ET
Discipline
PUBLIC REPRIMAND
Dominic J. Magliarditi
On October 23, 1998, a Formal Hearing Panel of the Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board convened to review the above-captioned matters. At that proceeding, Respondent, by and through his counsel, tendered a Conditional Guilty Plea in Exchange for a Stated Form of Discipline wherein he accepted, among other conditions, probationary terms for one (1) year, the issuance of a Public Reprimand and assessment of a $4,000.00 fine. See SCR 113.
The Hearing Panel having approved Respondent's Conditional Plea and the terms and conditions set forth therein, the following Public Reprimand is hereby issued and shall be published in accordance with SCR 113(5):
To: DOMINIC J. MAGLIARDITI , ESQ.
“You were retained as counsel for the partnership known as Wildrose Limited Partnership (“Wildrose”), which was comprised of Gem Development Company, general partner (“General Partner”), and Henry Bushkin, limited partner (“Limited Partner”). Wildrose was formed to acquire and develop real property. In summary, the General and Limited Partners had a written agreement whereby the Limited Partner, for a sum of $1,825,000.00, purchased land Parcel I. In anticipation of profits from Parcel I, the Limited Partner also obtained a buy out option on Parcel II.
“Legal title to Parcel I was retained by the Limited Partner, who would convey title back to Wildrose as each single family home located on the Parcel closed. The Limited Partner in turn was to receive a stipend on each home sale as well as a portion of the profits.
“The execution of the terms of the contract became problematic between the General and Limited Partners when the buy out option came into play. Additionally, ownership as to the proceeds from certain home sales were disputed between the Partners. You, as counsel for Wildrose and with no notice to the Limited Partner, subsequently unilaterally attempted to negotiate escrow instructions preferential to the General Partner. Later, you provided legal counsel to both the General Partner and Wildrose Partnership relative to a Settlement Agreement and made certain representations to the Limited Partner whose reliance on which ultimately resulted in the Limited Partner being excluded from the profits of one of the land parcels.
“While you allege that the agreement between the Partners as to your representation of Wildrose gave you the authority to act for both the individual partners, a reasonable person would find the contract language open to interpretation in this regard. Moreover, you should have withdrawn from your representation of Wildrose when the obvious conflicts of interest arose between the partners involved. Your conduct in this case is in violation of SCR 157(Conflict of Interest).
“Based upon the foregoing, you are hereby fined $4,000.00 and publicly reprimanded for your actions.”
PRIVATE REPRIMANDS
SOUTHERN
97-176-0204
The Panel which heard this matter considered several comments by Attorney A directed toward Plaintiff B and her representatives during certain civil proceedings which the Panel deemed to be inappropriate and unprofessional. Specifically, Attorney A made remarks during an October 1996 hearing which impugned the trustworthiness of Plaintiff's counsel and which insinuated that said counsel had committed perjury. Moreover, Attorney A condescendingly questioned opposing counsel's legal scholarship and intellectual abilities. Attorney A's conduct in this respect was violative of SCRs 184 (Respect for rights of third person) and 203(4) (Misconduct).
It was noted that while Attorney A's comments played no role in the expedition of judicial proceedings, the better practice would be to present statements which attack a person's position rather than his or her person.
Finally, Attorney A was found in contempt of the disciplinary hearing panel which heard this matter pursuant to SCR 101 (Grounds for discipline) based upon unprofessional comments directed at Assistant Bar Counsel during the proceeding. As such, Attorney A was also assessed a $500 fine pursuant to SCR 102(6).
98-113-0956
Attorney C was retained by Client D for $2,000 to appeal an administrative decision rendered by two sports organizations suspending Client D's membership in those organizations. Attorney C subsequently filed suit in State court seeking relief under various theories. However, the defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment was granted and $5,000 in costs were awarded.
Client D had accrued attorney fees in excess of $18,000 for this action. To secure payment of $10,000 toward those fees, Attorney C had taken title to the client's boat. A resulting written fee agreement provided that there was a minimum $10,000 non-refundable fee which would be credited upon receipt of the boat. Thereafter, dependant upon the assessed value of the boat, the client would either receive a credit or be responsible for the difference, whichever applied.
Client D subsequently expressed remorse to Attorney C regarding the boat arrangement and requested a modification to the agreement that would allow a buy-back within one year of the closure of the legal action. Attorney C reluctantly agreed and executed a Note with Option to Repurchase on March 23, 1996. Ultimately Attorney C sold the boat for $5,500 and did not seek to recover the difference from the client.
Attorney C failed to fully comply with SCR 158(1) (Conflict of interest: prohibited transactions). A presumption of impropriety attaches to this type of transaction that can only be overcome by “clear and satisfactory evidence that the transaction was fundamentally fair, free of professional overreaching, and fully disclosed.” In re Singer, 109 Nev. 1117, 865 P.2d 315 (1993). The panel also assessed a $500 fine pursuant to SCR 102(6).
NORTHERN
N98-29-166
Attorney A was sanctioned by the Supreme Court of Nevada for submitting an answering brief of extraordinarily poor quality, for impugning the character of the opposing party, and for recommending the court take action specifically for the purpose of embarrassing the opposing party. The Court stated Attorney A's brief included language that demonstrated a lack of professionalism. In its Order, the Court referred this matter to the State Bar for review.
The screening panel determined Attorney A had violated SCR 184 (Respect for rights of third persons) in that he filed a brief with the Nevada Supreme Court which was insulting and inappropriate in tone, and he recommended the Court publish an opinion for the sole purpose of embarrassing his client's former spouse.
|
