Cannabis Distraction Explanation Does Not Vacate Default
The Nevada Supreme Court concluded that the State Bar established a basis for default findings of misconduct
In particular, although Padgett does not dispute receiving the State Bar complaint, he asserts that after he notified Bar counsel of his intention not to respond to the complaint based on issues he was having with his cannabis business, he assumed the Bar stayed the disciplinary proceedings but it instead moved forward with proceedings without properly notifying him.
Having reviewed the record and considered the arguments, we perceive no due process violation and conclude that the matter properly proceeded on a default basis.
Based on the default
With the default properly entered under SCR 105(2), the record therefore establishes that Padgett violated the above-referenced rules by (1) having his client’s judgment (plus interest) of $151,599.83, which had been deposited with the district court pending appeal, released to Padgett’s firm by filing an ex parte motion without the client and appellate counsel’s knowledge or authorization and attempting to have an additional $13,845.45 of the client’s funds on deposit with the court released to his firm by submitting a proposed order directly to the court without notifying the client or any other parties; (2) agreeing to represent a client in a suit in which the plaintiff claimed that the client violated a no-compete agreement, even though the client allegedly breached the agreement by forming a new security company and accepting employment with Padgett’s cannabis business, advising the client to agree to joint and several liability for breaching the agreement, offering to pay any judgment against the client, and filing an appeal after judgment was entered but then withdrawing his representation leading to the appeal’s dismissal and an unpaid $130,000 judgment against the client; and (3) failing to meaningfully respond to the State Bar’s inquiries about the two grievances and misrepresenting a material fact to the State Bar.
The court adopted a proposed five-year suspension.
The Las Vegas Review-Journal had a related story
Padgett’s marijuana business is the subject of extensive litigation in District Court, with creditors contending the company didn’t pay its bills. In July, the Nevada Cannabis Compliance Board voted to strip more than a dozen licenses from the business plagued with accusations of fraud and unpaid taxes.
And, in September, an investigation by the Las Vegas Review-Journal showed Padgett used cocaine with a woman in 2017 who died from a drug overdose. The lawyer never called authorities to report the woman’s medical state, but he was never arrested or charged in the death.