In Re: Discipline of Mitchell Wright ( 2014 )

Accordingly, we approve the panel's recommendation in its entirety. We issue the public reprimand attached hereto as Exhibit A. Wright shall pay the costs of the disciplinary proceedings. SCR 120(1). It is so ORDERED. C.J. / fres4; J. Hardesty Pariaguirre DOUGLAS, J., dissenting: I am not convinced that a public reprimand is sufficient discipline in this case. I therefore dissent. Douglas SAITTA, J., dissenting: After considering the record, I would impose a six-month suspension. I therefore dissent. J. Saitta SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) [947A ce/PA, cc: Lemons, Grundy & Eisenberg Mitchell Wright Patrick 0. King, Assistant Bar Counsel J. Thomas Susich, Chair, Northern Nevada Disciplinary Board Kimberly K. Farmer, Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada Perry Thompson, Admissions Office, United States Supreme Court SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A ce> EXHIBIT A CASE No. N10-0286 STATE BAR OF NEVADA, COMPLAINANT VS. MITCHELL C. WRIGHT, ESQ., RESPONDENT PUBLIC REPRIMAND To: MITCHELL C. WRIGHT On July 16, 2010, the Honorable Bridget Robb Peck submitted a written grievance to the State Bar of Nevada. The grievance states that based on information supplied to Judge Peck, she believed you had violated Nevada Rule of Professional Conduct 4.1; 8.4(c) and 8.4(d). The basis of the grievance was your careless and negligent act of bringing a concealed handgun into the Mills B. Lane Justice Center located at One South Sierra Street, in Reno, Nevada in violation of Court Procedures. On July 29, 2010, the Office of Bar Counsel opened a grievance file in this matter and sent a copy of Judge Peck's grievance to you for response. A follow- up letter from the State Bar Counsel was sent to you by certified mail on August 20, 2910. The State Bar Counsel contacted you again on January 4, 2011, and January 31, 2011. You did not submit a response to these repeated requests of the State Bar Counsel for information, and on October 18, 2011, the State Bar had to file a complaint in an effort to get your attention to the grievance from a member of the Nevada judiciary. You do not contest that you engaged in this tumultuous and improper conduct in violation of Rule 8.1(b) of the Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct, which states "[a] lawyer . . . in connection with a disciplinary matter, shall not. .. knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for information from [a] disciplinary authority . . .. NEV. R PROF. CONDUCT 8.1(b). Based on the forgoing, you are hereby Publicly Reprimanded for violation of Rule 8.1(b) of the Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct Your conduct is injurious to the legal profession and the public confidence in the regulation of the practice of law. Considering the clear and convincing evidence presented at your Formal Hearing on September 18, 2012, the Formal Hearing Panel of the Northern Nevada Disciplinary Board cautions you avoid reoccurrence of the demonstrated failure to adhere to the rules that govern your continued practice of law. Entered by Northern Nevada Disciplinary Panel this 18th day of October, 2012.