bar counsel report April 2013 - State Bar of Nevada · bar counsel report April 2013 April 2013 Nevada Lawyer 37 continued on page 38 December 20, indicated “Ronald N. Serota, Esq.”

bar counsel reportApril 2013

36 Nevada Lawyer April 2013

sUPREME cOURT OF NEVadain re: david K. arase docket No.: 59717Filed: February 22, 2013

ORdER OF aPPROViNG cONdiTiONaL PLEa aGREEMENT aNd ENJOiNiNG aTTORNEY FROM PRacTiciNG LaW iN NEVada

California attorney enjoined from practicing in Nevada for three years after he failed to perform work on behalf of Nevada clients regarding their foreclosures and/or short sales.

ThisisanautomaticreviewofaSouthernNevadaDisciplinaryBoardhearingpanel’srecommendationthatweapproveCaliforniaattorneyDavidK.Arase’sconditionalguiltypleaagreeingtoaninjunctionprohibitinghimforpracticinglawinNevada.1SeeSCR113(1),(3);SCR105(3)(b).Arase,whoisnotlicensedtopracticelawin Nevada, was affiliated with a non-attorney company advertisingforeclosureandshortsalerelatedlegalservicesnationwide.SeveralNevadahomeownerscontactedthecompany,andthecompanyreferredtheseNevadaclientstoArase.HeacceptedandretainedtheseNevadaclients,butfailedtoperformworkontheirbehalves.WhencontactedbytheStateBarofNevada,itisallegedthatArase claimed he was affiliated with a Nevada-licensed attorney,whenhewasnot.

Underthepleaagreement,Araseadmittedtothefollowingethicalviolations:RPC1.1(competence);RPC1.3(diligence);RPC1.5(fees);RPC4.1(truthfulnessinstatementstoothers);RPC5.5(unauthorizedpracticeoflaw);RPC7.1(communicationsconcerningalawyer’sservices);RPC7.2(k)(advertising);andRPC7.5A(registration of multijurisdictional law firms).2Theagreementprovidesforathree-yearinjunctionfromthepracticeoflawinNevada,whereinAraseisprohibitedfromworkinginNevadaoracceptingNevadaclientsormattersrelatedtoforeclosures, loan modifications or residential real estate. TheagreementalsoprovidesthatifAraseseekstopracticeagaininNevadaafterthetermoftheinjunction,eitherprohacviceorasanapplicanttoourstate’sbar,hemustdisclosetheinstantcaseinanyapplication.Further,heisrequiredtopaythecostsofthedisciplinaryproceedingswithin30days.

Afterreviewingtherecordoftheinstantdisciplinaryproceedings,weapprovetheconditionalpleaagreementinitsentirety.3SeeSCR113(1).Therefore,AraseisherebyenjoinedfromthepracticeoflawinNevadaforthreeyearsfrom the date of the filing of this order. This injunction includesallareasoflegalpractice,includingforeclosures,loan modifications and any matter dealing with residential realestate.Wefurtherrequirethat,shouldArasewishto

everpracticelawinNevadaagain,eitherasaNevadaattorneyorprohacvice,hedisclosethisinstantdisciplinarymatterinanyapplicationshemaysubmittothiscourtortheStateBarofNevada.Finally,Arasemustpaythecostsofthedisciplinaryproceedingswithin30daysfromthedateofthisorder.

ItissoORDERED.

sOUThERN NEVada disciPLiNaRY BOaRdPUBLic REPRiMaNd

in re: Ronald N. serota Bar No.: 7904File No.: sG12-0103Filed: January 23, 2013

Public Reprimand imposed when suspended attorney engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.

TO:RONALDN.SEROTAOnNovember18,2009,theSupremeCourtofNevada

(SupremeCourt)temporarilysuspendedyoufromthepracticeoflawduetoyouradmittedmisappropriationofapproximately$319,000fromyourtrustaccount.Yoursuspendedstatusprohibitsyoufromholdingyourselfoutasanattorney,assuchconductconstitutesthepracticeoflawpursuanttoRuleofProfessionalConduct(RPC)5.5(d)(2)(iii)(UnauthorizedPracticeofLaw).

