Serio v. Busack ( 2023 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 6 SCOTT SERIO, Case No. 2:21-cv-01940-JAD-NJK 7 Plaintiff(s), ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 8 v. 9 PREGAME LLC, et al., 10 Defendant(s). 11 Pursuant to Canon 3(B)(6) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, “[a] judge 12 should take appropriate action upon receipt of reliable infomration indicating the likelihood that . 13 . . a lawyer violated applicable rules of professional conduct.” The unauthorized practice of law 14 and the aiding of another’s unauthorized practice of law violate Nevada’s ethical rules, and such 15 conduct may lead to disciplinary proceedings and other adverse consequences. See, e.g., In re 16 Discipline of Lerner, 197 P.3d 1067 (Nev. 2008) (en banc) (publicly reprimanding Nevada 17 attorney for assisting in an Arizona-based attorney’s unauthorized practice of law). Referral to the 18 state bar for investigation and potential disciplinary proceedings may be appropriate when 19 circumstances exist that may show such unauthorized practice of law. See, e.g., Gutierrez v. 20 Berryhill, No. 2:18-cv-02068-RFB-NJK, Docket No. 27 (D. Nev. Feb. 19, 2019). 21 This District has established two primary methods for a person to be authorized to practice 22 law here. First, that person may apply to be admitted to the bar of this Court. Local Rule IA 11- 23 1(a)(1). This process requires, inter alia, that the applicant is admitted to practice before the 24 Supreme Court of Nevada and remains in good standing therewith. Id. Second, that person may 25 apply to be admitted to practice in a particular case pending in this Court. Local Rule IA 11-2(a). 26 This process requires, inter alia, the payment of a fee, Local Rule IA 11-2(b), and the absence of 27 regular practice in this Court by the applicant, Local Rule IA 11-2(h). 28 1 The record in this case reveals that “Plaintiffs Primary Counsel[]” are out-of-state 2|| attorneys who have not appeared as counsel of record in this matter. Docket No. 13-2 at 7. These 3] attorneys work for the law firm of SR IP Law in Florida, and appear to have engaged in the bulk 4] of legal activity in litigating this case. See Docket No. 13-2 (billing records). These attorneys do 5] not appear to be licensed to practice law in the state of Nevada, see White v. Martel, 601 F.3d 882, 6] 885 (9th Cir. 2010) (courts may take judicial notice of state bar records), and they did not apply to 7|| appear pro hac vice in this action. 8 In light of these concerns, out-of-state attorneys Jonah Grossbardt and Matthew Rollin are ORDERED to show cause in writing why they should not be referred to the Nevada State Bar to 10] investigate whether they have engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. Nevada attorneys Marc 11] Randazza, Ronald Green, and Trey Rothell are ORDERED to show cause in writing why they 12] should not be referred to the Nevada State Bar to investigate whether they have aided in the 13] unauthorized practice of law. The responses to this order to show cause must be filed by January 25, 2023. 15 No later than January 12, 2023, the Nevada attorneys must file a proof of service on the 16] docket showing that they have provided a copy of this order to show cause to the out-of-state attorneys. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: January 11, 2023 Nancy J. Koppe. 21 United States"Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28