In Re: Discipline of David Korrey

 checks written by insurance companies to Korrey's clients or his law firm.
The checks totaled several hundred thousand dollars. The panel found
that Korrey violated RPC 1.3 (diligence), RPC 1.15(d) (safekeeping
property), RPC 5.3(b) (responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistants: a
lawyer having direct supervisory authority over the nonlawyer shall make
reasonable efforts to ensure that the person's conduct is compatible with
the professional obligations of the lawyer), RPC 5.5(a)(2) (unauthorized
practice of law: assist another person in the unauthorized practice of law)
and RPC 8.4(a) (misconduct: violate or attempt to violate the RPC,
knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of
another). 2 Count 3 of the complaint concerned a client for whom Korrey
settled a personal injury claim. Alter Korrey issued a settlement check to
the client, one of Korrey's assistants engaged the client to invest the
proceeds from the settlement in which the client was to receive a monthly
payment and, in time, receive the principal sum. The client did not
receive all of the money due him from the investment. The panel found
that Korrey violated RPC 5.3(b) and RPC 8.4(a). 3 Based on these
2 The panel found that insufficient evidence supported allegations
that he violated RPC 5.4 and RPC 8.1. The panel also dismissed the
allegation that Korrey violated RPC 1.1.
3 Thepanel found that there was insufficient evidence that Korrey
violated RPC 1.1, RPC 1.3, RPC 1.15, RPC 5.4, RPC 5.5, and RPC 8.1.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A (e)
violations, the panel recommended that Korrey be given a public
reprimand and pay the costs of the disciplinary proceedings.
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 Korrey
committed the violations charged. In re Discipline of Drakulich, 111 Nev.
1556, 1566, 908 P.2d 709, 715 (1995).
After reviewing the record, we conclude that clear and
convincing evidence supports the panel's findings that Korrey violated
RPC 1.3, RPC 1.15(d), RPC 5.3(b), RPC 5.5(a)(2), and RPC 8.4(a) as to
count 1 of the complaint. 4 We further conclude that the panel's findings
that Korrey violated RPC 5.3(b) and RPC 8.4(a) as to count 3 of the
complaint are not supported by clear and convincing evidence. However,
we conclude that the panel's recommendation of a public reprimand is
insufficient in relation to Korrey's conduct. Therefore, we reject the
panel's recommended discipline and remand this matter to the Southern
4 Contrary to Korrey's contentions, we conclude that sufficient
evidence supports the aggravating factors found.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1941A e
Nevada Disciplinary Board to reassess the discipline in this matter. 5
It is so ORDEID.
•Lank , C.J.
Hardesty
J.
Parraguirre
letleill—OL.---
Saitta
Pidem , J.
CHERRY, J., with whom, GIBBONS, J., agrees, dissenting:
We dissent. We would approve the recommended' discipline of
a public remand as it is appropriate under the circumstances.
cc: Chair, Southern Nevada Disciplinary Panel
Law Offices of David M. Korrey
Bar Counsel, State Bar of Nevada
°This order constitutes our final disposition of this matter. Any
further proceedings concerning Korrey shall be docketed as a new matter.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA 4
(0) 1.947A .(141PF,