On December 8, 2011, you filed a proper person complaintintheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheDistrictofNevadatitledRonald N. Serota, Esq. v. Desert Cab, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:11-cv0196. A caption on the first page of thecomplaintstated“RonaldN.Serota.AttorneyatLaw,NevadaBarNo.007904.”Further,thesignaturepageofthecomplaintcontainedthecaptionRonaldSerota,Esq.,BarNo.7904.

Yourcomplaintdidnotdisclosethatyourlicensewassuspended.

You also filed a First Amended Certificate of interested Parties on December 12, 2011. This certificate also listed “RonaldN.Serota,AttorneyatLaw,NevadaBarNo.007904.” The signature page for both the certificate and the Certificate of Mailing indicated “RONALD N. SEROTA, ESQ.,NevadaBar#007904.”

You did not disclose anywhere in either certificate that yourlicensewassuspended.

OnDecember21,2011,yousentaletterregardingyourcomplainttoSusanMartinovich,DirectoroftheNevadaDepartmentofTransportation(NDOT).Martinovichisnotanattorney.Theletterheadonyourletter,dated


April 2013 Nevada Lawyer 37

continued on page 38

December20,indicated“RonaldN.Serota,Esq.”withnodisclaimersregardingyoursuspendedstatus.ThesignatureblockonyourletterofDecember20alsoindicated“RonaldN.Serota,Esq.”withnodisclaimersindicatingyoursuspendedstatus.

YourletterwasforwardedbyMartinovichtoDennisGallagher,ChiefDeputyAttorneyGeneral.Gallagherrealizedthatyourlicensewassuspendedafterresearchingyournameonthe“FindaLawyer”sectionofthestatebar’swebsiteandGallagherthereaftersubmittedhislettertothestatebar.

YouacknowledgedthattheconductdescribedaboveviolatedtheRulesofProfessionalConductdetailedbelow,butnotedthatyourconductwasnegligentratherthanIntentional.YoualsonotedthatInDecember2011,youdisclosedyoursuspendedstatustothefederaldistrictcourtinamotionseekingtoascertainwhetheryoucouldcontinueusing the electronic filing account that you were assigned whilepermittedtopracticelaw.

Inlightoftheforegoing,youviolatedRPC4.1(TruthfulnessinStatementtoOthers);RPC5.5(UnauthorizedPracticeofLaw);RPC7.1(CommunicationConcerningaLawyer’sServices);andRPC7.5(FirmNamesandLetterheads);andareherebyPUBLICLYREPRIMANDED.

LETTERs OF REPRiMaNd

File No. sG10-0917Letter of Reprimand appropriate when attorney failed to promptly distribute settlement funds.

ClientretainedAttorneytorepresentherinapersonalinjurymatterfollowinganaccidentinApril2004.AttorneysettledherclaiminApril2007for$10,000.

InApril2008,ClientcomplainedtotheStateBarofNevadathatAttorneywasimproperlyholdinghersettlement funds and was not acting diligently to finalize thedistribution.AttorneyrespondedthatthemoneywasbeingretainedinhisattorneytrustaccountuntilhecouldresolveasubrogationlienwithMedicare.Basedonhisrepresentation,apriorscreeningpaneldismissedtheinitialgrievanceinJuly2008.

OnNovember19,2010,Clientsentanothergrievancelettertothestatebarstatingthatshestillhadnotreceivedhersettlementfunds.InAttorney’sresponse,heindicatedthathewasunawarethatthefundshadnotbeendistributed and that upon obtaining the file from storage, he noticed that the settlement check was still in the file andhadgonestale.AttorneysubsequentlycontactedtheinsurancecompanyandhadanewcheckissuedwhichwasdatedApril18,2011.AttorneyalsoresolvedtheremaininglienandprovidedasigneddisbursementfromClientandacopyofachecktoherdatedAugust24,2011.

