Gilbert, Esq. v. State Bar Of Nev. ( 2022 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
JOSEPH S. GILBERT, ESQ., No. 84113
Petitioner,
vs.
STATE BAR OF NEVADA, FILED
Respondent. . MAY 1 3 2022
ELIZABETH A. BROWN
CLERK Q SUPREME COURT
BY f
DEPUTY C.LER-IC
ORDER DENYING PETITION AND LIFTING STAY
This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition
seeks, amongst other relief, a writ directing the dismissal of disciplinary
proceedings and an investigation into the State Bar. Having considered the
briefing and documentation filed by both parties, we are not persuaded that
our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. Smith v.
Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853
(1991) (recognizing that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this
court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ
petition).
Petitioner Joseph S. Gilbert argues that respondent the State
Bar of Nevada released a proposed letter of reprimand issued by a screening
panel in the underlying disciplinary proceedings to the press in violation of
confidentiality rules. But the documentation before this court contains no
evidence tending to show that the State Bar released the proposed letter or
violated confidentiality rules, such that Gilbert has failed to meet his
burden of showing that writ relief is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial
Dist. Court, 120 Nev..222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing that the
party seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing such relief is
0102
warranted). The State Bar also has not violated Gilbert's due process rights
such that writ relief would be warranted because the proposed reprimand
did not become final due to Gilbert's timely objection to the same and the
State Bar has not otherwise recommended any discipline for Gilbert at this
time. See SCR 105(1)(b), (c) (providing that an attorney may object to a
screening panel's decision to issue a letter of reprimand, after which the
State Bar must commence formal proceedings; and that "a panel shall not
make a finding of misconduct until the attorney has been given an
opportunity to respond to the allegations against the attorney"). As Gilbert
has failed to show he is entitled to any of the relief he seeks, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.'
Hardesty
Stiglich
, J.
Herndon
cc: Clark Hill PLC
Lipson Neilson P.C.
Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada
Bar Counsel, State Bar of Nevada
'Because we deny writ relief, we deny Gilbert's request for attorney
fees and costs related to these writ proceedings and lift the stay of the
disciplinary proceedings previously imposed by this court on March 23,
2022.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) I947A 4044