IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
IN THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINE OF
JASON C. FARRINGTON, BAR NO. 8063. NO 69705 F L ED
MAR 2 5 2016
Er K. LINDEMAN
Clc P ME COU
21 '
BY
LERK
ORDER IMPOSING RECIPROCAL DISCIPLINE CHIEF
This is a petition under SCR 114 for reciprocal discipline
attorney Jason C. Farrington, based on discipline imposed in Arizona.
Farrington did not self-report the disciplinary sanctions imposed by
Arizona as required by SCR 114(1), and he has not responded to the
petition. See SCR 114(3). Farrington was admitted to the practice of law
in Nevada in 2002 and has no prior disciplinary history, but he was
administratively suspended in Nevada on April 10, 2014, for failure to
comply with mandatory continuing legal education (CLE) requirements,
and he has not sought reinstatement under SCR 213.
Based on an agreement for discipline by consent, on July 13,
2015, the presiding disciplinary judge for the Arizona Supreme Court
reprimanded Farrington and placed him on probation for two years.
During the probationary period, Farrington, who was already suspended
in Arizona for failing to comply with mandatory CLE requirements, must
file quarterly reports to the State Bar of Arizona that he has remained out
of the practice of law. He must also undergo at his expense a Law Office
Management Assistance Program (LOMAP) and Member Assistance
Program (MAP) screening if he returns to the practice of law.
The discipline in Arizona is based on Farrington's admission
to allegations that he failed to communicate with and/or perform services
for clients in three bankruptcy cases and that he failed to respond to
SUPREME COURT inquiries from the State Bar of Arizona. He further agreed that based on
OF
NEVADA this conduct he had violated Arizona Ethics Rules 1.3 (diligence), 1.4
0:74Ei
(communication), 1.16 (terminating representation), 3.2 (expediting
litigation), 8.1 (disciplinary matters), and 8.4 (misconduct). These
provisions are identical or substantially similar to Nevada Rules of
Professional Conduct 1.3, 1.4, 1.16, 3.2, 8.1, and 8.4. The Arizona
disciplinary judge weighed the same factors that this court has
determined to be relevant in determining the appropriate discipline: "the
duty violated, thefl 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 Discipline of Lerner, 124 Nev. 1232, 1246, 197
P.3d 1067, 1077 (2008). In particular, the Arizona disciplinary judge
considered aggravating factors (selfish motive, pattern of misconduct,
multiple offenses, bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by
intentionally failing to comply with the rules or orders of the disciplinary
agent, and substantial experience in the practice of law) and mitigating
factors (absence of a prior disciplinary record, absence of a dishonest
motive, and remorse) that are similar to those set forth in SCR 102.5.
Finally, the judge took into consideration the parties' agreement that the
violations happened during a time when Farrington was changing careers
to leave the practice of law and the fact that Farrington was already
summarily suspended for CLE noncompliance and posed no threat to the
public or the profession. Given all these considerations, the judge found
that the proposed sanctions of reprimand and probation met the objectives
of attorney discipline.
SCR 114(4) provides that this court shall impose identical
reciprocal discipline unless the attorney demonstrates, or this court finds,
that at least one of four factors is present: (1) the procedure in the other
jurisdiction denied the attorney due process; (2) there was such an
infirmity of proof of the misconduct in the other jurisdiction that this court
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A e
cannot accept the other court's decision; (3) substantially different
discipline is warranted in this state; or (4) the established misconduct does
not constitute misconduct under the rules of this state. Discipline
elsewhere is res judicata, as SCR 114(5) provides that "[i]ri all other
respects, a final adjudication in another jurisdiction that an attorney has
engaged in misconduct conclusively establishes the misconduct for the
purposes of a disciplinary proceeding in this state."
We are not persuaded that any of the exceptions apply to this
case. Accordingly, we grant the petition for reciprocal discipline
Farrington is reprimanded for his conduct in violation of the Nevada Rules
of Professional Conduct and shall be placed on probation for two years
retroactive to July 13, 2015. He shall comply with the conditions of
probation imposed by Arizona and complete a monitoring agreement with
the State Bar of Nevada for the duration of his probation in the event that
he is reinstated to the practice of law in Nevada. The Nevada State Bar
shall comply with SCR 121.1.
It is so ORDERED.
Parraguirre
J.
Hardesty
Cherry Saitta
pe,st 'J.
ibbons
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A olp0
cc: C. Stanley Hunterton, Bar Counsel, State Bar of Nevada
Jason C. Farrington
Kimberly K. Farmer, Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada
Perry Thompson, Admissions Officer, United States Supreme Court
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A