NevadaRuleofProfessionalConduct1.4(Communication)requiresalawyertokeeptheclientreasonablyinformedregardingthestatusoftheircaseandpromptlycomplywithreasonablerequestsforinformation.Inthisinstance,anattorneyshouldhavetakenthetimetokeepClientapprisedregardingthestatusofdistributionofhersettlementfunds.

NevadaRuleofProfessionalConduct1.15(SafekeepingProperty)requiresanattorneytoprotectaclient’ssettlementfundsandtakereasonablemeasurestotimelydistributesettlementfunds.Inthismatter,ittookAttorneymorethanfouryearstodistributethesettlementfunds.

Lastly,NevadaRuleofProfessionalConduct8.1(b)statesthatalawyershallnotknowinglyfailtorespondtoademandforinformationfromadisciplinaryauthority.Inthismatter,AttorneyfailedtoadequatelyrespondtothestatebarregardingthestatusofthedistributionofClient’ssettlementfundsand,infact,misrepresentedtothestatebarthatClient’ssettlementfundswerebeingmaintainedinthetrustaccount.

Accordingly,AttorneywasREPRiMaNdEd forhavingviolatedRulesofProfessionalConduct(RPC)1.4(Communication);RPC1.15(SafekeepingProperty);and8.1(BarAdmissionandDisciplinaryMatters).

File No. sG11-0809Letter of Reprimand appropriate when attorney failed to adequately account for a retainer.

ClientsubmittedagrievancetothestatebarcontainingallegationsofprofessionalmisconductbyAttorney.ClientretainedAttorneyinNovember2007torepresenthisbusiness.

ClientgaveAttorneya$5,000retainerforfuturework.Clientprovidedacopyofthe$5,000checkandabillinginvoiceprintedfromAttorney’sletterhead.ThebillinginvoicewasdatedMarch31,2009,andwasaddressedtoClient’sotherbusiness,Client,Inc.Thefeewasfor“receiptandreviewcomplaint;conferencewithClient.”Thechargewas$350.

ClientstatedthatheattemptedtogetthebalanceofhisretainerfromAttorneyandprovidedacopyofaletterdatedMay9,2009,thatstatedthebalanceof$4,650shouldbereturnedtohimimmediately.TheletteracknowledgedtheMarch2009invoiceandthatthe$350“willcoverservicesprovidedtoAttorneyandleavemewith$4,650returnonmyinitialretainer.”

ClientallegedthathehadnothadanycontactwithAttorneyafterthatletterwassent.

AttorneyrespondedtothestatebarstatingthatthecaseappearedtobeafeedisputeandrequestedthatthematterbedismissedandreferredtotheFeeDisputeCommittee.

DISCIPLINE KEYResignation with charges pending: SCR 98(5)(b) Types of possible discipline listed generally: SCR 102Attorneys convicted of crimes: SCR 111Conditional guilty plea agreements (discipline by consent): SCR 113Reciprocal discipline: SCR 114Disbarred/Suspended attorneys: SCR 115Reinstatement: SCR 116Disability Inactive: SCR 117Supreme Court Rules (SCRs): www.leg.state.nv.us/CourtRules/SCR.htmlDISBARMENT – License to practice revoked.SUSPENSION – License suspended for a time certain, ineligible to practice. More than six months requires petition for reinstatement and court order.DISABILITY INACTIVE – Ineligible to practice until further order of the court. In the interim, disciplinary proceedings held in abeyance.INTERIM TEMPORARY SUSPENSION – Interim suspension based on showing of a substantial threat of serious harm to the public, in effect until further court order, usually after hearing.


38 Nevada Lawyer April 2013

AttorneyallegedthathedidnotreceiveClient’sletterbutthat significant work was performed despite Client’s allegation tothecontrary.AttorneystatedthathedidnothavetheinvoicesbutreviewedcorporationdocumentsforbusinessanddocumentsforothercorporationsatClient’srequest.

ClientrespondedtoAttorney’sletterbystatingthatbusinessandClient,Inc.aretwoseparateentitiesandnotoneentity.

