Opinion
No. 50524.
March 5, 2008.
ORDER OF SUSPENSION
This is an automatic review of a Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board hearing panel's recommendation that attorney Brian M. Keith be suspended for two years, retroactive to May 9, 2006. Having reviewed the evidence submitted and the transcript from the disciplinary hearing, we approve the panel's recommendation, with one exception.
Neither Keith nor the state bar submitted a brief challenging the panel's recommendations.
The present disciplinary case arises out of a felony conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol and causing bodily injury to others. On September 12, 2006, we temporarily suspended Keith, under SCR 111, for conviction of a felony. Subsequently, a formal complaint was filed and a hearing was held to determine the appropriate discipline for Keith's actions.
While we review a disciplinary proceeding de novo, the panel's recommendations are persuasive. We consider both aggravating and mitigating factors in connection with Keith's felony conviction in order to determine the appropriate discipline. The aggravating factors in this case include three previous arrests for driving while under the influence of alcohol and a prior reciprocal disciplinary action, which involved improper handling and misappropriation of a client's funds. Mitigating factors include Keith's self-reporting, willingness to cooperate with bar counsel, criminal punishment, remorse, and active participation in several alcohol treatment programs.
In re Discipline of Schaefer, 117 Nev. 496, 515, 25 P.3d 191, 204, as modified by 31 P.3d 365 (2001).
See SCR 102.5.
Based on the evidence presented, in connection with the aggravating and mitigating factors, we conclude that the disciplinary panel's recommendations should be approved, with one exception. Accordingly, we suspend Keith's license to practice law for two years, retroactive to May 9, 2006. In connection with this suspension, Keith must obey the law, have no criminal convictions during the suspension, and pay the costs of the disciplinary proceeding, excluding staff salaries. Also, since the suspension is more than six months, Keith must petition for reinstatement under SCR 116.
Finally, the panel recommended that it retain jurisdiction over Keith's future reinstatement hearing. We conclude that this portion of the recommendation is improper, and we disapprove it.
Cf. SFPPZ L.P v. Dist. Ct. 123 Nev ___, 173 P.3d 715 (2007) (precluding a district court from retaining jurisdiction over a matter it has resolved).
It is so ORDERED.
GIBBONS, C.J.
MAUPIN, J.
HARDESTY, J.
PARRAGUIRRE, J.
DOUGLAS, I.
CHERRY, J.
SAITTA, J.