Our review of the 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). 2 We therefore "must examine the
record anew and exercise independent judgment," but the disciplinary
panel's recommendations nonetheless are persuasive. In re Discipline of
Schaefer, 117 Nev. 496, 515, 25 P.3d 191, 204 (2001). Generally, the State
Bar has the burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that an
attorney committed the violations charged, In re Discipline of Drakulich,
111 Nev. 1556, 1566, 908 P.2d 709, 715 (1995), but where, as here, the
attorney fails to respond to a complaint, "the charges shall be deemed
admitted," SCR 105(2). Thus, the only issue before us is the appropriate
level of discipline. Dy-Ragos did not file an opening brief; therefore, this
appeal stands submitted for decision on the record. SCR 105(3)(b).
In determining the appropriate discipline, this court has
considered four factors to be weighed: "the duty violated, the lawyer's
mental state, the potential or actual injury caused by the lawyer's
misconduct, and the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors." In re
. . . continued
2012. It appears that Dy-Ragos has not resolved the prior CLE
suspension or petitioned for reinstatement. The conduct at issue in this
case occurred in 2012 and 2013; the formal complaint was filed in 2015.
Some of the violations in this case are similar to those in the prior
disciplinary proceeding, in particular violations of RPC 5.3
(responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistants).
2 SCR 105(3)(b) has been amended to give deference to a disciplinary
panel's factual findings, but that amendment does not apply to this case.
See In re Amendments to Court Rules Regarding Attorney Discipline,
Specifically, SCR 105, ADKT 0505 (Order Amending Supreme Court Rule
105, November 5, 2015) (providing that amendment is "effective 30 days
from the date of this order").
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(01 1947A ,e>
Discipline of Lerner, 124 Nev. 1232, 1246, 197 P.3d 1067, 1077 (2008).
The purpose of attorney discipline is to protect the public, the courts, and
the legal profession, not to punish the attorney. State Bar of Nev. v.
Claiborne, 104 Nev. 115, 213, 756 P.2d 464, 527-28 (1988).
The disciplinary panel recommends that Dy-Ragos: (1) be
suspended from the practice of law for seven months, (2) be required to
retake and pass the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination
(MPRE), (3) be subject to the same terms and conditions on reinstatement
as set forth in the prior disciplinary order entered by this court on April 4,
2014, and (4) pay the costs of this disciplinary proceeding (excluding bar
counsel and staff salaries). The decision does not specify a start date for
the suspension.
A period of suspension is appropriate considering the duties
violated, the injury to the client, the fact that a formal complaint had been
filed against Dy-Ragos alleging violations of RPC 5.3 (responsibilities
regarding nonlawyer assistants) before the conduct at issue in this
complaint, and the aggravating circumstances (bad faith obstruction of the
disciplinary proceeding, refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of the
conduct, and indifference to making restitution). Compare ABA Standards
for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, Compendium of Professional
Responsibility Rules and Standards, Standard 7.2 (2015) ("Suspension is
generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in conduct that is
a violation of a duty owed as a professional and causes injury or potential
injury to a client. ."), with id. Standard 7.1 ("Disbarment is generally
appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in conduct that is a
violation of a duty owed as a professional with the intent to obtain a
benefit for the lawyer or another, and causes serious or potentially serious
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(01 1947A e
injury to a client, the public or the legal system."). We agree with the
panel that a seven-month suspension is sufficient.
We hereby suspend attorney Ramon Dy-Ragos for seven
months commencing from the date of this order. The conditions previously
imposed on his reinstatement in Docket No. 63884 remain in effect, with
the added condition that Dy-Ragos take and pass the MPRE. Dy-Ragos
shall also pay the costs of the disciplinary proceeding (excluding bar
counsel and staff salaries) within 30 days from receipt of the State Bar's
bill of fees and costs. The parties shall comply with the applicable
provisions of SCR 121.1.
It is so ORDERED.
\l'emc
Hardesty
, C.J.
Parraguirre
cc: Chair, Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board
Ramon Dy-Ragos
Stan Hunterton, Bar Counsel, State Bar of Nevada
Kimberly Farmer, Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada
Perry Thompson, Admissions Office, U.S. Supreme Court
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A