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!)