Summary
The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed a disciplinary panel's recommendation concerning attorney Thomas C. Michaelides's violations of multiple Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct. The court imposed a 24-month suspension, stayed after six months subject to an 18-month probationary period, and ordered payment of disciplinary costs.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether clear and convincing evidence supported the charged violations of the Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct.
- Whether the hearing panel's factual findings were supported by substantial evidence and were not clearly erroneous.
- What discipline was appropriate in light of the duties violated, Michaelides's mental state, the injury caused, and aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
Holdings
- The record supported findings that Michaelides violated RPC 3.3(a)(1), RPC 3.4(b), RPC 4.1(a), RPC 4.2, RPC 5.3(b), and RPC 8.4(a) and (c).
- The court defers to the hearing panel's factual findings when they are supported by substantial evidence and are not clearly erroneous, while independently reviewing the recommended discipline de novo.
- A 24-month suspension was appropriate, with six months of actual suspension and the remaining 18 months stayed subject to probationary conditions.
Key quotations
“The State Bar has the burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that Michaelides committed the violations charged.” (at 1)
“We defer to the panel's factual findings that Michaelides violated the above-referenced rules as those findings are supported by substantial evidence and are not clearly erroneous.” (at 1)
“Turning to the appropriate discipline, we review the hearing panel's recommendation de novo.” (at 2)
“Accordingly, we hereby suspend attorney Thomas C. Michaelides from the practice of law for 24 months from the date of this order.” (at 3-4)
Factual background
An employee of Michaelides sent a falsified default judgment order directly to a represented opposing party and another party in an effort to coerce removal of a negative internet review about Michaelides. Michaelides had an opportunity to explain the circumstances to the district court but failed to do so. The falsified order was ultimately set aside, but the opposing party incurred attorney fees challenging it, and the conduct caused actual injury to the legal profession and legal system.
Procedural history
A Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board hearing panel recommended a 24-month suspension, stayed except for six months of actual suspension followed by an 18-month probationary period. No briefs were filed, so the matter was submitted on the record under SCR 105(3)(b). The Supreme Court of Nevada independently reviewed the discipline recommendation and imposed the recommended suspension and conditions.