IN RE DISCIPLINE OF ROVACCHI, 38769 (Nev. 5-9-2002)

IN RE: DISCIPLINE OF RONALD W. ROVACCHI

No. 38769.Supreme Court of Nevada.
May 9, 2002.

ORDER OF DISBARMENT BEFORE: MAUPIN, C.J., YOUNG, J., SHEARING, J., AGOSTI, J., ROSE, J., LEAVITT, J., BECKER, J.

This is an automatic appeal from a Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board hearing panel’s recommendation that attorney Ronald W. Rovacchi be disbarred. Rovacchi was temporarily suspended on January 19, 2001. The amended disciplinary complaint included eleven counts, and charged Rovacchi with nine violations of SCR 115 (suspended attorneys), one violation of SCR 152 (scope of representation), three violations of SCR 153 (diligence), eleven violations of SCR 154 (communication), one violation of SCR 156 (confidentiality), one violation of SCR 157 (conflict of interest), ten violations of SCR 165 (safekeeping property), two violations of SCR 166 (declining or terminating representation), one violation of SCR 172 (candor before the tribunal), one violation of SCR 183 (dealing with unrepresented persons), ten violations of SCR 200(2) (failure to respond to disciplinary authority), and eleven violations of SCR 203 (misconduct). The complaint alleges that Rovacchi retained over $200,000 in misappropriated funds and unearned fees.

Rovacchi was personally served with copies of the amended complaint, a notice of intent to take default, and notice of the formal hearing before the panel.[1] He failed to answer the complaint or respond to the state bar, and did not appear at the formal hearing. The panel therefore granted bar counsel’s motion to proceed on a default basis under SCR 150(2), and the charges in the complaint were deemed admitted. The panel recommended that Rovacchi be disbarred.

Having reviewed the record, we agree that disbarment is warranted. Accordingly, Ronald W. Rovacchi is hereby disbarred. To the extent not completed for the temporary suspension, Rovacchi and the state bar shall comply with the notice provisions of SCR 115. Rovacchi shall pay the costs of the disciplinary proceedings to the state bar within thiry days of the date of this order.

[1] We note that bar counsel expended great effort to ensure that Rovacchi received actual notice of the proceedings, well in excess of the duties imposed by SCR 109.
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