Trademark Office, Keller made numerous attempts to contact Chandler.
Chandler failed to respond or to take any corrective action. Keller filed his
grievance against Chandler in August 2011. Chandler also failed to
respond to the State Bar's attempts at contact and communication for
purposes of its investigation. We have previously disciplined Chandler for
the same type of misconduct. In re Discipline of Chandler, Docket No.
55625 (Order Imposing Public Reprimand, July 27, 2011); In re Discipline
of Chandler, Docket No. 58956 (Order of Suspension, December 7, 2012). 1
The hearing panel conducted a formal hearing on October 28,
2013. Chandler, although represented by counsel, declined to file an
answer to the complaint or to participate in the hearing.
The panel found that Chandler has had two prior disciplinary
sanctions, as noted above, and further that in December 2011 he was
excluded from practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for
the same and similar misconduct. The panel found that the allegations of
the State Bar's complaint were supported by the evidence and testimony,
and concluded that Chandler had committed the following violations of the
Rules of Professional Conduct: RPC 1.3 (diligence), RPC 1.4
(communication), RPC 1.15 (safekeeping of property), PRC 8.1 (bar
admission and disciplinary matters), and RPC 8.4 (misconduct).
'The December 7, 2012, order notes that Chandler was fee-
suspended at the time for failure to pay his bar dues, and that the one-
year suspension would not begin until he resolved his bar dues
suspension. It appears that Chandler has yet to resolve his fee suspension
and remains_ suspended under SCR 98(12), and his one-year suspension
imposed in Docket No. 58956 has not commenced.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(01 1947A aep
The panel also found the following aggravators: prior
disciplinary offenses, dishonest or selfish motive, a pattern of misconduct,
multiple offenses, bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary process, refusal
to acknowledge the wrongful nature of the conduct, vulnerability of the
victim, and substantial experience in the practice of law. The panel found
no mitigating factors.
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). Our automatic review
of a panel recommendation 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 Draleulich, 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 Nev. v. Claiborne, 104 Nev.
115, 129, 756 P.2d 464, 473 (1988).
We conclude that clear and convincing evidence in the record
before us demonstrates that Chandler committed the misconduct and
violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct as found by the hearing
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 19474 e
panel, and that protection of the public and the public's confidence in the
legal profession is necessary. The panel's recommendation is an
appropriate sanction.
Accordingly, attorney Travis Chandler is hereby disbarred
from the practice of law in Nevada. Chandler is also ordered to pay
restitution to Russell Keller in the amount of $4,800 and the costs of the
disciplinary proceedings within 90 days. 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 Douglas
J.
Saitta
CC: David A. Clark, Bar Counsel
Jeffrey A. Albregts, Chair, Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board
Kimberly K. Farmer, Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada
Janet Trost
Perry Thompson, Admissions Office, United States Supreme Court
Based on our decision in this matter, the matter pending against
2
Chandler in Docket No. 62790 is closed.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) I947A