show that the balance of the account fell below $1,000, but Groesbeck
never produced any actual work for Adams. It is unknown where the
money went. Ultimately, Adams sought relief through the State Bar's fee
dispute resolution program, and was awarded the full $1,000 by the
arbitrator. After repeated attempts to contact Groesbeck at all known
addresses regarding the fee dispute and the grievance, on June 22, 2012,
the State Bar filed a complaint against Groesbeck alleging violations of
RPC 1.3 (diligence), RPC 1.4 (communication), RPC 1.5 (fees), RPC 1.15
(safekeeping property), RPC 8.1 (bar admission and disciplinary matters),
and RPC 8.4 (misconduct).
The second grievance involved Groesbeck's failure in 2011 to
return a client file to attorney Michael Warhola, for whom Groesbeck had
been working. The client had obtained new counsel in July 2011, and
Groesbeck agreed to inventory the file, prepare a statement of inventory,
and copy the file to new counsel. Groesbeck took possession of the file.
Throughout the next few months, Warhola sent Groesbeck numerous
texts, letters, e-mails, and phone messages attempting to retrieve the file.
Meanwhile, Groesbeck apparently moved to Minnesota to an address she
gave Warhola but never reported to the State Bar. In November and
December 2011, the State Bar attempted to contact Groesbeck at all
known addresses about the file. Groesbeck did return acknowledgment of
receipt of the communications, but otherwise failed or refused to respond.
Finally, the State Bar filed a complaint against Groesbeck on July 29,
2013, alleging violations of RPC 8.1 (bar admission and disciplinary
matters) and RPC 8.4 (misconduct).
The complaints were consolidated and the State Bar sent
notice to Groesbeck at addresses in Las Vegas, Henderson, and Minnesota.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
The return receipt card mailed to Groesbeck's listed personal address in
Minnesota was returned, signed by Groesbeck. But she did not submit
any verified answers to the complaints or otherwise respond. According to
testimony of Investigator Dawn Reid, who had found a telephone number
for Groesbeck and had spoken to her about the scheduled hearing,
Groesbeck stated that she was in default and did not care when the
hearing would be held, and "David can take my law license, I don't care."
Groesbeck refused to further respond or attend the hearing, and
proceedings were conducted on a default basis pursuant to SCR 105(2).
The hearing was held December 16, 2013. Groesbeck did not attend. The
State Bar presented testimony from Michael Warhola and Anderson
Adams.
Based on the testimony and documentation supporting the
complaints, the panel concluded that, with respect to the first complaint
involving Adams, Groesbeck violated RPC 1.3 (diligence), RPC 1.4
(communication), RPC 1.5 (safekeeping property), RPC 8.1(b) (bar
admission and disciplinary matters), and RPC 8.4 (misconduct). As to the
second complaint involving Warhola, the panel found Groesbeck violated
RPC 8.1 (bar admission and disciplinary matters) and RPC 8.4
(misconduct). Pursuant to SCR 102.5, the panel considered aggravating
and mitigating factors. Aggravators included (1) prior disciplinary
offenses, (2) a pattern of misconduct, (3) multiple offenses, (4) bad faith
obstruction of the proceedings by intentionally failing to comply with rules
or orders, (5) refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of her conduct,
(6) vulnerability of the victim, (7) substantial experience in the practice of
law, and (8) indifference in making restitution. The panel found two
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A
mitigating factors: (1) personal or emotional problems, and (2) character or
reputation, based on Warhola's testimony.
The findings and recommendations of a disciplinary board
hearing panel, though persuasive, are not binding on this court. In re
Stuhff, 108 Nev. 629, 633, 837 P.2d 853, 855 (1992). The automatic review
of a panel decision recommending suspension is conducted de novo,
requiring the exercise of independent judgment by this court. Id.; SCR
105(3)(b). The panel's findings must be supported by clear and convincing
evidence. SCR 105(2)(e); In re Drakulich, 111 Nev. 1556, 1566, 908 P.2d
709, 715 (1995).
We conclude that there is clear and convincing evidence in the
record before us that demonstrates that Groesbeck committed the
misconduct and violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct as found by
the hearing panel, and that the panel's recommendation is an appropriate
sanction.
Accordingly, attorney Mary P. Groesbeck is hereby suspended
from the practice of law in Nevada for six years. At the completion of her
term of suspension, Groesbeck shall comply with SCR 116 upon any
petition for reinstatement. Further, Groesbeck shall show proof of
successful completion of the Nevada State Bar Examination and the
Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination prior to
reinstatement, if any. See SCR 116(5). Groesbeck shall pay restitution of
$1,000 to Anderson Adams, and a fine of $10,000 to the State Bar.
Pursuant to SCR 120, Groesbeck shall also pay the costs of the
disciplinary proceedings. Groesbeck shall comply with SCR 115 and the
State Bar shall comply with SCR 121.1.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
03) 1947A
It is so ORDERED.
C.J.
Gibbons
Pickering Hardesty
.t; CDovu\k
Thir ,TC J.
Parraguirre Douglas
Saitta
cc: Jeffrey R. Albregts, Chair, Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board
David Clark, Bar Counsel
Kimberly K. Farmer, Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada
Mary P. Groesbeck
Perry Thompson, Admissions Office, United States Supreme Court
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
5
(0) 19474