In Re: Discipline Of Randal R. Leonard ( 2022 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
IN THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINE OF No. 84705
RANDAL R. LEONARD, BAR NO. 6716.
LE2
ORDER REJECTING CONDITIONAL GUILTY PLEA AGREEMENT
This is an automatic review of a Southern Nevada Disciplinary
Board hearing panel's recommendation that this court approve, pursuant
to SCR 113, a conditional guilty plea in exchange for a stated form of
discipline for attorney Randal R. Leonard. Under this agreement, Leonard
admitted to violating RPC 1.3 (diligence), RPC 1.4 (communication), and
RPC 3.2 (expediting litigation). The agreement provides for a six-month
suspension and payment of $2,500 in fees plus the actual costs of the
disciplinary proceedings.
Leonard has admitted to the facts supporting the violations.
The record therefore establishes that Leonard failed to diligently pursue a
client's bankruptcy case until after the client filed a grievance against him.
This occurred while Leonard was on probation in a prior discipline matter.'
1This court previously imposed a six-month-and-one-day suspension
but stayed the last day of that suspension for two years provided that
Leonard successfully completed two years' probation which required him,
in pertinent part, to "remain free from any professional conduct violations
during [the] probationary period." In re Discipline of Leonard, No. 78632,
SUPREME COURT 2019 WL 4391208 (Nev. Sept. 12, 2019) (Order Approving Conditional
OF
NEVADA Guilty Plea Agreement).
r01 I 947A
22- vi&fi
The record therefore also establishes that Leonard violated the terms of his
stayed suspension in Docket No. 78632.2
In determining the appropriate discipline, we weigh four
factors: "the duty violated, the lawyer's mental state, the potential or actual
injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct, and the existence of aggravating
or mitigating factors." In re Discipline of Lerner, 124 Nev. 1232, 1246, 197
P.3d 1067, 1077 (2008). In this case, Leonard knowingly violated duties
owed to his clients by failing to timely file necessary documents in a
bankruptcy case and failing to adequately communicate with his clients
about the status of their case. He also knowingly violated duties owed to
the profession by violating the terms of his stayed suspension. Leonard's
misconduct caused injury to both his clients and the integrity of the
profession.
The baseline sanction for the misconduct at issue, before
considering aggravating and mitigating circumstances, is suspension. See
Standards for Imposing Lawyer Standards, Compendium of Professional
Responsibility Rules and Standards, Standard 7.2 (Am. Bar Ass'n 2017)
("Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in
conduct that is a violation of a duty owed as a professional and causes injury
or potential injury to a client, the public, or the legal system."); see also id.at Standard 8.2 ("Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer has
been reprimanded for the same or similar misconduct and engages in
further similar acts of misconduct that causes injury or potential injury to
2As part of the terms of the instant conditional guilty plea agreement,
Leonard agreed to admit to breaching the probationary terms in Docket No.
78632 and stipulated to waive the notice and procedural requirements of a
separate breach hearing. Leonard also stipulated that the breach would be
SUPREME COURT consolidated for resolution with the instant matter.
OF
NEVADA
2
,01 1947R acVr-
a client, the public, the legal system, or the profession."). Turning to the
aggravating and mitigating circumstances, we conclude that the agreed-
upon discipline gives insufficient consideration to the aggravating
circumstances. As to the three agreed-upon aggravating circumstances
(prior disciplinary offenses, a pattern of misconduct, and substantial
experience in the law), Leonard's prior disciplinary history involved
misconduct similar to that admitted here—most notably his failure to file
necessary documents with a court—and the current admitted misconduct
occurred while he was on probation for his previous misconduct. For these
reasons, we are not convinced that the agreed-upon discipline is sufficient
to serve the purpose of attorney discipline—to protect the public, the courts,
and the legal profession. See State Bar of Nev. v. Claiborne, 104 Nev. 115,
213, 756 P.2d 464, 527-28 (1988). Thus, we reject the conditional guilty plea
agreement and remand this matter for further proceedings. See SCR 113(1)
("The tendered [conditional guilty] plea is subject to final approval or
rejection by the suprenie court if the stated form of discipline includes
disbarnient or a suspension.").
It is so ORD D
C.J.
Parraguirre
, J.
Hardesty Stiglich
A;1AL-ei , J.
Cadish Silver
,J
SUPREME COURT Pickering Herndon
OF
NEVADA
3
co, ,,47A
cc: Chair, Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board
Bar Counsel, State Bar of Nevada
Michael J. Warhola, LLC
Kimberly K. Farmer, Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada
4