In Re: Discipline of Luis Rojas ( 2016 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
IN THE MATTER OF THE DISCIPLINE No. 69787
OF LUIS J. ROJAS, BAR NO. 5107.
FILED
JUN 1 4 2016
ORDER OF SUSPENSION
This is an automatic review of a Southern Nevada
Disciplinary Board hearing panel's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
recommendation for attorney discipline arising from attorney Luis J.
Rojas's felony conviction in United States District Court for the District of
Nevada, pursuant to a guilty plea, of willfully making a false statement in
a matter within the jurisdiction of a governmental agency in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 1001.
Alter a hearing, the panel found that Rojas had violated RPC
8.4(b) (misconduct: criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's
honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness to practice law) and RPC 8.4(c)
(misconduct: conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation). The panel found two aggravating factors (selfish
motive and substantial experience in the practice of law) and six
mitigating factors (absence of a prior disciplinary record, personal or
emotional problems, timely good faith effort to rectify consequences of
misconduct, full disclosure or cooperation in the disciplinary proceeding,
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1947A es.
lav2S
character and reputation, and remorse). See SCR 102.5(1), (2). Based on
the violations, the panel recommended that Rojas be suspended from the
practice of law for the term of his felony probation or 18 months,
whichever is longer, pay a $25,000 fine to the State Bar of Nevada Client
Security Fund as a condition of reinstatement, and pay the disciplinary
proceeding costs, excluding Bar Counsel and staff salaries.
This court reviews the panel's conclusions of law and
recommendation de novo, but employs a deferential standard of review for
findings of fact. SCR 105(3)(b). The State Bar has the burden of showing
by clear and convincing evidence that the attorney committed the
violations charged. See In re Discipline of Drakulich, 111 Nev. 1556, 1566,
908 P.2d 709, 715 (1995). In determining the appropriate disciplinary
sanction, four factors are to be weighed: "the duty violated, the lawyer's
mental state, the potential or actual injury caused by the lawyer's
misconduct, and the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors." In re
Discipline of Lerner, 124 Nev. 1232, 1246, 197 P.3d 1067, 1077 (2008).
The purpose of attorney discipline is not to punish an attorney but to
protect the public and the integrity of the bar. See State Bar of Nev. v.
Claiborne, 104 Nev. 115, 129, 756 P.2d 464, 473 (1988).
We conclude that clear and convincing evidence supports the
panel's findings of misconduct since Rojas received a felony conviction
related to a false statement he made in connection with the sale of his
home. As to the extent of discipline, the felony conviction constitutes a
serious offense, see SCR 111(6), and contains certain elements of
misrepresentation and false swearing that would ordinarily warrant a
four-year suspension. See ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions,
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A cep,
Compendium of Professional Rules and Standards, Standards 5.11 and
5.12 (2015 ed.). Nevertheless, multiple mitigating factors are present in
this case and weigh in favor of a lesser term of suspension. It was
undisputed that Rojas had no prior discipline, self-reported the matter to
the State Bar, and fully cooperated in the proceeding. Rojas described to
the hearing panel his financial struggles and frustrations during an
economically turbulent time, his desire to retain his family home, and his
sincere remorse for his actions. Rojas provided multiple letters from
attorneys who had worked with him over the course of his legal career
attesting to his good character and reputation. He also furnished a letter
written by the United States Attorney who had prosecuted his federal
case, which highlighted mitigating factors—the lack of identifiable loss to
the lender and the lender's bad faith negotiations—that led to a
noncustodial federal sentence and should weigh in favor of leniency in any
bar disciplinary proceedings. Under these circumstances, we conclude
that the discipline recommended by the hearing panel is appropriate.
Accordingly, we suspend Rojas from the practice of law for the
term of his felony probation or for a term of 18 months beginning
retroactively on the date of his temporary suspension on May 1, 2015,
whichever is longer. Rojas shall pay the disciplinary proceeding costs,
excluding Bar Counsel and staff salaries, within 30 days from his receipt
of an invoice from the State Bar. Because the imposed suspension is
longer than six months, Rojas must petition the State Bar for
reinstatement to practice law. SCR 116. Rojas shall also pay a $25,000
fine to the State Bar of Nevada Client Security Fund as a condition of
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A e
reinstatement. The parties shall comply with the applicable provisions of
SCR 115 and SCR 121.1.
It is so ORDERED.
Cfi--9 LA-cA.S2C ,c.
Parraguirre
Hardesty
.et_t_t\ J.
J.
Gibbons
PICKERING, J., dissenting:
I do not agree that an 18-month suspension for a federal
felony conviction involving elements of fraud and false swearing by an
attorney is sufficient or in harmony with how we have processed other
comparable cases. Rojas essentially structured a short sale of his personal
residence to himself, thereby eliminating a substantial mortgage, and in
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A e
the process, knowingly made a false statement on a form within the
jurisdiction of the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development. The nature of his felony conviction warrants more
significant discipline than an 18-month suspension. See ABA Standards
for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, Compendium of Professional Rules and
Standards, Standard 5.11 (disbarment is generally appropriate when the
conduct includes an element of "intentional interference with the
administration of justice, false swearing, misrepresentation, fraud,
extortion, misappropriation," or when the "lawyer engages in any other
intentional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation that seriously adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness
to practice"); Standard 5.12 (suspension is appropriate for knowing
criminal conduct that does not contain elements in 5.11 but nonetheless
seriously and adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness) (2015 ed.).
Although Rojas presented several mitigating factors, he also has
substantial experience in the law, knew that his conduct made the
transaction illegal, and was motivated by personal financial gain. See
SCR 102.5. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.
J.
Pickering
cc: Chair, Southern Nevada Disciplinary Panel
Stein & Rojas
C. Stanley Hunterton, Bar Counsel
• Kimberly K. Farmer, Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada
Perry Thompson, Admissions Office, United States Supreme Court
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
5
(0) 1947A (910)94