probation; (5) pay restitution totaling $3,900 to three former clients as set
forth in the agreement; and (6) pay the costs of the disciplinary
proceedings in the instant matter.
Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the plea
agreement should be approved. See SCR 113(1). Accordingly, Odgers is
hereby suspended from the practice of law in Nevada for two years from
the date of this order; that suspension is stayed subject to Odgers'
compliance with the conditions set forth above.' The parties shall comply
with the applicable provisions of SCR 115 and SCR 121.1.
It is so ORDERED.
, C.J.
Gibbons
Pickering Hardesty
Parraguirre 1/4) Douglas
1 We note that Odgers has already been publicly reprimanded
pursuant to the panel's recommendation.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
cc: David Clark, Bar Counsel
Michael J. Warhola, LLC
Jeffrey R. Albregts, Chair, Southern Nevada Disciplinary Panel
Kimberly Farmer, Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada
Perry Thompson, Admissions Office, U.S. Supreme Court
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) I947A
SAITTA, J., dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. I am concerned that the condition
prohibiting Odgers from engaging in the private practice of law during his
stayed suspension does not sufficiently protect the public and the integrity
of the bar. See In re Discipline of Schaefer, 117 Nev. 496, 518-19, 25 P.3d
191, 206 (2001). Odgers admitted to violations of RPC 1.3 (diligence), RPC
1.4 (communication), and RPC 3.2 (expediting litigation), among others, as
well as to repeatedly failing to communicate with the State Bar regarding
client grievances. The record demonstrates that Odgers inadequately
represented numerous clients: he failed to ever even meet with some of the
clients who engaged his services, became unresponsive in the midst of
representing others, and failed to prepare and file necessary documents.
The prohibition on Odgers engaging in the private practice of
law was designed to allow Odgers to act as a deputy public defender in a
rural part of the state. As noted by bar counsel in explaining this
condition to the panel, there is a sincere need in the rural areas of this
state for lawyers who will represent indigent persons in criminal matters.
However, such persons need and deserve adequate, focused representation
as much as any clients. I recognize that Odgers's stayed suspension is
designed to work as an incentive for him to provide zealous representation
for the clients he represents through the public defender's office, but it is
incongruent to prevent him from engaging in the private practice of law,
presumably to protect potential clients who have the ability to choose and
the means to pay for an attorney, while allowing him to represent a
vulnerable population with the most serious interests at stake. In light of
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1947A
this incongruity, I would reject the conditional guilty plea agreement and
remand for further proceedings before the panel.
J.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) I907A