Robinson v. Karosa

Nevada Supreme Court

Robinson v. Karosa

DecidedJuly 27, 2015

Docket67360

StatusUnpublished

This text of Robinson v. Karosa (Robinson v. Karosa) 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

Robinson v. Karosa, (Neb. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Law Library within 11 days of the date of this order and provide proof of such payment within 15 days. We have repeatedly stated that we expect all appeals to be "pursued in a manner meeting high standards of diligence, professionalism, and competence." Cuzdey v. State, 103 Nev. 575, 578, 747 P.2d 233, 235 (1987); accord Polk v. State, 126 Nev. 180, 184, 233 P.3d 357, 359 (2010); Barry v. Lindner, 119 Nev. 661, 671, 81 P.3d 537, 543 (2003); State, Nev. Emp't Sec. Dep't v. Weber, 100 Nev. 121, 123, 676 P.2d 1318, 1319 (1984). It is incumbent upon Mr Phillips, as part of his professional obligations of competence and diligence to his clients, to know and comply with all applicable court rules. See RPC 1.1; RPC 1.3. These rules have been implemented to promote cost-effective, timely access to the courts; it is "imperative" that he follow these rules and timely comply with our directives. Weddell v. Stewart, 127 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 58, 261 P.3d 1080, 1084 (2011). Mr. Phillips is "not at liberty to disobey notices, orders, or any other directives issued by this court." Id. at 261 P.3d at 1085. Mr. Phillips's failure to comply with our rules and orders has forced this court to divert our limited resources to ensure his compliance and needlessly delayed the processing of this appeal. Therefore, we remove Mr. Phillips as counsel in this appeal. See NRAP 31(d). Because it appears that Mr. Phillips's conduct in this appeal may constitute violations of RPC 1.3 (diligence), 3.2(a) (expediting litigation), and 8.4 (misconduct), we refer Mr. Phillips to the State Bar of Nevada for investigation pursuant to SCR 104-105. Bar counsel shall, within 90 days of the date of this order, inform this court of the status or results of the investigation and any disciplinary proceedings in this matter.

Saitta

, J.

J.

cc: Chief Judge, The Eighth Judicial District Court Hon. J. Charles Thompson, Senior Judge Nathaniel J. Reed, Settlement Judge David Lee Phillips & Associates Law Office of Daniel Marks Eighth District Court Clerk David A. Clark, Bar Counsel Supreme Court Law Librarian Loyde Robinson Alan Clark

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 947A co

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

Law Library within 11 days of the date of this order and provide proof of such payment within 15 days. We have repeatedly stated that we expect all appeals to be "pursued in a manner meeting high standards of diligence, professionalism, and competence." Cuzdey v. State, 103 Nev. 575, 578, 747 P.2d 233, 235 (1987); accord Polk v. State, 126 Nev. 180, 184, 233 P.3d 357, 359 (2010); Barry v. Lindner, 119 Nev. 661, 671, 81 P.3d 537, 543 (2003); State, Nev. Emp't Sec. Dep't v. Weber, 100 Nev. 121, 123, 676 P.2d 1318, 1319 (1984). It is incumbent upon Mr Phillips, as part of his professional obligations of competence and diligence to his clients, to know and comply with all applicable court rules. See RPC 1.1; RPC 1.3. These rules have been implemented to promote cost-effective, timely access to the courts; it is "imperative" that he follow these rules and timely comply with our directives. Weddell v. Stewart, 127 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 58, 261 P.3d 1080, 1084 (2011). Mr. Phillips is "not at liberty to disobey notices, orders, or any other directives issued by this court." Id. at 261 P.3d at 1085. Mr. Phillips's failure to comply with our rules and orders has forced this court to divert our limited resources to ensure his compliance and needlessly delayed the processing of this appeal. Therefore, we remove Mr. Phillips as counsel in this appeal. See NRAP 31(d). Because it appears that Mr. Phillips's conduct in this appeal may constitute violations of RPC 1.3 (diligence), 3.2(a) (expediting litigation), and 8.4 (misconduct), we refer Mr. Phillips to the State Bar of Nevada for investigation pursuant to SCR 104-105. Bar counsel shall, within 90 days of the date of this order, inform this court of the status or results of the investigation and any disciplinary proceedings in this matter.

Saitta

, J.

J.

cc: Chief Judge, The Eighth Judicial District Court Hon. J. Charles Thompson, Senior Judge Nathaniel J. Reed, Settlement Judge David Lee Phillips & Associates Law Office of Daniel Marks Eighth District Court Clerk David A. Clark, Bar Counsel Supreme Court Law Librarian Loyde Robinson Alan Clark

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 947A co

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Robinson v. Karosa, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robinson-v-karosa-nev-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack