In Re: Discipline of William O'Mara

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: November 10, 2015
• Docket: 67908
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

and he he formal hearing about the true identity of Maureen Lidster, a letter enied that the Maureen Lidster named in the will was his wife in of the o the State Bar. The State Bar filed a complaint alleging violations interest: ollowing rules of professional conduct: RPC 1.8(c) (conflict of al), RPC current clients: specific rules), RPC 3.3 (candor towards the tribun ssion and 4.1 (truthfulness in statements to others), RPC 8.1(a) (bar admi that the disciplinary matters), and RPC 8.4 (misconduct). The panel found incing violations alleged in the complaint were proven by clear and conv dishonest evidence. The panel found the following aggravating factors: (1) ents; or or selfish motive; (2) submission of false evidence; false statem refusal to other deceptive practices during the disciplinary hearing; (3) antial acknowledge the wrongful nature of the conduct; and (4) subst lack of experience in the practice of law. The panel found that O'Mara's ating prior disciplinary history and character and reputation were mitig from factors. Further, the panel recommended that O'Mara be suspended plinary the practice of law for six months and pay the costs of the disci proceeding. This court's automatic review of a disciplinary panel's findings f, and recommendations is de novo. SCR 105(3)(b); In re Discipline of Stuhf h the 108 Nev. 629, 633, 837 P.2d 853, 855 (1992). "Althoug is not recommendations of the disciplinary panel are persuasive, this court ine the bound by the panels findings and recommendation, and must exam Discipline of record anew and exercise independent judgment." In re Bar has Schaefer, 117 Nev. 496, 515, 25 P.3d 191, 204 (2001). The State O'Mara the burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that , 111 Nev. committed the violations charged. In re Discipline of Drakulich 1556, 1566, 908 P.2d 709, 715 (1995).

SUPREME COURT Of NEVADA

2 (0) 1947A While we conclude that clear and convincing evidence upports the panel's findings of misconduct, we do not agree that the aners recommended discipline is commensurate with the misconduct ommitted. Therefore, we hereby suspend William Michael O'Mara from ated the practice of law for one year. O'Mara shall pay the costs associ the with the disciplinary proceedings within 30 days from his receipt of 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.

Pickering

SAITTA, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part: I write separately to express my deep concern about the conduct in this case. Although I support the majority in its rejection of the recommended discipline, I do not believe that one year is an adequate period of suspension for such troubling behavior. I first note that the reputation and character, as well as the and, lack of prior disciplinary proceedings, are significant considerations not in fact, are properly noted as mitigating evidence in this matter. I do the take issue with this evidence. A longtime, well-respected member of bar is entitled to such deference. However, this case presents not only a dishonest and self- in serving motive in the first instance where Mr. O'Mara drafted a will

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 7) 1947A (1 is then hich personal financial gain seems to be the intent, but that act in court ompounded by repeated false and misleading representations by such roceedings, a deposition, and a formal hearing occasioned O'Mara isrepresentations. Finally, in a letter to the State Bar, Mr. . continued to deny the true facts and the identity of the beneficiary The ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, dards, Compendium of Professional Responsibility Rules and Stan ct that Standards 5.11 and 5.12 (2015 5th ed.), discusses the types of condu e with warrant serious discipline. These include intentional interferenc or fraud. the administration of justice, false swearing, misrepresentation, Each of these factors is present in this matter. I struggle to write separately and to point out the evidence discipline discussed above, yet it is the factual foundation upon which this rted by proceeding rests. There is no dispute that this evidence was suppo efore, I clear and convincing evidence in the State Bar proceeding. Ther cannot support a one-year suspension in light otsuch conduct.

J. Saitta

HARDESTY, C.J., and GIBBONS, JJ., dissenting:

Taking into consideration the mitigating factors, we agree ient. We with the disciplinary panel that a six-month suspension is suffic therefore dissent. C.J. Hard

, J. Gibbons SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 4 (0) 1947A ,AZIE19> Chair, Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board William B. Terry, Chartered Stan Hunterton, Bar Counsel, State Bar of Nevada Kimberly Farmer, Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada Perry Thompson, Admissions Office, United States Supreme Court

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 5 (0) 1947A