capacity to practice law and to file a report of the expert's findings by July
21, 2014. 1 To date, LaMadrid has failed to file such a report. In light of
LaMadrid's failure to comply with our order to provide a recent
examination of her capacity to practice law, we conclude that LaMadrid is
not incapacitated from practicing law and that disciplinary proceedings
against her, including the one in Docket No. 61137, may resume. See SCR
117(3). 2
The disciplinary proceedings against LaMadrid in Docket No.
61137 arose when LaMadrid, who was working for a firm, accepted money
and gifts directly from clients and did not deposit retainer funds into the
firm's trust account. LaMadrid kept the funds for personal use, failed to
perform requested legal services, and failed to communicate with clients
and the State Bar. Despite proper notice, LaMadrid did not appear at the
hearing before the disciplinary board hearing panel. The panel found that
LaMadrid 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(c) (misconduct). The panel recommended that
LaMadrid be suspended from the practice of law for one year and be
ordered to pay the costs of the disciplinary proceedings
'Our order was sent to the address LaMadrid has on file with this
court, which appears to be the same permanent mailing address LaMadrid
has provided to the State Bar pursuant to SCR 79(1)(a); see also SCR
79(3).
2 Inlight of our determination, we will take no further action on the
petition in Docket No. 62803, and that matter is now closed.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A Apt.
The findings and recommendations of a disciplinary board
hearing panel are persuasive; however, our automatic review of a panel
decision recommending a suspension is conducted de novo, requiring the
exercise of independent judgment by this court. SCR 105(3)(b); In re
Discipline of Stuhff, 108 Nev. 629, 633, 837 P.2d 853, 855 (1992). Having
reviewed the record of the disciplinary proceedings, we conclude that clear
and convincing evidence supports the findings that LaMadrid violated
RPC 1.3 (diligence), RPC 1.4 (communication), RPC 1.15 (safekeeping
property), RPC 8.1(b) (bar admission and disciplinary matters), and RPC
8.4(c) (misconduct). SCR 105(2)(f). We further conclude that the panel's
recommended discipline is appropriately tailored to LaMadrid's
misconduct. Accordingly, LaMadrid is hereby suspended from the practice
of law for one year. 3 Additionally, LaMadrid shall pay the costs of the
disciplinary proceedings within 30 days of receipt of the State Bar's bill of
costs. See SCR 120.
3 Wenote that LaMadrid is currently suspended for failure to
complete required continuing legal education (CLE) requirements. The
suspension imposed in this order is separate from and in addition to
LaMadrid's CLE suspension; the suspension imposed here shall not begin
until LaMadrid has resolved her CLE suspension.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1947A
LaMadrid and the State Bar shall comply with the applicable
provisions of SCR 115 and SCR 121.1.
It is so ORDERED. 4
, C.J.
Pidebt
Pickering
j rc-L
Hardesty
)
Parraguirre Douglas
J.
Saitta
cc: David A. Clark, Bar Counsel
Kimberly K. Farmer, Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada
Joslyn J. LaMadrid
Jeffrey Albregts, Chair, Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board
Perry Thompson, U.S. Supreme Court Admissions Office
4 Thisconstitutes our final disposition of these matters. Any new
proceedings concerning LaMadrid shall be docketed as a new and separate
matter.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) I V47A