No ADA Defense In Reciprocal Discipline Matter

The California State Bar Court Review Department proposes a 30-day actual suspension as reciprocal discipline for sanctions imposed in Nevada.

In late January 2011, Boles was hospitalized for a day for an unspecified condition, and then followed his doctor’s advice to take an immediate medical leave. He traveled to Santa Barbara, California, where he maintains a residence. Because he was a solo practitioner, he placed most of his caseload with other attorneys, retaining approximately eight matters he either was unable to refer to other counsel or he felt some obligation to complete. Boles remained on active status with the Nevada State Bar. His misconduct stems from two matters he retained…

We agree with the hearing judge that Boles failed to prove that his professional misconduct in Nevada does not warrant discipline in California as a matter of law. To the contrary, we find that he failed to communicate and to perform in both the Miller and Petro matters.

The discipline did not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act

Boles has also failed to demonstrate the Nevada proceedings were constitutionally inadequate. His primary argument is that the Nevada Disciplinary Board violated his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by disciplining him for his disability. His argument is vague, but we glean from his testimony that the Board offered him the choice of either voluntarily placing himself on disability inactive status for six months or facing trial. Boles maintains that he should have been given the option to reduce his caseload so that he could continue to work “while bearing the burden of his neurological condition” and avoid a disciplinary trial.

The review department recommends that he comply with numerous condition that included pass ing the MPRE, (Mike Frisch)