United States District Court, D. Nevada
In re Michael A. Hagemeyer, Attorney at Law, Bar No. 5344
ORDER OF SUSPENSION
MIRANDA M. DU, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
an attorney discipline matter. Before the Court is Michael A.
Hagemeyer’s response to the Court’s Order to Show
Cause (“OSC”) why he should not be suspended from
practice before this Court following the Order Approving
Conditional Guilty Plea Agreement filed by the Nevada Supreme
Court (“NSC”) on June 14, 2019. (ECF Nos. 1
(OSC), 4 (the “Response”).) As further explained
below, the Court will suspend Mr. Hagemeyer from practice
before this Court because this Court has neither the
obligation, resources, nor inclination to monitor Mr.
Hagemeyer’s compliance with the probationary conditions
the NSC imposed on him. However, Mr. Hagemeyer may file a
petition for reinstatement once he has fully discharged those
conditions and can produce a certificate of good standing
from the NSC reflecting the same.
Hagemeyer was suspended by the NSC following his conditional
guilty plea to a charge that he “violated RPC 1.15
(safekeeping property) by transferring a client’s funds
out of his trust account for personal use or as fees before
he had earned that amount.” (ECF No. 1 at 6; see
also Id . at 6-8.) While Mr. Hagemeyer’s
suspension was stayed, he is currently subject to a one-year
probationary period imposed by the NSC. (Id. at 7.)
During this period, the NSC requires that he undertake
certain actions, including utilizing a State Bar-approved CPA
to provide monthly reports on his trust account, continuing
treatment after reporting to the Lawyer’s Assistance
Program for an evaluation and recommended treatment plan, and
providing quarterly reports on his treatment. (Id.
Court issued the OSC as to why Mr. Hagemeyer should not be
suspended from practice in this Court on June 24, 2019.
(Id.) Mr. Hagemeyer timely filed his Response on
July 24, 2019. (ECF No. 4.) In his Response, he argues that
this Court should allow him to continue practicing before it
because he is still allowed to practice law before the Nevada
state courts, and both he and his clients will be harmed if
he is suspended by this Court. (Id. at 3.) He
alternatively requests more time to respond to the OSC, to
provide supplemental evidence as to why he should not be
suspended. (Id. at 3-4.)
Court imposes reciprocal discipline on a member of its bar
when that person is suspended or otherwise disciplined by a
state court unless it determines that the state’s
disciplinary adjudication was improper. See In re
Kramer, 282 F.3d 721, 724 (9th Cir. 2002). Specifically,
the Court will only decline to impose reciprocal discipline
if the attorney subject to discipline presents clear and
convincing evidence that:
(A) the procedure in the other jurisdiction was so lacking in
notice or opportunity to be heard as to constitute a
deprivation of due process; (B) there was such an infirmity
of proof establishing the misconduct as to give rise to a
clear conviction that the court should not accept as final
the other jurisdiction’s conclusion(s) on that subject;
(C) imposition of like discipline would result in a grave
injustice; or (D) other substantial reasons justify not
accepting the other jurisdiction’s conclusion(s).
LR IA 11-7(e)(3); see also In re Kramer, 282 F.3d at
724-25 (stating that the attorney bears the burden by clear
and convincing evidence).
Court will suspend Mr. Hagemeyer from practice before this
Court because the NSC’s disciplinary adjudication
regarding Mr. Hagemeyer appears to have been proper, and he
presents no clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.
Procedurally, Mr. Hagemeyer did not submit a certified copy
of the entire record from the NSC or present any argument as
to why less than the entire record will suffice. See
LR IA 11- 7(e)(3). The Court also notes Mr. Hagemeyer cannot
meet his clear and convincing burden because he presented no
evidence to support his Response. (ECF No. 4.) See also
Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc., 849
F.3d 1034, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Attorney argument is
not evidence.”) Substantively, while Mr. Hagemeyer does
appear to be allowed to practice in the Nevada state courts,
he is also subject to probationary conditions that this Court
has neither the obligation, resources, nor inclination to
monitor. (ECF No. 1 at 7-8.) Further, Mr. Hagemeyer did not
even try to fit his argument into the LR IA 11-7(e)(3)
framework. And the Court sees no substantial reasons not to
suspend Mr. Hagemeyer based on its review of the record.
See LR IA 11-7(e)(3). The Court will therefore
suspend Mr. Hagemeyer.
said, Mr. Hagemeyer is free to petition the Court for
reinstatement under LR IA 11-7(i) assuming he is able to
successfully complete his term of probation with the NSC. Any
petition for reinstatement should not be filed until Mr.
Hagemeyer has successfully discharged each and every
probationary condition imposed on him by the NSC, and he is
able to present both a certificate of good standing from the
NSC and evidence sufficient to establish that his practice in
the Nevada state courts is fully unencumbered by any
probationary or other conditions stemming from his
conditional guilty plea or any other discipline imposed on
him by the NSC.
therefore ordered that Michael A. Hagemeyer, Bar No. 5344, is
hereby suspended from practice in the United States ...