Public Interest Law Firm v. State Bar of Nevada ( 2016 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
THE PUBLIC INTEREST LAW FIRM, No. 62135
INC. AND WILLIAM BRECK, ESQ.,
Appellants,
vs.
FILED
STATE BAR OF NEVADA, FEB V S 2016
Respondent. TRA IE K. LINDEMAN
iii fit C
CLEW
BY AL
LERK
ORDER BARRING APPELLANTS i
FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW IN THE STATE OF NEVADA
This is an automatic review of a Northern Nevada
Disciplinary Board hearing panel's findings of fact, conclusions of law,
decision, and order for discipline. Appellant William Breck, Esq. is an
Alaska-licensed attorney who, despite the fact he is not licensed to practice
law in Nevada, engaged in the practice of law within the state. He
founded and operated appellant The Public Interest Law Firm, Inc. (PILE)
with non-attorneys. PILE and Breck sought people vulnerable to losing
their homes to pay an initial sum and significant monthly amounts to
PILE in exchange for legal representation and assistance related to their
mortgages. Specifically, Breck and PILE promised clients the opportunity
to join a multi-plaintiff lawsuit against their lenders, but no such lawsuit
was ever filed. Very little to no legal work was performed on behalf of the
majority of PILF's clients even though those clients made payments to
PILF.
PILE employed inexperienced Nevada attorneys, listing some
of them at various times as the law firm's resident attorney, sometimes
without their knowledge. PILF's non-attorneys and Breck utilized the
inexperienced attorneys' names and bar numbers, often without the
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1947A (07
attorney's knowledge or permission, to provide legal services and to file
documents and pleadings. Non-attorneys met with clients, gave legal
advice, and supervised and directed the work of PILF's attorneys. Breck
and PILF never deposited any client funds into a client trust account,
never provided clients with an accounting of the money received and the
work done, and never refunded unearned sums.
The panel found that Breck and PILF violated RPC 1.1
(competence), RPC 1.2 (scope of representation and allocation of authority
between client and lawyer), RPC 1.3 (diligence), RPC 1.4 (communication),
RPC 2.1 (advisor), RPC 3.3 (candor), RPC 1.5 (fees), RPC 1.15 (safekeeping
property), RPC 1.18 (duties to prospective client), RPC 4.1 (truthfulness in
statements to others), RPC 5.1 (responsibilities of partners), RPC 5.3
(responsibility regarding nonlawyer assistants), RPC 5.5 (unauthorized
practice of law), RPC 7.1 (communications concerning lawyer's services),
RPC 7.2 (advertising), RPC 7.5a (registration of a multijurisdictional law
firm), and RPC 8.4 (misconduct). The hearing panel concluded that it
"was unable to find a single mitigating circumstance to apply either to
Breck or [PILF]" and that "Nile circumstances outlined in this matter are
exceedingly disturbing and aggravating to an extreme, justifying
imposition of the maximum allowable degree of discipline." Thus, the
panel recommended that Breck and PILF be forever barred from the
practice of law in the State of Nevada and that Breck reimburse the actual
costs incurred in the disciplinary proceedings.
The State Bar has the burden of showing by clear and
convincing evidence that Breck and PILF committed the violations
charged. In re Discipline of Drakulich, 111 Nev. 1556, 1566, 908 P.2d 709,
715 (1995). We employ a deferential standard of review with respect to
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A 9e747
the hearing panel's findings of fact, the same as in other civil cases, see
SCR 105(3)(a) ("[am n appeal from a decision of a hearing panel shall be
treated as would an appeal from a civil judgment of a district court ...
and thus, we will not set them aside unless they are clearly erroneous or
not supported by substantial evidence, see generally Sowers v. Forest Hills
Subdivision, 129 Nev., Adv. Op. 9, 294 P.3d 427, 432 (2013); Ogawa v.
Ogawa, 125 Nev. 660, 668, 221 P.3d 699, 704 (2009). In contrast, a
hearing panel's conclusions of law and recommended discipline are
reviewed de novo. SCR 105(3)(b).
As an initial matter, we conclude that this court and the
hearing panel have jurisdiction to discipline Breck as he was practicing
law and advertising legal services within the State of Nevada. See SCR 99
(providing jurisdiction to discipline an attorney "practicing law here,
whether specially admitted or not, or whose advertising for legal services
regularly appears in Nevada"); In re Discipline of Droz, 123 Nev. 163, 168,
160 P.3d 881, 884 (2007). Second, we conclude that the disciplinary
proceedings were conducted in accordance with the Supreme Court Rules
and Breck has not demonstrated that his constitutional rights were
violated during or by the proceedings. Third, we defer to the hearing
panel's findings of facts in this matter as they are supported by
substantial evidence and are not clearly erroneous. Based on those
findings, we agree with the panel's conclusions that the State Bar
established by clear and convincing evidence Breck and PILF's RPC
violations. Because there are no mitigating factors in this matter, we
approve the panel's recommendations.
Accordingly, Breck and any entities with which he is
associated, now or in the future, are forever barred from the practice of
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1941A .«IfetjD
law in the State of Nevada, whether as a Nevada-licensed attorney, part of
a multi-jurisdiction practice, via a petition for admission pro hac vice, or in
any other manner. See generally SCR 102(1) (providing that misconduct is
grounds for irrevocable disbarment by this court). Further, PILE is
forever barred from participating in any capacity in the practice of law in
the State of Nevada, whether as part of a for-profit or a not-for-profit
entity, with or without a resident Nevada attorney of record, or via a
petition for admission pro hac vice. Lastly, Breck shall pay all the costs of
the disciplinary proceeding within 30 days from the date of this order.
SCR 120(1).
It is so ORDERED.
C.J.
Parraguirre
A-Lit k
sty Douglas
Che
OSI
Saitta
J.
tg eke,/
Gibbons Pickering
cc: William Breck
Chair, Northern Nevada Disciplinary Panel
Bar Counsel, State Bar of Nevada
King & Russo, Ltd.
Kimberly K. Farmer, Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada
Perry Thompson, Admissions Office, United States Supreme Court
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
11:9 1947A tede,