In Re: Discipline of Judith Braecklein ( 2014 )

 meet multiple deadlines, which resulted in this court issuing orders
imposing conditional sanctions. Initially, Braecklein failed to timely file
the rough draft transcript request form. After the conditional sanctions
order was issued, she filed the form and the sanctions were vacated. She
also informed the court that the district court had granted the client's
proper person motion to discharge her as counsel, but she stated that she
would provide the fast track statement and appendix as had been directed
by this court. She was given multiple extensions of time to do so, but
failed to file the required documents. This resulted in another order
imposing conditional sanctions. After she again failed to file the
documents, this court issued an order to appear and show cause that
required Braecklein to appear for a hearing before the court. Braecklein
complied and this court issued an order that no further sanctions would be
imposed and gave her a further extension of time to file the fast track
statement and appendix. She sought another extension, which was denied
but she was provided ten additional days to file the documents. When she
failed to comply, another order was issued giving another deadline for
filing the documents and which stated that failure to comply would result
in removal as counsel, referral to the state bar, and prohibition from
practicing before this court. She again failed to comply, and this court
issued the order imposing the sanctions.
The disciplinary panel found that Braecklein violated RPC 1.1
(competence), RPC 1.3 (diligence), RPC 3.2 (expediting litigation), and
RPC 8.1(b) (bar admission and disciplinary matters). The panel found
several aggravating and mitigating factors in regard to this count. As
aggravating factors, the panel found: (1) prior disciplinary offenses; (2) a
pattern of misconduct; (3) multiple offenses; (4) vulnerability of victim;
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 19(t7A
and (5) substantial experience in the practice of law. See SCR 102.5. In
mitigation, the panel found an absence of dishonest or selfish motive,
personal problems, cooperative attitude towards the proceedings, and
remorse and remoteness of prior offenses. Id.
Based on these findings, the panel recommended that
Braecklein: (1) be issued a public reprimand; (2) be required to take an
additional ten hours of continuing legal education (CLE) relating to law
office management each year for the next two years; (3) obtain a mentor
that is approved by the state bar and who will be responsible for providing
quarterly reports to the state bar for the next two years; (4) refrain from
providing any pro-bono services for the next two years; (5) refrain from
practicing before the Nevada Supreme Court for the next two years; and
(6) pay the state bar costs of the disciplinary proceedings, pursuant to SCR
120, within 30 days.
Although persuasive, the findings and recommendations of a
panel of thefl Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board are not binding, and this
court's automatic review of a panel's decision is conducted de novo. SCR
105(3)(b); In re Discipline of Droz, 123 Nev. 163, 168, 160 P.3d 881, 884-85
(2007). 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).
Having reviewed the record, we conclude that clear and
convincing evidence supports the panel's findings that Braecklein
committed the violations alleged. See SCR 105(2)(0. We further conclude
that the panel's recommended discipline is appropriately tailored to
Braecklein's misconduct, and we approve the recommendation, except as
to one condition. We reject the recommended condition that Braecklein
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
10) 1947A
refrain from providing any pro-bono services for the next two years. The
obligation to perform pro-bono services is an ethical duty, and therefore it
is inappropriate to prohibit the performance of pro-bono services as a
disciplinary condition.
Accordingly, Braecklein is hereby publicly reprimanded for her
misconduct. Additionally, Braecklein is required to take an additional ten
hours of CLE relating to law office management each year for the next two
years, obtain a mentor that is approved by the state bar and who will be
responsible for providing quarterly reports to the state bar for the next
two years, refrain from practicing before this court for the next two years,
and pay the state bar costs of the disciplinary proceedings, pursuant to
SCR 120, within 30 days of receipt of a bill of costs from the State Bar.
It is so ORDERED.
, C.J. exu cup , J.
Gibbons Pickering
/circa.. SLA.k. ‘
Hardesty Parraguir
tei
Cherry
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1947A c(ea
4
SAITTA, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part:
While I concur with the majority in concluding that clear and
convincing evidence supports the panel's findings that Braecklein
committed the violations alleged, I dissent from the discipline imposed.
Braecklein has already been subject to prior discipline involving
reprimands on multiple occasions in the past. Accordingly, more severe
discipline is now appropriate based on her continued misconduct. I would
impose a six-month suspension from the practice of law, along with
further discipline that she refrain from providing pro-bono services for an
additional six months. While I agree that pro-bono service is an important
ethical duty of an attorney, it is unhelpful if the client is harmed by the
attorney's conduct while providing pro-bono services, which is what
occurred in this matter. Instead, based on the six-month suspension and
further six-month refrain from providing pro-bono services, I would
additionally require that Braecklein pay $500 to an organization or group
that provides pro-bono services, similar to the contribution amount
recommended under RPC 6.1(a)(3)(ii) for attorneys to contribute per year
if they do not provide pro-bono services.
, J.
Saitta
cc: Jeffrey Albregts, Chair, Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board
David A. Clark, Bar Counsel
Judith H. Braecklein
Kimberly K. Farmer, Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada
Perry Thompson, Admissions Office, U.S. Supreme Court
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
5
(0) IN7A,