In Re: Discipline of William Hustwit ( 2015 )

 Further, Hustwit did not respond to inquiries from the State Bar or file a
timely and proper answer. Based on this information, the State Bar filed
a complaint alleging violations of the following rules of professional
conduct: RPC 1.4 (communication), RPC 1.5 (fees), RPC 1.15 (safekeeping
property), RPC 8.1(b) (bar admission and disciplinary matters), and RPC
8.4 (misconduct). Hustwit was served with the complaint and notice of the
hearing date and time, but he did not appear at the hearing. The panel
concluded that the violations alleged in the complaint were established by
clear and convincing evidence.
This court's automatic review of a disciplinary panel's findings
and recommendations is de novo. SCR 105(3)(b); In re Discipline of Stuhff,
108 Nev. 629, 633, 837 P.2d 853, 855 (1992). "Although the
recommendations of the disciplinary panel are persuasive, this court is not
bound by the panel's findings and recommendation, and must examine the
record anew and exercise independent judgment." In re Discipline of
Schaefer, 117 Nev. 496, 515, 25 P.3d 191, 204 (2001). The State Bar has
the burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that Huswit
committed the violations charged. In re Discipline of Drakulich, 111 Nev.
1556, 1566, 908 P.2d 709, 715 (1995). After reviewing the record of the
disciplinary proceedings in this matter, we conclude that clear and
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 19471.
convincing evidence supports the panel's findings that Hustwit committed
violations of RPC 1.4, 1.5, 1.15, 8.1(b),' and 8.4.
When imposing discipline on an attorney who is not licensed
in this state, sanctions must be tailored accordingly. In re Discipline of
Droz, 123 Nev. 163, 168, 160 P.3d 881, 884 (2007). Appropriate sanctions
in such circumstances include injunctive relief, fines, and payments of
costs. Id. at 168, 160 P.3d at 884-85. We conclude that the panel's
recommended discipline in this matter is appropriate considering the
aggravating factors (dishonest or selfish motive, a pattern of misconduct,
multiple offenses, bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding,
refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of the conduct, substantial
experience in the practice of law, indifference to making restitution, illegal
conduct), SCR 102.5(1), and the mitigating factor (lack of prior disciplinary
history), SCR 102.5(2), identified by the panel.
Accordingly, William A. Hustwit is hereby permanently
enjoined from the practice of law in Nevada. Further, he is required to (1)
pay restitution to Premiere One Holdings in the amount of $451,000, (2)
pay $50,000 to the State Bar of Nevada Client Security Fund, and (3) pay
"Based on the panel's factual findings concerning Hustwit's failure
to respond to inquiries from the State Bar and his submission of an
untimely and unverified answer, it appears that the panel's conclusion
that Hustwit violated RPC 8.1(a) is a typographical error and that it
intended to find a violation of RPC 8.1(b), for which there is clear and
convincing evidence in the record to establish a violation.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A .4e4w
the costs and staff salaries associated with the disciplinary proceedings
within 30 days of his receipt of the State Bar's bill of fees and costs. 2
It is so ORDERED.
, C.J.
Hardesty -
3-DeLA..". kas J.
Douglas A
Saitta
J.
Gibbons
cc: Chair, Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board
William A. Hustwit
Bar Counsel, State Bar of Nevada
Kimberly Farmer, Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada
Perry Thompson, Admissions Office, United States Supreme Court
2 Thepanel also recommended that Hustwit refrain from providing
any pro-bono services for a two-year period. However, the permanent
injunction will preclude him from providing any legal services, including
pro-bono services, in Nevada and therefore that condition is unnecessary.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A e