IN RE DISCIPLINE OF MORRISON, 42845 (Nev. 9-9-2004)

IN RE: DISCIPLINE OF JEFFREY D. MORRISON.

No. 42845.Supreme Court of Nevada.
September 9, 2004.

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

ORDER OF SUSPENSION
This is an automatic appeal from a Northern Nevada Disciplinary Board hearing panel’s recommendation that attorney Jeffrey D. Morrison be suspended from the practice of law for six months and one day, retroactive to September 4, 2003, the effective date of his temporary suspension under SCR 102(4)(a).[1]

At the formal hearing, Morrison entered a conditional guilty plea and admitted violating SCR 151 (competence), SCR 153 (diligence), SCR 154 (communication), and SCR 200(2) (bar association and disciplinary matters). After the hearing, the panel issued its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order approving his conditional guilty plea, and recommended Morrison’s suspension from the practice of law for six months and one day, retroactive to September 4, 2003.

We agree with the panel that Morrison’s admissions constitute clear and convincing evidence of professional misconduct sufficient to warrant the imposition of discipline and conclude that the panel’s findings are supported by clear and convincing evidence.[2] We further note that Morrison engaged in a similar pattern of ignoring his clients, the bar and this court in previous discipline matters. Consequently, the recommended discipline is appropriate.

Accordingly, we approve the panel’s recommendation. Morrison shall be suspended from the practice of law for six months and one day, retroactive to September 4, 2003.[3] Additionally, Morrison shall pay the costs of the disciplinary proceeding within thirty days after the state bar issues the bill of costs.

It is so ORDERED.[4]

[1] See In re: Discipline of Jeffrey Morrison, Docket No. 41907 (Order of Temporary Suspension, August 20, 2003); SCR 102(4)(c) (providing that a temporary suspension is effective fifteen days from the order’s entry).
[2] SCR 105(2)(e); In re Stuhff, 108 Nev. 629, 634-35, 837 P.2d 853, 856 (1992).
[3] We note that since the suspension is for more than six months, Morrison may not practice law until this court orders his reinstatement. See SCR 116(1). Since the suspension is retroactive to September 4, 2003, however, Morrison may immediately apply to the disciplinary board for reinstatement.
[4] This is our final disposition of this matter. Any new proceedings concerning Morrison shall be docketed under a new docket number.
jdjungle

Share
Published by
jdjungle

Recent Posts

KAPLAN v. DUTRA, 132 Nev. Adv. Opn. 80 (2016)

No. 69065. 132 Nev. Adv. Opn. 80 DAVID JOHN KAPLAN, Appellant, v. CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE,…

9 years ago

MAYO v. EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, 132 Nev. Adv. Opn. 79 (2016)

No. 69566. 132 Nev. Adv. Opn. 79 ANTHONY MAYO, Petitioner, v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT…

9 years ago

PACIFIC WESTERN BANK v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, 132 Nev. Adv. Opn. 78 (2016)

No. 69048. 132 Nev. Adv. Opn. 78 PACIFIC WESTERN BANK, A CALIFORNIA BANKING CORPORATION, Petitioner,…

9 years ago

BOWMAN v. STATE, 132 Nev. Adv. Opn. 74 (2016)

No. 67656. 132 Nev. Adv. Opn. 74 FREDRICK LEWIS BOWMAN, A/K/A FREDERICK LEWIS BOWMAN, Appellant,…

9 years ago

WILLIAMS v. STATE, 118 Nev. 1159 (2002)

106 P.3d 1269 DARRYL WILLIAMS v. STATE. No. 39177.Supreme Court of Nevada. May 09, 2002.…

9 years ago

LARA v. DIST. CT., 122 Nev. 1697 (2006)

Lara v. District Court. No. 46284.Supreme Court of Nevada. March 24, 2006. [EDITOR'S NOTE: This…

9 years ago