IN MATTER OF JONES, 43505 (Nev. 7-15-2004)

No. 43505.Supreme Court of Nevada.
July 15, 2004.

Before SHEARING, C.J. AGOSTI, J. ROSE, J. BECKER, J. MAUPIN, J. GIBBONS, J. DOUGLAS, J.

ORDER OF TEMPORARY SUSPENSION
This is a petition under SCR 102(4)(a) by the Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board for an order temporarily suspending attorney Andrew P. Jones from the practice of law, pending the resolution of formal disciplinary proceedings against him.[1] The petition also seeks restrictions on Jones’ handling of funds.[2]

The petition and supporting documentation demonstrate that Jones has apparently abandoned his practice without communicating with his clients or providing for safekeeping of their files, and that a bench warrant has been issued for his arrest based on his failure to appear at a preliminary hearing concerning charges pending against him in justice’s court. Also, on at least four occasions, he has failed to respond to inquiries from the state bar concerning disciplinary complaints against him by clients and other counsel. Finally, he has failed to keep the state bar informed of his current address.[3]

SCR 102(4)(a) provides, in pertinent part:

On the petition of a disciplinary board, signed by its chairman or vice chairman, supported by an affidavit alleging facts personally known to the affiant which shows that an attorney appears to be posing a substantial threat of serious harm to the public, the supreme court may issue an order, with notice as the court may prescribe, imposing an immediate temporary suspension of the attorney. . . .

In addition, SCR 102(4)(b) provides that this court may place restrictions on an attorney’s handling of funds.

We conclude that the documentation before us demonstrates that Jones poses a substantial threat of serious harm, and that his immediate temporary suspension is warranted.[4] We further conclude that Jones’ handling of funds should be restricted.

Accordingly, Jones is temporarily suspended from the practice of law, pending the resolution of formal disciplinary proceedings against him. In addition, Jones shall be prohibited from withdrawing funds in his client trust account, or from any other account containing funds belonging to third parties, except upon written approval of bar counsel or by order of a court of competent jurisdiction. The State Bar shall forthwith serve Jones with a copy of this order. When served on either Jones or a depository in which he maintains an account, this order shall constitute an injunction against withdrawal of the proceeds except in accordance with the terms of this order.[5]

It is so ORDERED.[6]