IN THE MATTER OF NOHRDEN, 41244 (Nev. 4-28-2003)

IN THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINE OF PATRICK T. NOHRDEN.

No. 41244.Supreme Court of Nevada.
April 28, 2003.

ORDER OF DISBARMENT BY CONSENT
The Chair of the Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board has submitted, under SCR 112, a petition for attorney Patrick T. Nohrden’s disbarment by consent. The Chair further requests that Nohrden be prohibited from seeking reinstatement until he has made full restitution to his former clients. The petition is supported by Nohrden’s affidavit, stating that he freely and voluntarily consents to disbarment, after consulting with counsel. Nohrden acknowledges in the affidavit that the two formal disciplinary complaints filed against him by the state bar set forth violations of SCR 151 (competence), SCR 153 (diligence), SCR 154 (communication), SCR 165 (safekeeping property), SCR 187 (responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistants), SCR 200(2) (failing to respond to disciplinary authority) and SCR 203(3) (misconduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation). Nohrden further concedes that the material facts in the complaint are true. Finally, Nohrden agrees that he shall not seek reinstatement until he has made full restitution, and his affidavit sets forth the names of the former clients to which restitution shall be paid, and the amounts to be paid.

SCR 112 provides that an attorney who is the subject of a proceeding involving allegations of misconduct may consent to disbarment by delivering an affidavit to the appropriate disciplinary board, which must file it with this court. Nohrden’s affidavit meets the requirements of SCR 112(1). and we conclude that the petition should be granted. Accordingly. Nohrden is disbarred. Under SCR 116(2), he may not petition for reinstatement until three years from this order’s effective date. In addition, he shall not petition for reinstatement until he has made full restitution to his former clients, as set forth in his affidavit.[1]
The provisions of SCR 115 governing notice and publication of disbarment orders shall apply to this order.

It is so ORDERED.

AGOSTI, C.J.

SHEARING, J.

ROSE, J.

LEAVITT, J.

BECKER, J.

MAUPIN, J.

GIBBONS, J.

[1] Nohrden also asked that we consider a letter, attached as an exhibit to his affidavit, in the event he applies for reinstatement. We conclude that any consideration of the letter would be premature, and that it is not feasible for this court to retain the letter indefinitely in the event that Nohrden at some time in the future petitions for reinstatement. We note, however, that Nohrden is free to submit the letter as an attachment to any future reinstatement petition and/or as an exhibit at any future reinstatement hearing.
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