agreement in exchange for a stated form of discipline, and the panel has
submitted its recommendation that we approve it. See SCR 113.
Under the new agreement, Rogers again pleaded guilty to
violating RPC 1.3 (diligence), RPC 1.4 (communications), RPC 1.16
(declining or terminating representation), RPC 3.1 (meritorious claims and
contentions), RPC 4.4 (respect for rights of third persons), RPC 5.3
(responsibilities regarding non-lawyer assistants), RPC 5.5 (unauthorized
practice of law), and RPC 8.4 (misconduct). The agreed-upon discipline
provides that Rogers be suspended from the practice of law for 6 months,
stayed, with an actual suspension for 90 days, and that he serve 1 year of
probation subject to conditions. The conditions of the probationary period
are as follows:
• Rogers shall continue attending Alcoholics Anonymous meetings
and submit evidence of his attendance to the office of bar counsel on
a quarterly basis.
• Rogers is prohibited from engaging in the solo practice of law or
managing a law practice.
• Rogers is prohibited from any professional association with Carmela
De Vera.
• Rogers shall promptly and completely respond to any grievances
filed against him or any requests for information from the state bar.
• Rogers shall not engage in professional misconduct that results in
the imposition of disciplinary sanctions.
Having reviewed the record of the disciplinary proceedings
and the attached exhibits, we again reject the conditional guilty plea
agreement. See SCR 113(1); In re Kenick, 100 Nev. 273, 680 P.2d 972
(1984). As stated in our previous order, we view Rogers' acts of
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
misconduct as a serious breach of the Nevada Rules of Professional
Conduct warranting the imposition of discipline greater than a one-year,
stayed suspension and one year of probation. The panel's choice to cut the
suspension period in half, thereby obviating Rogers's potential obligation
to seek formal reinstatement, and eliminating the public reprimand to be
issued at the conclusion of his probation—even accepting the 90-day
actual suspension—does not impose a harsher sanction. Accordingly, we
again remand this matter to the Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board for
further proceedings.'
IT IS SO ORDERED. 2
, C.J.
Gibbons
J.
Hardesty
Parraguirre
Cherry
'We wourd be inclined to accept an agreement that imposed a stayed
suspension of six months and one day, 90 days actual suspension, one year
of probation and the recommended conditions of probation, and a public
reprimand at the end of the probationary period.
2 Thisorder constitutes our final disposition of this matter. Any
future proceedings concerning Rogers shall be filed under a new docket
number.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A e
cc: Jeffrey Albregts, Chair, Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board
David A. Clark, Bar Counsel
Michael J. Warhola, LLC
Kimberly K. Farmer, Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) I947A c4P0