In Re: Discipline Of Bradley J. Bellisario ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
    IN THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINE OF                          No. 84144
    BRADLEY J. BELLISARIO, BAR NO.
    13452.
    FILED
    ORDER OF DISBARMENT
    This is an automatic review of a Southern Nevada Disciplinary
    Board hearing panel's recommendation that attorney Bradley J. Bellisario
    be disbarred based on violations of RPC 1.15 (safekeeping property), RPC
    1.3 (diligence), RPC 1.4 (communication), RPC 1.5 (fees), RPC 1.8 (conflicts
    of interest: current clients: specific rules), RPC 8.1 (Bar admission and
    disciplinary matters), and RPC 8.4 (misconduct). Because no briefs have
    been filed, this matter stands submitted for decision based on the record.
    SCR 105(3)(b).
    The State Bar has the burden of showing by clear and
    convincing evidence that Bellisario committed the violations charged. See
    In re Discipline of Drakulich, 
    111 Nev. 1556
    , 1566, 
    908 P.2d 709
    , 715 (1995).
    Here, however, the facts and charges alleged in the complaint are deemed
    admitted because Bellisario failed to answer the complaint and a default
    was entered. The record therefore establishes that Bellisario violated the
    'The complaint and notice of intent to take a default were served on
    Bellisario through regular and certified mail to his SCR 79 address and
    emailed to his SCR 79 email address. The notice of intent to take a default
    was also sent to an alternate physical and an alternate email address. The
    scheduling order was sent to all of the foregoing addresses. Bellisario
    z - v1740
    above-referenced rules by misappropriating and/or comingling
    approximately $260,000 of client funds, failing to pay liens on behalf of
    clients or communicate with them about their cases, obtaining a propriety
    interest other than a contingency fee in certain clients personal injury
    cases, and failing to respond to the State Bar's inquiries.
    Turning to the appropriate discipline, we review the hearing
    paners recommendation de novo.         SCR 105(3)(b). Although we
    ,'must ... exercise independent judgment," the panel recommendation is
    persuasive. In re Discipline of Schaefer, 
    117 Nev. 496
    , 515, 
    25 P.3d 191
    , 204
    (2001). 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).
    Bellisario intentionally and/or knowingly violated duties owed
    to his clients (safekeeping property, conflicts of interest, fees,
    communication, and diligence) and the profession (failing to respond to
    lawful requests for information by a disciplinary authority). Bellisario's
    clients suffered actual injuries as they did not receive their funds. And
    Bellisario's failure to cooperate in the disciplinary investigation harmed the
    integrity of the profession, which depends on a self-regulating disciplinary
    system. The baseline sanction for his misconduct, before considering
    aggravating or mitigating factors, is disbarment.         See Standards for
    Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, Compendium of Professional Responsibility
    Rules and Standards, Standard 4.11 (Am. Bar Ass'n 2017) ("Disbarment is
    responded to a notice from the State Bar that his 2021 license renewal was
    overdue, but not to the disciplinary complaint against him.
    Sumas Com
    OF
    NEVADA
    2
    (0) 1947A rells)
    generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly converts client property
    and causes injury or potential injury to a client."). The record supports the
    paneFs findings of no mitigating circumstances and three aggravating
    circumstances (dishonest or selfish motive, multiple offenses, and
    vulnerability of victim). Having considered the four factors, we agree with
    the panel that disbarment is appropriate.
    Accordingly, we disbar attorney Bradley J. Bellisario from the
    practice of law in Nevada. Such disbarment is irrevocable. SCR 102(1).
    Bellisario shall pay the costs of the disciplinary proceedings, including
    $3,000 under SCR 120, within 30 days of the date of this order. The State
    Bar shall comply with SCR 121.1.
    It is so ORDE
    0.4...it
    Parraguirre
    J.               A'Aisai..0          , J.
    Hardesty                                    Stiglich
    0
    L            3
    t
    61/A
    1                ,   J.             1/4.    .16.4.4,
    Cadish                                      Silver
    Herndon
    cc:   Bradley J. Bellisario
    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
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 84144

Filed Date: 4/7/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/13/2022