In Re: Discipline of David Francis

onditional guilty plea, Francis agreed to be suspended from the practice f law for 14 months and to pay the costs of the disciplinary proceedings up to $150,000. 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 Francis committed the violations charged. In re Discipline of Drakulich, 111 Nev. 1556, 1566, 908 P.2d 709, 715 (1995). We conclude that clear and convincing evidence supports the panel's findings that Francis violated RPC 1.1 (competence), RPC 1.3 (diligence), and RPC 1.4 (communication), but we disagree that the three- month suspension is sufficient considering Francis' conduct while representing his client, Mark Vance. Furthermore, having reviewed the record of the disciplinary proceedings, we cannot approve the conditional guilty plea agreement and the 14-month suspension. See SCR 113(1). Although we could determine the appropriate discipline in the first instance on the Vance matter, because the disciplinary panel considered these matters together, we decline to do so. Accordingly, we remand this SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A e .latter to the Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board for further roceeclings. 2 It is so ORDERED. i te--"C"-• -0-4-av ' CA. Hardesty aA54. a-S261" V4-Z ,J. Parraguirre Douglas_ J. Saitta Gibbons Pickering cc: Jeffrey Posin, Chair, Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board Stan Hunterton, Bar Counsel, State Bar of Nevada Pitaro & Fumo, Chtd. Kimberly K. Farmer, Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada 2This is our final disposition of this matter. Any further proceedings involving Francis shall be docketed as a new matter. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A 440444