In Re: Discipline of Stanley Walton

Nevada Supreme Court

In Re: Discipline of Stanley Walton

DecidedJune 11, 2014

Docket64914

StatusUnpublished

This text of In Re: Discipline of Stanley Walton (In Re: Discipline of Stanley Walton) 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 Stanley Walton, (Neb. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

matters) (five violations), and RPC 8.4 (misconduct) (seven violations). The panel also found the following aggravating factors, pursuant to SCR 102.5: dishonest or selfish motive; a pattern of misconduct; multiple offenses; bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with rules or orders; submission of false evidence, false statements, or other deceptive practices during the disciplinary hearing; refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct; vulnerability of victim; substantial experience in the practice of law; indifference to making restitution; and illegal conduct. The panel found no mitigating factors. Based on these findings, the panel recommended that Walton be disbarred from the practice of law in Nevada and that he be required to pay the costs of the disciplinary proceeding. A decision of a panel of the Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board recommending disbarment is subject to automatic review by this court. SCR 105(3)(b). Although persuasive, the panel's findings and recommendations are not binding on this court. In re Discipline of Droz, 123 Nev. 163, 168, 160 P.3d 881, 884 (2007). "This court must review the record de novo and exercise its independent judgment to determine whether and what type of discipline is warranted." Id. at 168, 160 P.3d at 884-85 (quoting In re Discipline of Stuhff, 108 Nev. 629, 633, 837 P.2d 853, 855 (1992)). The panel's findings of misconduct must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. In re Discipline of Drakulich, 111 Nev. 1556, 1566, 908 P.2d 709, 715 (1995). SCR 105(2) provides that if an attorney fails to plead in response to a State Bar complaint, the charges shall be deemed admitted. We conclude that the allegations in the third, fourth, and fifth complaints

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A e are deemed admitted.' We further conclude that clear and convincing evidence supports the panel's findings. Finally, we conclude that the State Bar's recommended discipline is appropriate in light of the severe nature of Walton's misconduct. Accordingly, we disbar Walton from the practice of law in Nevada. Such disbarment is irrevocable. See SCR 102(1). Further, Walton shall pay the costs of the disciplinary proceedings within 30 days of receipt of the Nevada State Bar's bill of costs. See SCR 120. It is so ORDERED.

C.J. Gibbons

17( (MA wk. n peri_ti Pickering Hardesty

aAli J. Parraguil etre2fr Douglas

Itt:cd„

Saitta

Walton filed answers to the first and second complaints denying any misconduct. He failed to respond to these matters once this court remanded them for further development. Nevertheless, this court reviewed the answers prior to deciding this matter. He also failed to answer the third, fourth, and fifth complaints or attend the disciplinary hearing.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A cc: Jeffrey R. Albregts, Chair Southern Nevada Disciplinary Panel David Clark, Bar Counsel Stanley A. Walton • Kimberly Farmer, Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada Perry Thompson, Admissions Office, U.S. Supreme Court

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 4 (0) I907A

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

matters) (five violations), and RPC 8.4 (misconduct) (seven violations). The panel also found the following aggravating factors, pursuant to SCR 102.5: dishonest or selfish motive; a pattern of misconduct; multiple offenses; bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with rules or orders; submission of false evidence, false statements, or other deceptive practices during the disciplinary hearing; refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct; vulnerability of victim; substantial experience in the practice of law; indifference to making restitution; and illegal conduct. The panel found no mitigating factors. Based on these findings, the panel recommended that Walton be disbarred from the practice of law in Nevada and that he be required to pay the costs of the disciplinary proceeding. A decision of a panel of the Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board recommending disbarment is subject to automatic review by this court. SCR 105(3)(b). Although persuasive, the panel's findings and recommendations are not binding on this court. In re Discipline of Droz, 123 Nev. 163, 168, 160 P.3d 881, 884 (2007). "This court must review the record de novo and exercise its independent judgment to determine whether and what type of discipline is warranted." Id. at 168, 160 P.3d at 884-85 (quoting In re Discipline of Stuhff, 108 Nev. 629, 633, 837 P.2d 853, 855 (1992)). The panel's findings of misconduct must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. In re Discipline of Drakulich, 111 Nev. 1556, 1566, 908 P.2d 709, 715 (1995). SCR 105(2) provides that if an attorney fails to plead in response to a State Bar complaint, the charges shall be deemed admitted. We conclude that the allegations in the third, fourth, and fifth complaints

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A e are deemed admitted.' We further conclude that clear and convincing evidence supports the panel's findings. Finally, we conclude that the State Bar's recommended discipline is appropriate in light of the severe nature of Walton's misconduct. Accordingly, we disbar Walton from the practice of law in Nevada. Such disbarment is irrevocable. See SCR 102(1). Further, Walton shall pay the costs of the disciplinary proceedings within 30 days of receipt of the Nevada State Bar's bill of costs. See SCR 120. It is so ORDERED.