It looks like our Supremes might be sending a little message to the State Bar. The Court has rejected the recommendation of the Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board that Philip Singer be disbarred for three years and repay $67,334 to eight clients. The board also said Singer must submit to binding arbitration on $32,200 in dispute. According to the LV Sun, Singer admitted to stealing "mishandling" close to $100,000 of his clients' funds. He pled guilty to 14 counts of bar violations and admitted to 59 violations involving misappropriation of funds and failure to communicate with his clients. He also pled guilty to lack of competence and diligence and lack of candor and cooperation with the State Bar.
The Supremes viewed the State Bar's proposed punishment as "inadequate to protect the public." We'd have to check Brooklyn Law School's tuition to see if Singer qualifies for the WWL bright-line rule, but regardless we say good for the Supremes for finally taking a stand against the ridiculously underwhelming punishments SBN has been considering lately.
However, to our disappointment, the Supremes only requested an additional two years of disbarment and 15 hours of ethics CLEs. Not exactly hard-hitting. What do you guys think? Where should the line be for permanent disbarment in this state?
(LV Sun, Thanks Tipster!)
State Bar of Nevada ~ WWW.NVBAR.ORG
ReplyDeletePART: ONE (1)
JAMES E. GUESMAN Case Nos. 99-100-0291; 00-049-0291; 00-055-0291; 00-057-0291; 01-045-0291 Filed May 30, 2001 The following public reprimand was issued by the State Bar of Nevada pursuant to a Conditional Guilty Plea. See SCR 113(1), (5). To: JAMES E. GUESMAN This Public Reprimand is the culmination of five (5) grievances lodged against you for professional misconduct. Much of the professional misconduct may be attributable to a lack of adequate supervision on your part of your nonlawyer staff. A summary of those grievances is as follows: (1) In August of 1996, you were retained by BettyJane Sheldon (hereafter “Sheldon”) to represent her in her divorce. Upon retention, Sheldon remitted payment to your paralegal. For the next five months, Sheldon did not receive return telephone calls from your office and did not receive a copy of her divorce decree. Sometime thereafter, Sheldon was advised that you no longer employed your paralegal. Sheldon was further advised that the firm hired a new paralegal who would be assisting you and would follow up with Sheldon. Sheldon remained patient for the several months thereafter, but heard nothing from your office. She resumed calling your office and eventually reached you in May of 1999. Thereafter, you failed to maintain adequate communication with Sheldon. In attempting to determine the status of her case, Sheldon contacted the Family Court Clerk’s Office and was advised that a complaint for divorce was never filed. Consequently, Sheldon reported you to the State Bar. In attempting to investigate Sheldon’s allegations, the State Bar sent numerous letters to you. However, you failed to respond. In light of the foregoing, the designated panel found violated SCR 154 (Communication), SCR 187 (Responsibility regarding nonlawyer assistants) and SCR 200(2) (Bar association and disciplinary matters: failure to respond to a lawful request for information from a disciplinary authority). (2) In March of 1998, Leslie Povelko (hereafter “Povelko”) retained you assist her with child support and visitation matters concerning her daughter. Shortly after you were retained, Povelko began experiencing problems with your office. Specifically, Povelko was not notified of the case status by your secretary. Consequently, Povelko reported you to the State Bar. In attempting to investigate Povelko’s allegations, the State Bar sent numerous letters to you eliciting information. Though you requested and were granted extensions of time to provide a response, you failed to respond. In light of the foregoing, the designated panel found that you violated SCR 154 (Communication), SCR 187 (Responsibility regarding nonlawyer assistants) and SCR 200(2) (Bar association and disciplinary matters: failure to respond to a lawful request for information from a disciplinary authority). (3) In 1994, Kathleen Haney (hereafter “Haney”) retained you to represent her in an auto
PART: TWO (2)
ReplyDeleteaccident case. In July of 1997, Haney filed a grievance against you with the State Bar complaining that you performed little or no legal services on her behalf and failed to maintain adequate communication with her. In a September 4, 1997, letter, you advised the State Bar that you timely filed a civil complaint on Haney’s behalf to “preserve the Statute Deadline.” Based on your representations in your September 1997 letter, the matter was closed. In January 1998, you notified the State Bar via telephone that your prior letter was inaccurate because, though you timely filed suit, you did not effectuate service upon the defendant within the 120 day time frame set forth in the NRCP. Consequently, the suit was time barred because you could no longer re-file it during the applicable limitations period. In light of the foregoing, the designated hearing panel found that you violated SCR 151 (Competence), SCR 153 (Diligence), SCR 154 (Communication) and SCR 187 (Responsibility regarding nonlawyer assistants).(4) Patrick Baumgartner (hereafter “Baumgartner”) retained you to represent him in his divorce. At the time, Baumgartner was stationed in Egypt but was home on emergency leave. He also retained you to draft and file the necessary documentation to secure an extension in Baumgartner’s emergency leave so that he would be present for his divorce proceedings. You drafted a complaint for divorce and had it verified by Baumgartner on or about June 24, 1998. You failed to file and serve Baumgartner’s complaint for divorce. Consequently, Baumgartner had to retain new counsel as of August 14, 1998. Your failure to file Baumgartner’s complaint for divorce is, at least in part, due to your failure to adequately supervise your nonlawyer staff. Ultimately, you refunded Baumgartner’s retainer in full. In light of the foregoing, the designated hearing panel found that you violated SCR 151 (Competence), 153 (Diligence), SCR 154 (Communication) and SCR 187 (Responsibility regarding nonlawyer assistants). (5) You were counsel of record for Michael Leonetti in his guilty plea resulting in a criminal conviction (Leonetti v. State, no. 36980). During the course of an appeal, which was unknown to you at the time, you failed to respond to any of the notices and orders sent to you by the Supreme Court of Nevada. All written communication to you was returned to the Court. On March 26, 2001, the Supreme Court entered an order, which was served on you, remanding the case to District Court to secure new appellate counsel. In light of the foregoing, the designated hearing panel found that you violated SCR 79 (Address of member) and SCR 173(3) (Knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules of a tribunal). Pursuant to the terms of your conditional guilty plea agreement, you are also hereby placed on probation for a period of two (2) years, with conditions as set forth in the Conditional Guilty Plea.
