In Re: Christopher D. Sullivan, Attorney at Law, Bar No. 8278

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 2, 2020
• Docket: 2:19-cv-02247
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 In re: Christopher D. Sullivan Case No. 2:19-cv-02247-MMD Attorney at Law, Bar No. 8278 7 ORDER OF SUSPENSION

9 10 I. SUMMARY 11 This is an attorney discipline matter. Before the Court is Christopher D. Sullivan’s 12 response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) why he should not be suspended 13 from practice before this Court following the Order Approving Conditional Guilty Plea 14 Agreement filed by the Nevada Supreme Court (“NSC”) on November 14, 2019. (ECF 15 Nos. 1 (OSC), 4 (the “Response”).) As further explained below, the Court will suspend 16 Mr. Sullivan from practice before this Court because this Court has neither the obligation, 17 resources, nor inclination to monitor Mr. Sullivan’s compliance with the probationary 18 conditions the NSC imposed on him. However, Mr. Sullivan may file a petition for 19 reinstatement once he has fully discharged those conditions and can produce a certificate 20 of good standing from the NSC reflecting the same. 21 II. BACKGROUND 22 Mr. Sullivan was suspended by the NSC following his conditional guilty plea to a 23 charge that he violated RPC 1.15 by failing to timely remove trust funds earned by his law 24 firm from the firm’s trust account, removing funds directly from the trust account without 25 first placing them in a personal bank account, and failing to timely pay liens for two 26 personal injury clients; and violated RPC 5.3 by failing to supervise a nonlawyer assistant 27 who falsified documents and checks to steal money from Mr. Sullivan’s firm and clients. 28 (ECF No. 4 at 5-6.) While Mr. Sullivan’s suspension was stayed, he is currently subject 2 November 14, 2019. (Id. at 5, 7.) The NSC essentially requires that Mr. Sullivan retain a 3 Certified Public Accountant for one year to perform certain specified functions aimed at 4 ensuring Mr. Sullivan does not commit similar violations of the rules governing the use of 5 trust accounts that led to his guilty plea. (Id. at 7-8.) 6 This Court issued the OSC as to why Mr. Sullivan should not be suspended from 7 practice in this Court on December 3, 2019. (ECF No. 1.) Mr. Sullivan timely filed his 8 Response on December 30, 2019. (ECF No. 4.) In his Response, Mr. Sullivan argues that 9 this Court should allow him to continue practicing before it because he is still allowed to 10 practice law before the Nevada state courts by virtue of his suspension having been 11 stayed, the probationary conditions imposed by the NSC will adequately protect the public 12 going forward, and he has already taken steps to remediate his violations of the applicable 13 rules. (Id. at 2-3.) 14 III. DISCUSSION 15 This Court imposes reciprocal discipline on a member of its bar when that person 16 is suspended or otherwise disciplined by a state court unless it determines that the state’s 17 disciplinary adjudication was improper. See In re Kramer, 282 F.3d 721, 724 (9th Cir. 18 2002). Specifically, the Court will only decline to impose reciprocal discipline if the 19 attorney subject to discipline presents clear and convincing evidence that: 20 (A) the procedure in the other jurisdiction was so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to constitute a deprivation of due process; (B) there was such an 21 infirmity of proof establishing the misconduct as to give rise to a clear conviction that the court should not accept as final the other jurisdiction’s conclusion(s) on 22 that subject; (C) imposition of like discipline would result in a grave injustice; or (D) other substantial reasons justify not accepting the other jurisdiction’s 23 conclusion(s). 24 LR IA 11-7(e)(3); see also In re Kramer, 282 F.3d at 724-25 (stating that the attorney 25 bears the burden by clear and convincing evidence). 26 The Court will suspend Mr. Sullivan from practice before this Court because the 27 NSC’s disciplinary adjudication regarding Mr. Sullivan following his conditional guilty plea 28 appears to have been proper, and he presents no clear and convincing evidence to the 2 from the NSC or present any argument as to why less than the entire record will suffice. 3 See LR IA 11-7(e)(3). Substantively, while Mr. Sullivan does appear to be allowed to 4 practice in the Nevada state courts, he is also currently subject to probationary conditions 5 that this Court has neither the obligation, resources, nor inclination to monitor. (ECF No. 6 4 at 6-8.) And the Court sees no substantial reasons not to suspend Mr. Sullivan based 7 on its review of the record. See LR IA 11-7(e)(3). The Court will therefore suspend Mr. 8 Sullivan. 9 That said, Mr. Sullivan is free to petition the Court for reinstatement under LR IA 10 11-7(i) assuming he is able to successfully complete his term of probation with the NSC. 11 Any petition for reinstatement should not be filed until Mr. Sullivan has successfully 12 discharged each and every probationary condition imposed on him by the NSC, and he 13 is able to present both a certificate of good standing from the NSC and evidence sufficient 14 to establish that his practice in the Nevada state courts is fully unencumbered by any 15 probationary or other conditions stemming from his conditional guilty plea or any other 16 discipline imposed on him by the NSC. 17 IV. CONCLUSION 18 It is therefore ordered that Christopher D. Sullivan, Bar No. 8278, is hereby 19 suspended from practice in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. 20 DATED THIS 2nd day of January 2020.

22 MIRANDA M. DU 23 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28