In Re: Discipline of Stanley Walton ( 2014 )

 matters) (five violations), and RPC 8.4 (misconduct) (seven violations).
The panel also found the following aggravating factors, pursuant to SCR
102.5: dishonest or selfish motive; a pattern of misconduct; multiple
offenses; bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by
intentionally failing to comply with rules or orders; submission of false
evidence, false statements, or other deceptive practices during the
disciplinary hearing; refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his
conduct; vulnerability of victim; substantial experience in the practice of
law; indifference to making restitution; and illegal conduct. The panel
found no mitigating factors. Based on these findings, the panel
recommended that Walton be disbarred from the practice of law in Nevada
and that he be required to pay the costs of the disciplinary proceeding.
A decision of a panel of the Southern Nevada Disciplinary
Board recommending disbarment is subject to automatic review by this
court. SCR 105(3)(b). Although persuasive, the panel's findings and
recommendations are not binding on this court. In re Discipline of Droz,
123 Nev. 163, 168, 160 P.3d 881, 884 (2007). "This court must review the
record de novo and exercise its independent judgment to determine
whether and what type of discipline is warranted." Id. at 168, 160 P.3d at
884-85 (quoting In re Discipline of Stuhff, 108 Nev. 629, 633, 837 P.2d 853,
855 (1992)). The panel's findings of misconduct must be supported by
clear and convincing evidence. In re Discipline of Drakulich, 111 Nev.
1556, 1566, 908 P.2d 709, 715 (1995).
SCR 105(2) provides that if an attorney fails to plead in
response to a State Bar complaint, the charges shall be deemed admitted.
We conclude that the allegations in the third, fourth, and fifth complaints
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A e
are deemed admitted.' We further conclude that clear and convincing
evidence supports the panel's findings. Finally, we conclude that the State
Bar's recommended discipline is appropriate in light of the severe nature
of Walton's misconduct.
Accordingly, we disbar Walton from the practice of law in
Nevada. Such disbarment is irrevocable. See SCR 102(1). Further,
Walton shall pay the costs of the disciplinary proceedings within 30 days
of receipt of the Nevada State Bar's bill of costs. See SCR 120.
It is so ORDERED.
C.J.
Gibbons
17( (MA wk. n
peri_ti
Pickering Hardesty
aAli J.
Parraguil
etre2fr Douglas
Itt:cd„
Saitta
Walton filed answers to the first and second complaints denying
any misconduct. He failed to respond to these matters once this court
remanded them for further development. Nevertheless, this court
reviewed the answers prior to deciding this matter. He also failed to
answer the third, fourth, and fifth complaints or attend the disciplinary
hearing.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A
cc: Jeffrey R. Albregts, Chair Southern Nevada Disciplinary Panel
David Clark, Bar Counsel
Stanley A. Walton
• Kimberly Farmer, Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada
Perry Thompson, Admissions Office, U.S. Supreme Court
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) I907A