In Re: Discipline of William O'Mara

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.

<in et.--call Parraguirre

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 selfin

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