In Re: Discipline of David Korrey

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: September 29, 2015
• Docket: 63973
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

checks written by insurance companies to Korrey's clients or his law firm.

The checks totaled several hundred thousand dollars. The panel found

that Korrey violated RPC 1.3 (diligence), RPC 1.15(d) (safekeeping

property), RPC 5.3(b) (responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistants: a

lawyer having direct supervisory authority over the nonlawyer shall make

reasonable efforts to ensure that the person's conduct is compatible with

the professional obligations of the lawyer), RPC 5.5(a)(2) (unauthorized

practice of law: assist another person in the unauthorized practice of law)

and RPC 8.4(a) (misconduct: violate or attempt to violate the RPC,

knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of

another). 2 Count 3 of the complaint concerned a client for whom Korrey

settled a personal injury claim. Alter Korrey issued a settlement check to

the client, one of Korrey's assistants engaged the client to invest the

proceeds from the settlement in which the client was to receive a monthly

payment and, in time, receive the principal sum. The client did not

receive all of the money due him from the investment. The panel found

that Korrey violated RPC 5.3(b) and RPC 8.4(a). 3 Based on these

2 The panel found that insufficient evidence supported allegations that he violated RPC 5.4 and RPC 8.1. The panel also dismissed the allegation that Korrey violated RPC 1.1.

3 Thepanel found that there was insufficient evidence that Korrey violated RPC 1.1, RPC 1.3, RPC 1.15, RPC 5.4, RPC 5.5, and RPC 8.1.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A (e) violations, the panel recommended that Korrey be given a public

reprimand and pay the costs of the disciplinary proceedings.

This court's automatic review of a disciplinary panel's findings

and recommendations is de novo. SCR 105(3)(b); In re Discipline of Stuhff,

108 Nev. 629, 633, 837 P.2d 853, 855 (1992). "Although the

recommendations of the disciplinary panel are persuasive, this court is not bound by the panel's findings and recommendation, and must examine the

record anew and exercise independent judgment." In re Discipline of

Schaefer, 117 Nev. 496, 515, 25 P.3d 191, 204 (2001). The State Bar has

the burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that Korrey

committed the violations charged. In re Discipline of Drakulich, 111 Nev.

1556, 1566, 908 P.2d 709, 715 (1995).

After reviewing the record, we conclude that clear and convincing evidence supports the panel's findings that Korrey violated RPC 1.3, RPC 1.15(d), RPC 5.3(b), RPC 5.5(a)(2), and RPC 8.4(a) as to count 1 of the complaint. 4 We further conclude that the panel's findings that Korrey violated RPC 5.3(b) and RPC 8.4(a) as to count 3 of the complaint are not supported by clear and convincing evidence. However, we conclude that the panel's recommendation of a public reprimand is insufficient in relation to Korrey's conduct. Therefore, we reject the panel's recommended discipline and remand this matter to the Southern

4 Contrary to Korrey's contentions, we conclude that sufficient evidence supports the aggravating factors found.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1941A e Nevada Disciplinary Board to reassess the discipline in this matter. 5 It is so ORDEID.

•Lank , C.J. Hardesty

J. Parraguirre

letleill—OL.--- Saitta Pidem , J.

CHERRY, J., with whom, GIBBONS, J., agrees, dissenting:

We dissent. We would approve the recommended' discipline of a public remand as it is appropriate under the circumstances.

cc: Chair, Southern Nevada Disciplinary Panel Law Offices of David M. Korrey Bar Counsel, State Bar of Nevada

°This order constitutes our final disposition of this matter. Any further proceedings concerning Korrey shall be docketed as a new matter.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 4 (0) 1.947A .(141PF,