ThestatebarsentalettertoAttorneyrequestingthatAttorneyprovideinformationastowherethe$5,000retainerwasdepositedandacopyoftheretaineragreement.

OnSeptember23,2011,Attorneyrespondedbystatingthatthecheckwentintohisgeneralaccountbecause,“itisnotmypracticetodepositinitialretainersintothetrustaccountunlesstheyareaverylargeamountandalongleadtimeforworkisenvisioned.”

AttorneydidnothaveClient’sretaineragreementbutprovideda“formretaineragreement”thatisusedbyAttorney’s office. The retainer agreement does not state thattheretainerisearnedimmediatelyorthatitwillnotbeheldinatrustaccount.Further,theretaineragreementstatesthatamonthlybillinginvoicewillbesenttotheclient.

Amonthlater,AttorneysupplementedhisresponsetothestatebarbystatingthatadditionalworkwasfoundthatheperformedforClientsregardingresearchingalimitedliabilitycompanyandpreparingtheArticlesofOrganizationandInitialListofManagersandResidentAgent.ThiswasdoneinJanuary2008.Attorneyalsoreferencedaconsultingagreementbetweenbusinessandanothercorporation.

WhilethepanelagreedthatwhetherornotAttorney

earnedhisfeeisafeedisputeissue,thefundamentalmisapprehensionaboutsafekeepingpropertyandhowAttorneyhandledClient’sretainerwarranteddiscipline.

AttorneydidnotprovideClient’sretainertothestatebarbuttheformretaineragreementstatedthatmonthlybillingwillbebilledagainsttheretainerandaninvoicewillbepreparedeach month. It does not state that the retainer is a flat fee. Therefore,theretainermustbeheldinatrustaccount.

Accordingly,AttorneywasREPRiMaNdEd fortheviolationoftheRuleofProfessionalConduct1.15(SafekeepingProperty).ThismatterwillalsobereferredtoFeeDispute.

1.Arasewas,atalltimespertinenttothismatter,licensedtopracticelawinCalifornia.HehasneverbeenalicensedattorneyinNevada.Nonetheless,thiscourthasjurisdictiontoimposedisciplineonArase,regardlessofthefacthesnotamemberoftheStateBarofNevada.SeeSCR99(1);Matter of Discipline of Droz,123Nev.163,167-68,160P3d881,884(2007).

2. Inexchangeforthisplea,thefollowingallegedethicalviolationsweredismissed:RPC8.1(a)(baradmissionanddisciplinarymatters/makingafalsestatement):RPC8.1(b)(baradmissionanddisciplinarymatters/failuretocorrectamisapprehension)andRPC8.4(misconduct).

3.OurapprovalrestsonthefactthatAraserefundedallretainerfeesreceivedfromNevadaclientswithoutinterventionfromtheStateBarof Nevada or the courts. Further, of the five Nevada clients Arase represented, none of them filed an individual complaint against him.

RESIGNATION WITH CHARGES PENDING – Ineligible to practice. Requires Bar Counsel approval. Resignation is irrevocable, with readmission only possible upon application as a new admittee.PUBLIC REPRIMAND – Misconduct found and public censure issued, including attorney’s name and the underlying facts and charges. Published in Nevada Lawyer and made available to the press. Remains eligible to practice law.LETTER OF REPRIMAND – Lowest level of discipline. Not published, but disclosed upon request under the new rules. May also include up to a $1,000 fine and restitution. Remains eligible to practice.ADMINISTRATIVE SUSPENSION – Attorneys may be administratively suspended for failure to pay bar fees (SCR 98(12)), and/or for failure to complete and report the required Continuing Legal Education hours (SCR 212). While these are not disciplinary suspensions, the attorney is ineligible to practice law until the deficiency is remedied and the procedures to transfer back to active status completed as set forth in the applicable rules.

Documents

bar counsel report April 2013 - State Bar of Nevada · bar counsel report April 2013 April 2013 Nevada Lawyer 37 continued on page 38 December 20, indicated “Ronald N. Serota, Esq.”