IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
IN THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINE OF No. 83834
BRENT HARSH, BAR NO. 8814.
FILED
FEB 1 8 2022
A. BROWN
CLELiJ. PREME COURT
BY
DEP CLERX
ORDER OF PUBLIC REPRIMAND
This is an automatic review of a Northern Nevada Disciplinary
Board hearing panePs recommendation to publicly reprimand attorney
Brent Harsh for violating RPC 4.2 (communication with persons
represented by counsel). Because no briefs have been filed, this matter
stands submitted for decision based on the record. SCR 105(3)(b).
The State Bar has the burden of showing by clear and
convincing evidence that Harsh committed the violation 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 Harsh violated RPC 4.2 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 that an attorney sent
Harsh a letter stating that he represented the party adverse to Harsh's
client and that, thereafter, Harsh sent a letter directly to that adverse
party. Both letters were admitted into evidence, and the attorney who sent
Harsh the letter regarding his representation of the adverse party testified
about his other communications with Harsh regarding the case. This
evidence supports the complaint's allegations concerning Harsh's
professional misconduct. SCR 105(2).
SUPREME COURT
Of
NEVADA
(C)) I947A 440s. 2 Z.-OS(4Z
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, Harsh negligently violated duties owed to the
legal system. His misconduct had the potential for injury by interfering
with the outcome of the underlying legal proceeding.
The baseline sanction for Harsh's misconduct, before
consideration of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, is a public
reprimand. See Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, Compendium of
Professional Responsibility Rules and Standards, Standard 6.33 (Am. Bar
Ass'n 2018) (providing that a reprimand is appropriate when "a lawyer is
negligent in determining whether it is proper to engage in communication
with an individual in the legal system, and causes injury or potential injury
to a party or interference or potential interference with the outcome of the
legal proceedine). The panel found and the record supports one
aggravating circumstance (substantial experience in the practice of law)
and one mitigating circumstance (lack of prior discipline). Considering all
the factors, we agree with the panel that a public reprimand 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).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(01 1947A 0449>
Accordingly, we hereby publicly reprimand attorney Brent
Harsh for violating RPC 4.2 (communication with persons represented by
counsel). Harsh shall pay the actual costs of the disciplinary proceedings
as provided in the State Bar's memorandum of costs, including $1,500 under
SCR 120(3), within 30 days from the date of this order. The State Bar shall
comply with SCR 121.1.
It is so ORDERED.1
IP,
NA, , C.J.
•
' arraguirre
, J. , Sr.J.
Hardesty Gi bons
cc: Chair, Northern Nevada Disciplinary Board
Lemons, Grundy & Eisenberg
Eric A. Stovall
Bar Counsel, State of Nevada
Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada
Admissions Office, U.S. Supreme Court
1The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in the
decision of this matter under a general order of assignment.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) I947A 44:Pc5