IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
IN THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINE OF No. 83876
THOMAS C. MICHAELIDES, BAR NO.
5425.
FILED
FEB 1 8 2022
ELIZABETH A. BROWN
CLERK OF UPREME COURT
By 4,i \
PUTY CLERK
ORDER OF SUSPENSION
This is an automatic review of a Southern Nevada Disciplinary
Board hearing panel's recommendation that attorney Thomas C.
Michaelides be suspended from the practice of law for 24 months, stayed,
with an actual suspension of 6 months followed by an 18-month
probationary period based on violations of RPC 3.3(a)(1) (candor towards
the tribunal), RPC 3.4(b) (fairness to opposing party and counsel), RPC
4.1(a) (truthfulness in statements to others), RPC 4.2 (communications with
persons represented by counsel), RPC 5.3(b) (responsibilities regarding
nonlawyer assistants), and RPC 8.4(a), (c) (misconduct). Because no briefs
have been filed, this matter stands submitted for decision based on the
record. SCR 105(3)(b).
The State I3ar has the burden of showing by clear and
convincing evidence that Michaelides committed the violations charged. In
re Discipline of Drakulich, 111 Nev. 1556, 1566, 908 P.2d 709, 715 (1995).
We defer to the panel's factual findings that Michaelides violated the above-
referenced rules as those findings are supported by substantial evidence
and are not clearly erroneous. SCR 105(3)(b); In re Discipline of Colin, 135
Nev. 325, 330, 448 P.3d 556, 560 (2019). In particular, the record shows
c102 -05453
that one of Michaelides non-attorney employees sent a falsified default
judgment order directly to a represented opposing party, as well as to
another party, in an attempt to coerce the removal of a negative internet
review about Michaelides. The record further shows that Michaelides had
the opportunity to explain the situation to the district court but failed to do
so. This evidence supports the complaint's allegations concerning
Michaelides' professional misconduct. SCR 105(2).
Turning to the appropriate discipline, we review the hearing
panel's recommendation de novo. SCR 105(3)(b). Although we
"must . . . exercise independent judgment," the panel's recommendation is
persuasive. In re Discipline of Schaefer, 117 Nev. 496, 515, 25 P.3d 191, 204
(2001). In determining the appropriate discipline, we weigh four factors:
"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 Discipline of Lerner, 124 Nev. 1232, 1246, 197
P.3d 1067, 1077 (2008).
Here, Michaelides violated duties owed to the legal system
(candor to the tribunal, fairness to opposing party and counsel, truthfulness
in statements to others, conamunications with represented persons, and
misconduct) and duties owed as a professional (responsibilities regarding
nonlawyer assistants). His mental state was intentional or knowing as to
the candor to the tribunal and responsibilities regarding nonlawyer
assistant violations, and negligent as to the remaining violations. And
while Michaelides ultimately stipulated to set aside the falsified default
judgment order, the opposing party was injured as he incurred attorney fees
to challenge that order. Creating a falsified judgment also caused actual
injury to the legal profession and system.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
OA 1947A clafica
The baseline sanction for Michaelides misconduct, before
considering aggravating and mitigating circumstances, is suspension. See
Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, Compendium of Professional
Responsibility Rules and Standards, Standard 6.12 (Am. Bar Asen 2018)
(providing that suspension is appropriate when "a lawyer knows that
false . . . documents are being submitted to the court or that material
information is improperly being withheld, and takes no remedial action, and
causes injury or potential injury to a party to the legal proceeding, or causes
an adverse or potentially adverse effect on the legal proceedine), Standard
6.32 (providing that suspension is generally appropriate "when a lawyer
engages in communication with an individual in the legal system when the
lawyer knows that such communication is improper, and causes injury or
potential injury to a party or causes interference or potential interference
with the outcome of the legal proceedine), Standard 7.2 (providing that
suspension is 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, the public, or the legal system"). The record
supports five aggravating circumstances (prior disciplinary offenses,
dishonest or selfish motive, pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, and
substantial experience in the practice of law) and one mitigating
circumstance (a certain amount of remorse) found by the panel.'
1The panel also found, in mitigation, that Michaelides was subject to
other sanctions and penalties, referring to the approximately $51,000 of
attorney fees awarded to the opposing party in the falsified judgment case.
We do not consider this as a mitigating circumstance, however, as the
district court awarded the attorney fees because Michaelides' claims were
meritless under Nevada's anti-SLAPP statutes rather than because of the
conduct we address in this disciplinary action.
3
Considering all the factors, we agree that the panel's proposed discipline is
appropriate to serve the purpose of attorney discipline. See State Bar of
Nev. v. Claiborne, 104 Nev. 115, 213, 756 P.2d 464, 527-28 (1988) (observing
the purpose of attorney discipline is to protect the public, the courts, and
the legal profession, not to punish the attorney).
Accordingly, we hereby suspend attorney Thomas C.
Michaelides from the practice of law for 24 months from the date of this
order. After a 6-month actual suspension, the remainder of the suspension
is stayed, subject to an 18-month probationary term. As conditions on his
probation, Michaelides shall (1) obtain a legal practice mentor approved by
the State Bar and provide quarterly reports to the State Bar and (2) engage
in no professional misconduct following the date of this order that results in
a screening panel recommending that new disciplinary charges be filed
against Michaelides. Additionally, Michaelides shall pay the actual costs of
the disciplinary proceedings as provided in the State Bar's memorandum of
costs, including $2,500 under SCR 120(3), within 30 days from the date of
this order if he has not already done so. The parties shall comply with SCR
115 and SCR 121.1.
It is so ORDERED.2
, J. Sr.J.
1
Hardesty
2The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in the
decision of this matter under a general order of assignment.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1447A algf.
cc: Chair, Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board
Pitaro & Fumo, Chtd.
Bar Counsel, State of Nevada
Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada
Admissions Office, U.S. Supreme Court
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
5
(0) 1947A ,Agtttm