Sunday, June 19, 2022

Car Trouble

The Nevada Supreme Court ordered a fully stayed six month suspension with conditions for a concurrent client conflict of interest

Substantial evidence supports the panel's conclusion that Leventhal borrowed a client's personal vehicle for more than one year without obtaining a conflict of interest waiver and failed to return the vehicle after numerous requests by the client, which forced the client to rent a vehicle for his own use. However, substantial evidence does not support the panel's finding that Leventhal violated RPC 1.8(a) in relation to his acceptance of stolen property as collateral from a second client.

The court reduced the proposed sanction of a stayed one-year suspension

Because we conclude that only one of the violations found by the panel is supported by substantial evidence, we conclude the panel's recommended discipline is too harsh.

Prior discipline

This factor is particularly aggravating, as Leventhal's prior discipline also involved a violation of RPC 1.8(a), in which Leventhal accepted personal and real property as payment from a client and then tried to evict the client from the real property while he was still representing her.

In re: Discipline of  Leventhal was decided on June 17. (Mike Frisch)

Bar Discipline & Process | Permalink


Post a comment