Nevada reasonable costs associated with his quarterly written report
submission, if any. Finally, the panel recommended that Briggs be
required to pay the costs associated with the January 7, 2014, proceedings
pursuant to SCR 120.
This court's automatic review of a disciplinary panel's findings
and recommendations is de novo. SCR 105(3)(b); In re Discipline of Stuhff,
108 Nev. 629, 633, 837 P.2d 853, 855 (1992). "Although the
recommendations of the disciplinary panel are persuasive, this court is not
bound by the panel's findings and recommendation, and must examine the
record anew and exercise independent judgment." In re Discipline of
Schaefer, 117 Nev. 496, 515, 25 P.3d 191, 204 (2001). The State Bar has
the burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that Briggs
committed the violations charged. In re Discipline of Drakulich, 111 Nev.
1556, 1566, 908 P.2d 709, 715 (1995).
After reviewing the record, we conclude that clear and
convincing evidence supports the panel's findings that Briggs violated
RPC 5.5 and RPC 8.1. However, we conclude that the panel's finding that
he violated RPC 8.4 is not supported by clear and convincing evidence. We
further conclude that the panel's recommended discipline is appropriate
considering the aggravating factors (a pattern of misconduct, an
appearance of indifference to restitution, Briggs' years of experience in the
practice of law, and an appearance of bad faith and/or obstructionist intent
because of Briggs' intentional failures that led to the complaints to the
State Bar) and the mitigating factors (no prior discipline, evidence of
emotional/personal issues occurring during the time of the misconduct,
evidence of Briggs' rehabilitative potential, evidence of progression in his
rehabilitation, and that he is currently abiding by the Rules of
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
Professional Conduct) identified by the panel. See SCR 102.2. We further
agree with the recommended conditions of probation with the exception
that Briggs shall pay the restitution amount to the client in count 1 by
December 31, 2015.
Accordingly, we suspend Briggs from the practice of law for six
months and one day. The suspension shall be stayed until June 30, 2017,
provided that Briggs fully complies with the conditions set forth by the
panel, as described and modified above. If Briggs has complied with those
conditions by June 30, 2017, the suspension shall be vacated. Briggs shall
pay the costs associated with the January 7, 2014, hearing within 30 days
of receipt of the State Bar's bill of costs. See SCR 120(1). Briggs and the
State Bar shall comply with the applicable provisions of SCR 121.1 and if
necessary SCR 115 and 116.
It is so ORDERED.
, C.J.
Hardesty
r
iso list.A-c( ( /AS
\So
Parraguirre Douglas
J.
ibbons
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A 402g/14
SAITTA, J., dissenting:
I dissent because the stayed suspension is insufficient in
relation to Briggs' conduct.
J.
Saitta
cc: Chair, Northern Nevada Disciplinary Panel
Bar Counsel, State Bar of Nevada
Lemons, Grundy & Eisenberg
King .& Russo, Ltd.
Kimberly K. Farmer, Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada
Perry Thompson, Admissions Office, United States Supreme Court
SUPREME bOURT
OF
NEVADA 4
(0) 1947A ei>