in Re: Discipline of Dale Haley

 with SCR 117, (4) pay restitution totaling $4,000 to two former clients,'
and (5) pay the costs of the disciplinary proceedings in the instant matter.
Haley testified to emotional and personal problems he faced as
the result of the deaths of two of his brothers and six close friends during
the time of his misconduct. The hearing panel also considered Haley's two
incidents of prior discipline in reaching the plea agreement.
Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the plea
agreement should be approved. See SCR 113(1). As the proposed
probationary period has expired, and a status report from the state bar
indicates that Haley has met all the conditions of his probation, with the
minor exception that, instead of law office management CLE, Haley
completed two additional ethics credits, we approve the stated form of
discipline to the following extent. In view of Haley's compliance with all
other conditions of his probation, we decline to impose the actual
suspension of six months and one day at this time. However, within six
months of the date of this order, Haley must complete two CLE units
regarding law office management and provide proof of such completion to
"Haley was to pay $3,000 to Marisela Perez and $1,000 to Denise
Pieper.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A t.
"AP,
the state bar. The parties shall comply with the applicable provisions of
SCR 115 and SCR 121.1.
It is so ORDERED.
C.J.
J.
Hardesty
24.Xel
Parraguirre
Douglas
Cherry
cc: David A. Clark, Bar Counsel
Christopher G. Gellner
Kimberly K. Farmer, Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada
Jeffrey R. Albregts, Chair, Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board
Perry Thompson, Admissions Office, United States Supreme Court
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A 1,
SAITTA, J., dissenting:
I respectfully dissent from the majority's approval of Haley's
conditional guilty plea. The state bar's initial complaint against Haley
alleged dozens of violations of the Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct,
and an additional grievance was pending when the conditional guilty plea
was negotiated. The allegations in the complaint describe a continuing
lack of diligence and lack of responsiveness to both Haley's clients and the
state bar. The majority of the alleged violations were dismissed as part of
the conditional guilty plea. However, the acts of misconduct to which
Haley admitted in the conditional guilty plea alone demonstrate
substantial failures to diligently represent and communicate with clients
and a continuing failure to respond to the state's bar's inquiries regarding
the grievances filed against him. See RPC 1.3 (diligence); RPC 1.4
(communication); RPC 8.1(b) (bar admission and disciplinary matters).
Assuming that evidence can establish that Haley committed these acts of
misconduct, such conduct constitutes a serious breach of the Rules of
Professional Conduct warranting the imposition of discipline greater than
that approved here. I would reject the conditional guilty plea agreement
and remand this matter to the Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board for
further disciplinary proceedings. See SCR 113(1); In re Kenick, 100 Nev.
273, 680 P.2d 972 (1984).
Saitta
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A
.111( f'11, ;4-,w4-kwierse