IN RE REINSTATEMENT OF WEINSTOCK, 40435 (Nev. 7-7-2005)

No. 40435.Supreme Court of Nevada.
July 7, 2005.

Before: BECKER, C.J., ROSE, J., MAUPIN, J., GIBBONS, J., DOUGLAS, J., PARRAGUIRRE, J.

ORDER REVOKING REINSTATEMENT AND SETTING DEADLINE FOR SATISFACTION OF CONDITION
This matter began as attorney Arnold Weinstock’s petition for reinstatement from a disciplinary suspension. On December 9, 2002, this court reinstated Weinstock to the practice of law, subject to a one-year probation period with three conditions. One of the conditions required Weinstock to pass the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination (MPRE) within six months of his reinstatement.

In late 2004, we received information indicating that Weinstock may not have satisfied the condition that he pass the MPRE. Accordingly, we directed the state bar to transmit a status report, which has been filed, together with the bar’s supplement. The status report indicates that Weinstock has not yet passed the MPRE, despite two extensions of time from the state bar within which to do so.[1] The supplement includes an affidavit from Weinstock, in which he acknowledged that he should not be permitted to practice until the condition is satisfied. Weinstock stated that he would cease practicing effective April 30, 2005. He asked that this court permit him to be reinstated when he passes the MPRE, without having to recommence reinstatement proceedings under SCR 116.

Weinstock’s reinstatement was specifically conditioned on his passing the MPRE. Since he failed to do so, we revoke his reinstatement. But having considered the status report and supplement, we conclude that Weinstock’s request should be granted in part. Weinstock shall have one year from the date of this order within which to pass the MPRE. If he does so, then he shall be reinstated immediately upon submission to this court of proof that he has passed the exam. If he fails to pass the test within one year, then he must recommence reinstatement proceedings under SCR 116 after he has passed the MPRE.

It is so ORDERED.

HARDESTY, dissenting:

This court’s December 9, 2002 order clearly conditioned Weinstock’s reinstatement on his successful passage of the MPRE within six months. Weinstock failed to meet this condition, and despite two extensions from the state bar, he has yet to pass the test. I dissent, because I would adhere to the December order’s express terms, revoke Weinstock’s reinstatement, and require him to petition for reinstatement under SCR 116.