In Re: Discipline Of Jude E. Nazareth ( 2022 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
IN THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINE OF No. 85325
JUDE E. NAZARETH, BAR NO. 10695
FILE
NOV 1 7 202
ELI
CLE
ORDER OF SUSPENSION BY
MP DEPUTY CLERK
This is an automatic review of a Sonthern Neva a Disciplinary
Board hearing panel's recommendation that attorney Jude E. Nazareth be
suspended from the practice of law for six months for violating RPC 1.1
(competence), RPC 1.2 (scope of representation and allocation of authority
between client and lawyer), RPC 1.3 (diligence), RPC 1.4 (communication),
RPC 1.5 (fees), RPC 1.15 (safekeeping property), RPC 1.16 (declining or
terminating representation), RPC 3.2 (expediting litigation), and RPC 8.1
(Bar admission and disciplinary matters).
Nazareth and the State Bar originally entered into a
conditional guilty plea agreement in which Nazareth admitted to the facts
and violations alleged in the disciplinary complaint. The hearing panel
rejected the parties' agreed-upon discipline—a stayed six-month
suspension—and instead recommended an actual six-month suspension. At
the hearing, Nazareth accepted this change to the agreed-upon discipline.
Under these circumstances, we treat as admitted the facts and above-listed
violations.' The record therefore establishes that he violated the above-
'In future cases where an attorney accepts the hearing panel's
proposed change to a conditional guilty plea agreement, best practices
would be for the State Bar and the attorney to enter into an amended
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
7,1-3t7i9if
10) I947A
cited rules by failing to perform work for two clients, including appearing
at a court hearing and filing documents; failing to keep the clients apprised
of the status of their cases or otherwise respond to client communications;
and failing to respond to State Bar inquiries.
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. u. 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).
Nazareth admitted that he knowingly violated duties owed to
clients and to the profession. Two clients suffered injury and further
potential injury when Nazareth failed to diligently complete the work for
which they hired him.2 Further, his actions caused harm to the legal
profession. The baseline sanction for such misconduct, before considering
aggravating or mitigating circumstances, is disbarment. Standards for
Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, Compendium of Professional Responsibility
Rules and Standards, Standard 4.41 (Am. Bar Ass'n 2018) (providing that
disbarment is appropriate "when a lawyer abandons the practice,"
"knowingly fails to perform services for a client," or "engages in a pattern of
neglect with respect to client matters," causing "serious or potentially
serious injury to a client"). The record supports the panel's findings of two
conditional guilty plea agreement reflecting those changes that becomes
part of the record submitted to this court pursuant to SCR 113.
2 Nazareth fully refunded one of the clients.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
aggravating circumstances (substantial experience in the practice of law
and multiple offenses) and four mitigating circumstances (absence of a prior
disciplinary record, absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, personal
problems, and remorse for his actions). Considering all four factors, we
conclude that the discipline agreed upon at the discipline hearing is
appropriate.
Accordingly, we hereby suspend Jude E. Nazareth for six
months commencing from the date of this order. Nazareth shall also pay
the costs of the disciplinary proceedings, including $1,500 under SCR 120,
within 30 days from the date of this order, if he has not done so already.3
The parties shall comply with SCR 115 and SCR 121.1.
It is so ORDER
Parraguirre
ANIC44-4 , Sr.J.
Stiglich
cc: Chair, Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board
The Augustus Firm
Bar Counsel, State Bar of Nevada
Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada
Perry Thompson, Admissions Office, U.S. Supreme Court
3WhileSCR 120 provides that costs for a suspension are $2,500,
Nazareth and the State Bar agreed to limit such costs to $1,500 for this
matter.
4The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in the
decision of this matter under a general order of assignment.
SUPREME COURT
or
NEVADA
3
(0) I947A