In Re: Discipline Of Robert L. Bachman ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
    IN THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINE OF                             No. 85456
    ROBERT L. BACHMAN, BAR NO. 5860
    FILE
    NOV 1 7 20
    EL
    Ct.
    BY
    EF DEPUTY CLERK
    ORDER APPROVING 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 agreement in exchange for a stated
    form of discipline for attorney Robert L. Bachman. Under the agreement,
    Bachman admitted to violating RPC 1.4 (communication), RPC 1.5 (fees),
    RPC    1.16     (declining   or   terminating   representation),           RPC     5.3
    (responsibilities of nonlawyer assistants), and RPC 5.4 (professional
    independence of a lawyer). He agreed to a six-month suspension stayed
    during a one-year probationary period with conditions.
    Bachman has admitted to the facts and violations as part of his
    guilty plea agreement. The record therefore establishes that he violated the
    above-cited rules by allowing nonlawyers to meet with two of his clients and
    handle their cases, by including in his retainer agreement with those clients
    that retainer deposits were nonrefundable, by including in the retainer that
    a company that was not a law firm would perform the services the clients
    hired him for, and by failing to communicate with the clients regarding the
    status of their cases.
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    • NEVADA
    42-1- 3 0/1-3
    (0) I 947A
    The issue for this court is whether the agreed-upon discipline
    sufficiently protects 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) (explaining the purpose of attorney discipline). 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).
    Bachman admitted that he knowingly violated duties owed to
    clients, the public, and to the legal system. Two clients suffered injury or
    potential injury by paying Bachman for legal services he never provided.
    The baseline sanction for such misconduct, before considering aggravating
    or mitigating circumstances, is suspension. Standards for Imposing Lawyer
    Sanctions,   Compendium      of   Professional   Responsibility   Rules   and
    Standards, Standard 4.42 (Am. Bar Ass'n 2018) (providing that suspension
    is appropriate "when a lawyer knowingly fails to perform services for a
    client and causes injury"), Standard 7.2 (providing that suspension is
    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"). The record supports the panel's
    findings of two aggravating circumstances (multiple offenses and a
    vulnerable victim) and one mitigating circumstance (absence of a prior
    disciplinary record).   Considering all four factors, we conclude that the
    agreed-upon discipline is appropriate.
    Accordingly, we hereby suspend Robert L. Bachman for six
    raonths, stayed during a one-year probationary period commencing from the
    date of this order and subject to the following conditions: Bachman provides
    2
    quarterly reports to the State Bar to include a list of firm employees and
    responsibilities, and an explanation of how those employees are trained to
    perform their responsibilities. The report will also include a review of the
    procedures used when working with the company Debt Solution Services to
    ensure any legal work required to be performed by that company is done by
    respondent or another attorney. Bachman will also update his retainer
    agreement and submit it to the State Bar for review before the probationary
    term expires.    Finally, Bachman shall pay the costs of the disciplinary
    proceedings, including $2,500 under SCR 120, before the probationary term
    expires.1 The State Bar shall comply with SCR 121.1.
    It is so ORDERED.2
    ,
    Parraguirre
    Al/iiGusO
    Sr.J.
    Stiglich
    cc:   Law Office of Timothy P. Thomas, LLC
    Chair, Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board
    Bar Counsel, State Bar of Nevada
    Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada
    Perry Thompson, Admissions Office, U.S. Supreme Court
    1The plea agreement permitted Bachman to pay the costs of the
    proceedings over the term of his probationary period.
    2 The  Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in the
    •
    SUPREME COURT
    decision of this matter under a general order of assignment.
    OF
    NEVADA
    3
    (0) 1947A
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 85456

Filed Date: 11/17/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/18/2022