Noel Gage still licensed to practice, 'nuff said.
ReplyDeletehttp://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/8/8.F3d.32.92-16131.html
ReplyDeleteOur State boards are a joke. The fact that there are no ramifications for obvious ethical violations makes practicing here a waste of life. The fact that Gage is still practicing is ridiculous. The fact that a plaintiff on one of my cases is having surgery with Kabins in a month is absurd. I thought he was on house arrest? Give me a f*&%ing break.
ReplyDeleteWho the heck is Philip Singer? Is he a Boyd graduate?
ReplyDeleteOh snap, I just looked him up and now realize he was in my BarBri class! Whoa, who knew I was rubbing elbows with a felon?
ReplyDeleteIsn't he married to an attorney? Is she still out there?
Let's be merciful on the guy. To lighten things up, here's a joke:
What do you call a lawyer who lost his law license?
A: Waiter!
9 years..... really?
ReplyDeleteIt's not stealing if you really intend to give it back. Did any y'all pass the bar exam?? Morons.
ReplyDeleteTo 10:o5 AM who said "The fact that a plaintiff on one of my cases is having surgery with Kabins in a month is absurd."
ReplyDeleteGreat news for you if you're defending. Horrible news for you if Kabins is treating your client.
If anything good came out of the Medical Mafia investigation, it's that Kabins' days as a testifying medical expert are over.
NRS 205.0832 Actions which constitute theft.
ReplyDelete1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 2, a person commits theft if, without lawful authority, the person knowingly:
(a) Controls any property of another person with the intent to deprive that person of the property.
(b) Converts, makes an unauthorized transfer of an interest in, or without authorization controls any property of another person, or uses the services or property of another person entrusted to him or her or placed in his or her possession for a limited, authorized period of determined or prescribed duration or for a limited use.
(c) Obtains real, personal or intangible property or the services of another person by a material misrepresentation with intent to deprive that person of the property or services. As used in this paragraph, “material misrepresentation” means the use of any pretense, or the making of any promise, representation or statement of present, past or future fact which is fraudulent and which, when used or made, is instrumental in causing the wrongful control or transfer of property or services. The pretense may be verbal or it may be a physical act.
(d) Comes into control of lost, mislaid or misdelivered property of another person under circumstances providing means of inquiry as to the true owner and appropriates that property to his or her own use or that of another person without reasonable efforts to notify the true owner.
(e) Controls property of another person knowing or having reason to know that the property was stolen.
(f) Obtains services or parts, products or other items related to such services which the person knows are available only for compensation without paying or agreeing to pay compensation or diverts the services of another person to his or her own benefit or that of another person without lawful authority to do so.
(g) Takes, destroys, conceals or disposes of property in which another person has a security interest, with intent to defraud that person.
(h) Commits any act that is declared to be theft by a specific statute.
(i) Draws or passes a check, and in exchange obtains property or services, if the person knows that the check will not be paid when presented.
(j) Obtains gasoline or other fuel or automotive products which are available only for compensation without paying or agreeing to pay compensation.
To 10:16: You can look up a person's law school on the Bar's website. And no, he is not a Boyd graduate. I'm sure your comment was not intended as a Fox News-esque suggestion (you know, like "Obama a murderer?")
ReplyDeleteOur state bar is a joke.
ReplyDeleteNeed to go into another profession.
But, out state bar website is surprisingly user friendly and convenient.
