In Re: Discipline of Judith Braecklein

CourtNevada Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 29, 2015
Docket66866
StatusUnpublished

This text of In Re: Discipline of Judith Braecklein (In Re: Discipline of Judith Braecklein) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re: Discipline of Judith Braecklein, (Neb. 2015).

Opinion

that Braecklein be suspended from the practice of law for six months and

one day and, as a condition of reinstatement, that Braecklein be required

to retake the MPRE and attend at least 3 hours of CLE specifically

relating to the handling of IOLTA trust accounts. Finally, the panel

recommended that Braecklein be required to pay the costs associated with

the proceedings, pursuant to SCR 120.

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), and therefore we "must

examine the record anew and exercise independent judgment," In re

Discipline of Schaefer, 117 Nev. 496, 515, 25 P.3d 191, 204 (2001).

Although we are not bound by the disciplinary panel's recommendations,

those recommendations are persuasive. Id. The State Bar has the burden

of showing by clear and convincing evidence that Braecklein committed

the violations charged. In re Discipline of Drakulich, 111 Nev. 1556, 1566,

908 P.2d 709, 715 (1995). In determining the appropriate discipline, this

court considers 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, 1077-78 (2008).

While we conclude that clear and convincing evidence

supports the panel's findings of misconduct, we do not agree that the

panel's recommended discipline is commensurate with the misconduct

committed. Accordingly, we hereby suspend Judith Braecklein from the

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) I94Th practice of law for one year commencing from the date of this order. We

further approve the reinstatement conditions recommended by the hearing

panel with the added condition that restitution, if any, be paid in full.

Finally, Braecklein shall pay the costs associated with the disciplinary

proceedings within 30 days from her receipt of the State Bar's bill of costs,

see SCR 120, and shall comply with SCR 115 and SCR 116. The State Bar shall comply with SCR 121.1.

It is so ORDERED.

,J

, J.

Gibbons Pickering

cc: Chair, Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board Judith H. Braecklein Bar Counsel, State Bar of Nevada Kimberly K. Farmer, Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada Perry Thompson, Admissions Officer, U.S. Supreme Court

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947.4 es.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re Discipline of Stuhff
837 P.2d 853 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1992)
In Re Discipline of Drakulich
908 P.2d 709 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1995)
In Re Discipline of Schaefer
25 P.3d 191 (Nevada Supreme Court, 2001)
In Re Discipline of Lerner
197 P.3d 1067 (Nevada Supreme Court, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
In Re: Discipline of Judith Braecklein, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-discipline-of-judith-braecklein-nev-2015.