In Re: Discipline of Christopher Geiger ( 2014 )

 panel found a total of 35 violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct,
specifically: three violations of RPC 1.1 (competence), two violations of
RPC 1.3 (diligence), two violations of RPC 1.4 (communication), two
violations of RPC 1.5 (fees), two violations of RPC 1.15 (safekeeping
property), one violation of RPC 3.1 (meritorious claims and contentions),
two violations of RPC 3.2 (expediting litigation), two violations of RPC 3.3
(candor toward the tribunal), one violation of RPC 3.4 (fairness to
opposing party and counsel), two violations of RPC 4.1 (truthfulness in
statements to others), two violations of RPC 5.3(b) (responsibilities
regarding nonlawyer assistants), three violations of RPC 5.5(a)(2)
(unauthorized practice of law), one violation of RPC 7.5A (registration of
multi-jurisdictional law firms), two violations of RPC 7.5A(j)
(responsibility of Nevada-licensed member), three violations of RPC 8.1(b)
(bar admissions and disciplinary matters), and five violations of RPC
8.4(c) (misconduct).
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 Geiger
committed the violations charged. In re Discipline of Drakulich, 111 Nev.
1556, 1566, 908 P.2d 709, 715 (1995).
Having reviewed the record of the disciplinary proceedings in
this matter, we conclude that clear and convincing evidence supports the
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
panel's findings that Geiger committed the offenses charged. See SCR
105(2)(0. We further conclude that the panel's recommendation of
disbarment is appropriately tailored to Geiger's misconduct. Despite
Geiger's failure to respond to the second complaint or appear at the formal
hearing, clear and convincing evidence supports a finding that Geiger was
properly put on notice of the charges and proceedings against him Geiger
was aware of the charges in the second complaint and chose not to defend
them. We therefore approve the panel's recommendation that Geiger be
disbarred.
Accordingly, Christopher Geiger is hereby irrevocably
disbarred from the practice of law in Nevada. SCR 102(1). Geiger shall
pay the costs of the disciplinary proceedings, SCR 120, and shall comply
with SCR 115. The State Bar shall comply with SCR 121.1.
It is so ORDERED.
Gibbons
/ ctuti ' J.
Hardesty
j 44"'S
T a_A} J.
Parrnuirre Dou
' J.
Cherry Saitta
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A me•
cc: David A. Clark, Bar Counsel
Kimberly K. Farmer, Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada
Christopher F. Geiger, Jr.
J. Thomas Susich, Chair, Northern Nevada Disciplinary Board
Perry Thompson, U.S. Supreme Court Admissions Office
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A e