months prior to Sarb making the request. With respect to the second
client, Sarb appeared at a hearing on behalf of the client in December
2011, even though he was suspended from the practice of law. In both
matters, Sarb failed to respond to numerous attempts by the clients to
ascertain the status of their cases, failed to personally inform them that he
was terminating his representation, and failed to propel their pending
matters forward in a diligent manner.
Sarb failed to respond to the State Bar's complaints alleging
the foregoing. See SCR 105(2) (if an attorney fails to respond to a State
Bar complaint, the charges shall be deemed admitted). The matters were
consolidated and proceeded to a hearing. Although he was personally
served with notice of the hearing, Sarb did not appear or otherwise
participate in the proceeding.
The panel found that Sarb violated RPC 1.3 (diligence), RPC
1.4 (communication), RPC 1.5 (fees), RPC 1.16 (declining or terminating
representation), RPC 5.5 (unauthorized practice of law), RPC 8.1(b) (bar
admission and disciplinary matters), and RPC 8.4(c) and (d) (misconduct).
While the panel found Sarb's lack of a prior disciplinary record a
mitigating factor, it also found the following aggravating factors: a pattern
of misconduct, multiple offenses, refusal to acknowledge the wrongful
nature of his conduct, substantial experience in the practice of law, and
indifference to making restitution. SCR 102.5. Based on these findings,
the panel recommended that Sarb be disbarred from the practice of law in
Nevada.
A disciplinary panel's recommendation of disbarment is
subject to automatic review by this court. SCR 105(3)(b). Although
persuasive, the panel's findings and recommendations are not binding on
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
this court. In re Discipline of Schaefer, 117 Nev. 496, 515, 25 P.3d 191,
204 (2001). This court must review the record de novo and exercise its
independent judgment with respect to what type of discipline, if any, is
warranted. Id. The panel's findings of misconduct must be supported by
clear and convincing evidence. Id.
As Sarb failed to answer or otherwise respond to the State
Bar's complaints, the charges are deemed admitted, SCR 105(2), and we
conclude that clear and convincing evidence supports the panel's findings.
Additionally, the State Bar's recommended discipline is appropriate in
light of the nature of Sarb's misconduct and apparent abandonment of his
law practice.
Accordingly, we disbar Sarb from the practice of law in
Nevada. Such disbarment is irrevocable. SCR 102(1). Sarb shall pay the
costs of the disciplinary proceedings within 30 days of receipt of the
Nevada State Bar's bill of costs. See SCR 120.
It is so ORDERED.
Gibbons
Pickering Hardesty
QAA J.
Parraguirre Douglas
Cherry Saitta
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(01 1947A
cc: Phillip J. Pattee, Assistant Bar Counsel
Kimberly K. Farmer, Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada
John H. Sarb
Jeffrey Albregts, Chair, Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board
Perry Thompson, U.S. Supreme Court Admissions Office
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 194Th e