Five Years And A Day

A California disbarment drew a “substantially different” sanction in Nevada

First, as bar counsel acknowledges, there is a marked difference between disbarment in California and Nevada. In California, disbarment is not permanent and the attorney may seek reinstatement after five years, whereas in Nevada disbarment is irrevocable. Cotnpare SCR 102(1), with Cal. State Bar R. Proc. 5.442(B). For this reason, where a Nevada-licensed attorney has been disbarred in California, we have frequently imposed suspension as reciprocal discipline by applying SCR 114(4)(c). See, e.g., In re Discipline of VanderSchuit, No. 87175, 2023 WL 6940752, *1 (Nev. Oct. 19, 2023) (Order Denying Reciprocal Discipline and Suspending Attorney) (“[W]e conclude that disbarment is not warranted because it is irrevocable in Nevada, while in California a disbarred attorney may seek reinstatement after five years.”); In re Discipline of Cantor, No. 83736, 2022 WL 419901 (Nev. Feb. 10, 2022) (Order Denying Petition for Reciprocal Discipline and Suspending Attorney) (same); In re Discipline of Freedman, No. 80276, 2020 WL 1972331 (Nev. Apr. 23, 2020) (Order Denying Petition for Reciprocal Discipline and Suspending Attorney) (same).

Second, suspension is the appropriate discipline for Sturm’s misconduct. Sturm’s California violations correspond to Nevada’s Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (competence), 1.16(b)(1) (declining or terminating representation), 1.16(d) (surrendering client property upon terminating representation), and 8.1(b) (failing to respond to a lawful demand for information). And the baseline discipline for those violations is suspension. See Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, Compendium. of Professional Responsibility Rules and Standards, Standard 4.12 (Am. Bar Ass’n 2023) (“Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knows or should know that he is dealing improperly with client property and causes injury or potential injury to a client.”); Standard 4.52 (“Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in an area of practice in which the lawyer knows he or she is not competent, and causes injury or potential injury to a client.”); id. at Standard 7.2. (recommending suspension where “a lawyer knowingly engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed as a professional and causes injury or potential injury to a client, the public, or the legal system”).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for reciprocal discipline but suspend Derrick Raburn Sturm from the practice of law in Nevada for five years and one day, commencing from the date of this order. The parties shall comply with SCR 115 and SCR 121.1.

The case is IN THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINE OF DERRICK RABURN STURM, BAR NO. 8277  (Mike Frisch)