In Re: D. Bryce Finley, Attorney at Law, Bar No. 9310

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 7, 2020
• Docket: 2:20-cv-00023
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 In re: D. Bryce Finley Case No. 2:20-cv-00023-MMD Attorney at Law, Bar No. 9310 7 ORDER OF SUSPENSION

9 10 I. SUMMARY 11 This is an attorney discipline matter. Before the Court is D. Bryce Finley’s response 12 to the Court’s Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) why he should not be suspended from 13 practice before this Court following the Order Approving Conditional Guilty Plea 14 Agreement filed by the Nevada Supreme Court (“NSC”) on December 12, 2019. (ECF 15 Nos. 1 (OSC), 3 (the “Response”).) As further explained below, the Court will suspend 16 Mr. Finley from practice before this Court because this Court has neither the obligation, 17 resources, nor inclination to monitor Mr. Finley’s compliance with the probationary 18 conditions the NSC imposed on him. However, Mr. Finley 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. Finley was suspended by the NSC following his conditional guilty plea to a 23 charge that he violated a diversion and mentoring agreement he had previously entered 24 into pursuant to SCR 105.5 by abandoning his practice and his clients, failing to perform 25 legal services for which he was hired, and failed to keep his clients appraised of their 26 cases’ status. (ECF No. 3 at 5-6.) While Mr. Finley’s suspension was stayed for two years, 27 he is currently subject to several probationary conditions imposed by the NSC running for 28 eighteen months from December 12, 2019. (Id. at 5, 7.) The NSC’s probationary 2 make monthly restitution payments of at least $750 per month until all restitution he owes 3 is paid; (3) continue treatment with the Lawyer’s Assistance Program (including the 4 submission of monthly reports regarding his treatment); (4) obtain a mentor (who will 5 submit quarterly reports to the State Bar); and (5) pay the costs of his disciplinary 6 proceedings. (Id. at 7.) 7 This Court issued the OSC as to why Mr. Finley should not be suspended from 8 practice in this Court on December 18, 2019. (ECF No. 1.) Mr. Finley timely filed his 9 Response on January 3, 2020. (ECF No. 3.) In his Response, Mr. Finley argues that this 10 Court should allow him to continue practicing before it because he is still allowed to 11 practice law before the Nevada state courts by virtue of his suspension having been 12 stayed, he took responsibility for his actions in entering into a guilty plea, and agreed to 13 the punishment recommended by the State Bar. (Id. at 1-2.) 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. Finley from practice before this Court because the 27 NSC’s disciplinary adjudication regarding Mr. Finley following his conditional guilty plea 28 appears to have been proper, and he presents no clear and convincing evidence to the 2 the NSC or present any argument as to why less than the entire record will suffice. See 3 LR IA 11-7(e)(3). Substantively, while Mr. Finley does appear to be allowed to practice in 4 the Nevada state courts, he is also currently subject to probationary conditions that this 5 Court has neither the obligation, resources, nor inclination to monitor. (ECF No. 3 at 7.) 6 And the Court sees no substantial reasons not to suspend Mr. Finley based on its review 7 of the record. See LR IA 11-7(e)(3). The Court will therefore suspend Mr. Finley. 8 That said, Mr. Finley is free to petition the Court for reinstatement under LR IA 11- 9 7(i) assuming he is able to successfully complete his term of probation with the NSC. Any 10 petition for reinstatement should not be filed until Mr. Finley has successfully discharged 11 each and every probationary condition imposed on him by the NSC, and he is able to 12 present both a certificate of good standing from the NSC and evidence sufficient to 13 establish that his practice in the Nevada state courts is fully unencumbered by any 14 probationary or other conditions stemming from his conditional guilty plea or any other 15 discipline imposed on him by the NSC. 16 IV. CONCLUSION 17 It is therefore ordered that D. Bryce Finley, Bar No. 9310, is hereby suspended 18 from practice in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. 19 DATED THIS 7th day of January 2020.

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