and
convincing evidence that Parris committed the violations charged. In re
Discipline of Drakulich, 111 Nev. 1556, 1566, 908 P.2d 709, 715 (1995).
Here, however, the facts and charges alleged in the complaint are deemed
admitted because Parris failed to answer the complaint and a default was
entered. SCR 105(2). The record therefore establishes that Parris violated
'The complaint was served on Parris through regular and certified
mail at his SCR 79 address. The State Bar unsuccessfully attempted
personal service of numerous disciplinary pleadings. The State Bar also
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
( t), 047A etag*.•
05711~
RPC 8.1(b) (disciplinary matters) and RPC 8.4(d) (misconduct) by failing to
comply with conditions he agreed to in exchange for a public discipline in a
separate disciplinary matter and by failing to respond to the State Bar's
inquiries. Specifically, Parris agreed to complete 10 additional CLEs and
pay the costs of the disciplinary proceedings leading to the public reprimand
by the end of 2020. When the State Bar contacted Parris regarding his
compliance with those conditions, he failed to respond. In contrast, the facts
alleged in the complaint and admitted as true because of the default, are
not sufficient to establish a violation of RPC 3.4(c) (fairness to opposing
party and counsel). Thus, we strike that charge.
Turning to the appropriate discipline, we review the hearing
panel's recommendation de novo. SCR 105(3)(b). Although we "must . . .
exercise independent judgment," the panel's recommendation is persuasive.
In re Discipline of Schaefer, 117 Nev. 496, 515, 25 P.3d 191, 204 (2001). In
determining the appropriate discipline, 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).
Parris knowingly violated duties owed to the legal system
(disobeying an obligation under the rules of a tribunal) and the profession
emailed numerous disciplinary pleadings to Parris, including notice of the
hearing. Further, the State Bar left messages with Parris's answering
service and was informed he was receiving those messages.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(01 1947A 405.
(failure to respond to lawful requests for information from the State Bar).2
Parris's failure to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation harmed the
integrity of the profession, which depends on a self-regulating disciplinary
system. The baseline sanction for Parris's misconduct, before consideration
of aggravating or mitigating circumstances, is suspension. See Standards
for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, Compendium of Professional Responsibility
Rules and Standards, Standard 6.22 (Am. Bar Ass'n 2017) (recommending
suspension "when a lawyer knows that he or she is violating a court order
or rule, and . . . causes interference or potential interference with a legal
proceedine); Standard 7.2 ("Suspension is generally appropriate when a
lawyer knowingly engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed as a
professional and causes injury or potential injury to a client, the public, or
the legal system."). The panel found and the record supports five
aggravating circumstances (prior discipline, pattern of misconduct,
multiple offenses, refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of the
conduct, and substantial experience in the practice of law) and no
mitigating circumstances.
Accordingly, we hereby suspend attorney John P. Parris from
the practice of law in Nevada for six months and one day to run consecutive
to his suspension in In re Discipline of Parris, No. 83370, 2021 WL 51767432 While the hearing panel stated it could not determine Parris's
mental state because he was not present at the disciplinary hearing, the
panel, nevertheless, concluded that Standards 6.22 and 7.2 of the Standards
for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, Compendium of Professional Responsibility
Rules and Standards (Am. Bar Ass'n 2017) applied, which are both
applicable only when a lawyer has a knowing mental state.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVAOA
3
(0) I947A
(Nev. Nov. 5, 2021) (Order of Suspension). Parris shall also pay the costs of
the disciplinary proceeding, including $2,500 under SCR 120, within 30
days from the date of this order. The parties shall comply with SCR 115
and SCR 121.1.
It is so ORDERED.
6611$116.114r,17..
Parraguirre
l A6. - , 1.g, ,a,".* \ , J. Al4G4...0 , J.
Hardesty Stiglich
, J.
Cadish Silver
Pieku ' , J. fA-------,, J.
Pickering Herndon
cc: Chair, Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board
John P. Parris
Bar Counsel, State Bar of Nevada
Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada
Admissions Office, U.S. Supreme Court
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
lOf 1947,% ..zgato