ReplyDeleteI usually stalk anyone I'm talking to - local or out of state counsel - on the www. So, I'm pretty familiar with the various state bar websites. I think ours ranks up there with the best of 'em.
So, three cheers for the web designers hired by the state bar. I think we can use this as a building block.
The most beautiful sight that I shall ever see is Nevada State Line for the last time in my rear-view mirror...
ReplyDelete"The most beautiful sight that I shall ever see is Nevada State Line for the last time in my rear-view mirror..."
ReplyDeleteThen GTFO.
6:31 AM - Ditto. Anyone can just pick up and leave the State Bar to be run by Nancy Allf's of the world.
ReplyDelete7:10 - you're projecting, douche. (yes, i hold in total contempt the people who drop in moronic political nonsequitirs)
ReplyDelete10:21 as long as your slimy arse isn't visible as you go, i agree with that other dude -- GTFO.
Re: GTFO FOLKS
ReplyDeletePerhaps there are familial obligations which are preventing one from leaving such as a cancer stricken mother and an invalid father. But I guess you didn't consider that before you jumped on the GTFO bandwagon. Thinking, a rare commodity in these parts...
using ill parents to try to win an argument on a comment board? that's really weak. i guess thinking things through is a rare commodity in you.
ReplyDeletetroy fox would never do that, whoever the hell he is.
Using the word "one" to describe himself, or another poster: Douchetastic
ReplyDeleteResponding in a manner which makes no damn sense (10:21 expressed a desire to leave. Other posters support his sentiment. What's the problem): Toolicious.
1:54 could use some lessons from Troy Fox.
I agree with 10:21 and 1:54.
ReplyDeleteAs for the GTFO folks-um, I'm not sure if you noticed or not, but the economy isn't too sweet right now. For somebody to just GTFO isn't as easy as it sounds. I'm sure many (myself included) would gladly GTFO if provided the opportunity.
BTW, I too will glory in the day I see Vegas in my rear view....never to return to this god forsaken place.
Wow, i'm surprised by how many (as the kids say) "haters" there are that pray for Vegas's demise while profiting from Vegas prosperity.
ReplyDeleteHow unhappy are these people in life?
Throw your sick grandma on the roof of your car, Beverly Hillbillies style, and find a place to live that makes you happy.
11:05 why thank you, it's Massengill spring fresh scent. I hit the nail on the head, I see.
ReplyDeleteto all the bloggers who hate it here... If you can't make a difference make an exit. I'm so sorry that your career didn't go the way you envisioned it in law school. Iguess ur just not that good. You criticize everyone but they're all more successful than you are . Hmmm. Maybe you suck. We don't want you here. You are like a black cloud sucking the legal community down. If you have such strong feelings be an activist not an anonymous blogger. Nevada needs to be cleaned up but if ur not part of the solution ur part of the problem.
ReplyDeletesincerely, someone who appreciates his 300k + income every year even though he doesn't always love his job.
So you only came to Vegas for the job and plan on leaving once you can find something else? It's a pity that you didn't disclose that when you took the job. It's always a shame when someone wants to stay in Vegas, but loses a job to an interloper/tourist/mercenary. Here's wishing you success in finding alternate employment soon...out of state.
ReplyDeleteMy sucky town, right or wrong, but MY sucky town.
ReplyDelete9:06, yes, in gleefully embracing the description of yourself as a douche, you hit the nail right on the head. game set match to you, idiot.
ReplyDeleteword verification: "quisme," what the mistress of a norweigan traitor says in the throes of passion.
I agree: GTFON! I couldn't care less if economics or ill health prevents it. YOU are the cancer here, not those of us trying to actually make things better. I suppose most of your ilk are the kind that watched LA Law type shows but when you actually got jobs found out the law is not a 60 minute sex and drink fest in short skirts with lots of money at the end of that rainbow. Would you like fries with that whine?
ReplyDeleteFries with wine? That wouldn't even sound good if I was drunk.
ReplyDeleteI think you meant cheese with that.
ReplyDelete9:41 seems to have some hostility issues
ReplyDelete2 things.
ReplyDeleteKabins despite the haters here is a gifted surgeon. With no hesitation, if the need were there, I would have his scalpel used on me again.
As for the vegas Haters. GTFO.
Make it better for the rest of us who love it here despite the fact that the Bar sucks.
Nevada is the last frontier. The wild wild west as so often described by stuffy California lawyers who come here and get homefielded. I wouldn't want to practice where rules weren't mere suggestions. That would be boring and would make my malpractice rates go up. Cheers to Nevada and our judiciary.
ReplyDeleteTO: JAMES E. GUESMAN,
ReplyDeleteDuring his closing argument, bar counsel Rob Bare had this to say about the responsibilities of attorneys:
"A law license is a license of trust. We as attorneys have to be held to a higher standard or else the public loses faith in us. We are the guardians of the justice system."
James E. Guesman, needs to apply this philosophy!