Complaint No. 10-071-1375 and all evidence in State Bar Complaint No.
SG12-0672. The record of the hearing demonstrates that Shreve failed to
remit client funds, commingled client funds with non-client funds, failed to
represent his clients diligently, and failed to communicate with his clients
or to respond to the state bar.
According to State Bar Complaint No. 10-071-1375, Shreve
represented Century-National Insurance Company in a civil action, which
settled for $35,000. Shreve received the settlement funds and informed
Century-National that he would pay the insured the previously agreed-
upon $10,000 and remit the balance to Century-National. He failed to
follow through and remit payment to Century-National, and he failed to
respond to Century-National's numerous attempts to contact him In
addition, Shreve then failed to respond adequately to the State Bar's
investigatory communications or to its complaint.'
According to State Bar Complaint No. 5012-0672, Shreve
represented Farmers Insurance Exchange in a number of subrogation
cases. In ten of those cases he failed to diligently prosecute the cases,
failed to remit settlement funds to Farmers, failed to communicate, and
'In Docket No. 59634 the hearing panel recommended this court
disbar Shreve based on State Bar Complaint No. 10-071-1375. Because
Shreve failed to participate in the disciplinary proceedings, the panel
entered its findings and recommendation by default. While the
recommendation was pending in this court, Shreve submitted a request for
a remand to allow the panel to consider mitigating factors. The panel
indicated its willingness, and the state bar indicated that additional
allegations against Shreve were forthcoming We remanded for resolution
of all the issues. Based on the court's decision in this matter today, the
proceedings pending against Shreve in Docket No. 59634 are resolved and
closed.
SUPREME COURT
QF
NEVADA
2
(C)) (&47I a;
failed to respond to attempts at contact and resolution. Farmers sued
Shreve in district court, Shreve failed to participate in the litigation, and
Farmers obtained a default judgment against Shreve. The State Bar
alleged violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct with respect to the
subrogation cases, Shreve's failure to respond to the Farmers lawsuit, and
his failure to respond to the State Bar.
In total, the hearing panel made findings that with respect to
Farmers, Shreve committed seven violations of RPC 1.1 (competence), one
violation of RPC 1.2 (scope of representation), seven violations of 1.3
(diligence), ten violations of RPC 1.4 (communication), five violations of
RPC 3.2 (expediting litigation) one violation of RPC 3.4 (fairness to
opposing party and counsel), one violation of RPC 8.1 (bar admission and
disciplinary matters), and 12 violations of RPC 8.4 (misconduct).
The panel found that Shreve had no disciplinary record prior
to the proceedings in Complaint No. 10-071-1375 and that he suffered
emotional problems during the time frame at issue due to significant life
events. In addition, he had a history of good character and reputation and
showed substantial remorse. On the other hand, he failed to remit his
client's funds until four years after he received them, and did so only after
the panel had issued its initial findings of fact and conclusions of law and
recommendation for disbarment. The panel found the following four
aggravators: (1) prior disciplinary offenses, based on Complaint No. 10-
071-1375; (2) a pattern of misconduct; (3) multiple offenses; and (4)
substantial experience in the practice of law.
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
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(03 1947k e
of a panel decision recommending a 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). In determining the proper disciplinary sanction, this
court considers four factors: (1) the duty violated, (2) the lawyer's mental
state, (3) the potential or actual injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct,
and (4) the existence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances. In re
Lerner, 124 Nev. 1232, 1246, 197 P.3d 1067, 1077 (2008) (citing American
Bar Association Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 3.0,
Compendium of Professional Responsibility Rules and Standards, 344
(1999)). The primary objective of attorney discipline is not further
punishment of the attorney, but rather protection of the public and
protection of the public's confidence in the legal profession. State Bar of
Nevada v. Claiborne, 114 Nev. 115, 129, 756 P.2d 464, 473 (1988).
We conclude that the record before us demonstrates that
Shreve committed the misconduct and violations of the Rules of
Professional Conduct as found by the hearing panel. The panel's
recommendation is an appropriate sanction.
Accordingly, attorney Don Shreve, Jr. is hereby suspended
from the practice of law for five years, effective January 30, 2014. Before
he may petition for reinstatement pursuant to SCR 116, Shreve must take
and pass the Nevada bar exam and the Multistate Professional
Responsibility Exam and pay restitution to Farmers Insurance Exchange.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A e
Shreve is ordered to pay the costs of the disciplinary proceedings against
him within 90 days. See SCR 120. The parties shall also comply with the
applicable provisions of SCR 115 and SCR 121.1.
It is so ORDERmv.
Gibbons
J.
Pickering Hardesty
Parraguirre
Cherry Saitta
cc: David A. Cl rk, Bar Counsel
Jeffrey A. Albregts, Chair, Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board
Kimberly K. Farmer, Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada
Michael J. Warhola, LLC
Perry Thompson, Admissions Office, United States Supreme Court
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
5
(0) 194/A