Fuchsel v. State

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: June 6, 2016
• Docket: 68112
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

BETTY FUCHSEL,

vs. Appellant, N° FlEt D THE STATE OF NEVADA, JUN 0 6 2016 Respondent. TRi` CIE K LINDEMAN CLERK OF SUPREME COURT By S.Yo-c•--Y-1-\,-- DEPUTY CLERK

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL AND REFERRING COUNSEL TO THE STATE BAR OF NEVADA

On March 31, 2016, this court entered an order conditionally imposing sanctions on appellant's counsel, Nancy Lord for her failure to file the opening brief and appendix. We directed Ms. Lord to pay the sum of $250 to the Supreme Court Law Library and provide proof of such payment to this court within 15 days. However, the sanction would be automatically vacated if Ms. Lord filed the required documents or a motion for an extension of time within 11 days. We cautioned Ms. Lord that failure to comply would result in dismissal of this appeal. We further warned that failure to comply would result in Ms. Lord's referral to the State Bar of Nevada for investigation pursuant to SCR 104-105. To date, Ms. Lord has failed to pay the sanction, failed to file the opening brief or appendix, or otherwise communicate with this court. Accordingly, we conclude that the sanction is no longer conditional. Ms. Lord shall pay the sum of $250 to the Supreme Court Law Library within 11 days of the date of this order and provide proof of such payment within 15 days. We have repeatedly stated that we expect all appeals to be "pursued in a manner meeting high standards of diligence, professionalism, and competence." Cuzdey v. State, 103 Nev. 575, 578, 747 SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(I) I907A aaEti, aa -174 83 47)754 -y.4.$ P.2d 233, 235 (1987); accord Polk v. State, 126 Nev. 180, 184, 233 P.3d 357, 359 (2010); Barry v. Lindner, 119 Nev. 661, 671, 81 P.3d 537, 543 (2003); State, Nev. Emp't Sec. Dep't v. Weber, 100 Nev. 121, 123, 676 P.28 1318, 1319 (1984). It is incumbent upon Ms. Lord, as part of her professional obligations of competence and diligence to her clients, to know and comply with all applicable court rules. See RPC 1.1; RPC 1.3. These rules have been implemented to promote cost-effective, timely access to the courts; it is "imperative" that she follow these rules and timely comply with our directives. Weddell v. Stewart, 127 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 58, 261 P.3d 1080, 1084 (2011). Ms. Lord is "not at liberty to disobey notices, orders, or any other directives issued by this court." Id. at 261 P.3d at 1085. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. NRAP 31(d). Finally, because it appears that Ms. Lord's conduct in this appeal may constitute violations of RPC 1.3 (diligence), 3.2(a) (expediting litigation), and 8.4 (misconduct), we refer Ms. Lord to the State Bar of Nevada for investigation pursuant to SCR 104-105. Bar counsel shall, within 90 days of the date of this order, inform this court of the status or results of the investigation and any disciplinary proceedings in this matter. It is so ORDERED.

eiga Hardesty

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(01 1947A e 2 cc: Hon. Kimberly A. Wanker, District Judge Nancy Lord Nye County District Attorney Nye County Clerk Stan Hunterton, Bar Counsel Supreme Court Law Librarian

(0) 1947A .e> 3