ORDER OF DISBARMENT
This automatic appeal is taken, under SCR 105(b)(3), from a Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board hearing panel's recommendation that attorney Kenneth R. Sheehan be disbarred from the practice of law. The state bar's recommended disbarment is based on Sheehan's prior misconduct, his failure to meet the conditions of a previously imposed probation, and additional grievances filed against him. We agree with the state bar's recommendation and disbar attorney Sheehan from the practice of law in Nevada.
Prior Discipline: Reprimands:
In 2001, Sheehan received a private reprimand for violations of SCR 187 (responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistants).This reprimand resulted from Sheehan's failure to properly supervise a non-lawyer employee, who sent orders for dismissal and stipulations to opposing counsel and may have fraudulently changed these documents. This non-lawyer employee also continued to help a client whom Sheehan had decided not to represent.
Effective May 1, 2006, the rules governing professional conduct were amended and renumbered by ADKT 370 adopted by this court on April 7, 2006. Because the panel's decision in this matter was rendered before the effective date of ADKT 370, this order refers to the disciplinary rule violations by their pre-amendment numbers.
In 2003, Sheehan received a public reprimand for violations of SCR 187, SCR 189 (unauthorized practice of law), SCR 152 (scope of representation), SCR 153 (diligence) and SCR 154 (communication). This public reprimand involved Sheehan's failure to properly supervise another non-lawyer employee, who accepted a client's representation and did not inform the client that she was not an attorney. This employee and another non-lawyer provided the client with faulty legal advice, and the client ultimately lost his impounded car, received collection notices that impaired his credit, and was held responsible for medical expenses. discipline. After learning of the discipline through the California bar, the Nevada bar petitioned for reciprocal discipline, which this court imposed on March 10, 2006. Because Sheehan had already completed the conditions imposed during his probationary period in California, this court did not require Sheehan to undergo the same conditions and instead issued a public reprimand.
Current Disciplinary Proceedings:
Two new complaints, including a total of four counts, were filed by the Nevada bar against Sheehan on May 5, 2005, and October 7, 2005. Additionally, the Nevada bar determined that Sheehan had failed to satisfy the conditions imposed in this court's prior stayed suspension/probation order. Consequently, the disciplinary board hearing panel, at its formal hearing, considered Sheehan's failure to satisfy the conditions of this court's order as well as the new grievances filed against him.
With respect to this court's prior stayed suspension/probation order, the disciplinary panel unanimously found that Sheehan had violated four conditions of his probation because he
1. operated more than one office for the practice of law;
2. did not keep the state bar informed of the names of all non-lawyer personnel employed or utilized by him, nor did he promptly notify the state bar of any changes in personnel;
3. did not submit quarterly reports to the state bar affirming that he was in compliance with the conditions; and
4. did not take and pass the MPRE within the probation period and submit satisfactory proof to the state bar.
The panel concluded that Sheehan had violated another condition of his probation by violating SCR 187 (supervision of non-lawyer assistants) and SCR 189 (unauthorized practice of law), as well as SCR 165 (safekeeping property). Sheehan apparently only complied with three probation conditions: (1) to have no further business or professional relationship with a named non-lawyer, (2) to promptly respond to new complaints received by the state bar, and (3) to pay the disciplinary proceeding costs.
With respect to the new grievances filed against Sheehan, the panel determined that he violated SCR 187 (supervision of non — lawyer assistants), SCR 189 (unauthorized practice of law), SCR 165 (safekeeping property), SCR 200 (false statement in a disciplinary matter), SCR 203(2) (conduct that involves a criminal act that reflects adversely on the attorney is honesty and trustworthiness), and SCR 203(3) (misconduct: conduct that involves dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation) based on the following stipulated facts. by any state, local bar, or the ABA. Sheehan further represented that all statements and facts in his application were true and that no material facts had been suppressed or misstated. Although Sheehan claimed during the disciplinary proceedings that he did not intend to make a false statement, and that he did not remember why he answered as he did, except that he was rushing to obtain coverage, he admitted that his representations on the application were material and the insurance company/underwriter would have relied upon them in assessing his insurability, issuing the policy, and setting the premium amount. Thus, the panel concluded that Sheehan had violated SCR 203(2) and (3) (misconduct: conduct that involves a criminal act that reflects adversely on the attorney's honesty and trustworthiness, and conduct that involves dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation).
In assessing the discipline to be recommended, the panel considered Sheehan's prior discipline, pattern of misconduct, and multiple offenses. In light of these aggravating factors, the panel recommended that Sheehan be disbarred and ordered to pay all costs of the disciplinary proceedings within thirty days of his receipt of the state bar's bill of costs.
Discussion:
Having reviewed the record, we conclude that clear and convincing evidence supports the panel's findings and recommendations. Sheehan's failure to comprehend his misconduct and his refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct are evident throughout the record and his appeal. Additionally, this court cannot excuse Sheehan's inability to meet the conditions imposed by our prior stayed suspension/probation order.
Sheehan has been previously disciplined for multiple offenses involving his lax or non-supervision of non-lawyers, yet he continues to rely on non-lawyers in the settlement of clients' cases and has failed to report information to the state bar regarding his employment of non-lawyers as required by this court's prior order. Moreover, Sheehan continues to operate multiple offices, despite this court's clear condition prohibiting more than one office. Sheehan has also been unable to meet this court's requirement that he take and pass the MPRE within his probationary period.
Sheehan's latest violations concerning the trust account overdrafts and his insurance application were not merely "stupid" oversights on his part. Given his substantial experience in the practice of law and his numerous prior disciplinary proceedings, Sheehan should have known better. Instead, Sheehan has demonstrated a cavalier attitude in responding to the bar, has provided false statements and contradictory testimony, and made material misrepresentations on his legal malpractice insurance application.