United States District Court, D. Nevada
In re Marc J. Randazza, Attorney at Law, Bar No. 12265
ORDER OF SUSPENSION
MIRANDA M. DU CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
an attorney discipline matter. Before the Court is Marc J.
Randazza'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 October 10, 2018. (ECF Nos. 1
(OSC), 3 (the “Response”).) As further explained
below, the Court will suspend Mr. Randazza from practice
before this Court because this Court has neither the
obligation, resources, nor inclination to monitor Mr.
Randazza's compliance with the probationary conditions
the NSC imposed on him. However, Mr. Randazza 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.
Randazza was suspended by the NSC following his conditional
guilty plea to a charge that he violated “RPC 1.8(a)
(conflict of interest: current clients: specific rules) and
RPC 5.6 (restrictions on right to practice).” (ECF No.
3 at 15.) While Mr. Randazza's suspension was stayed, he
is currently subject to several probationary conditions
imposed by the NSC. (Id. at 17.) Until at least
April 10, 2020, Mr. Randazza must: (1) “stay out of
trouble;” (2) successfully complete 20 hours of ethics
CLE in addition to his normal CLE requirements; and (3) seek
the advice of an independent and unaffiliated ethics attorney
in each relevant jurisdiction before obtaining any conflicts
of interest waivers. (Id. at 3, 15, 17.)
Court issued the OSC as to why Mr. Randazza should not be
suspended from practice in this Court on September 6, 2019.
(ECF No. 1.) Mr. Randazza timely filed his Response on
October 3, 2019. (ECF No. 3.) 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 he is currently complying with the
probationary conditions the NSC imposed on him. (Id.
at 3-5.) He also argues that his suspension from practice by
this Court would either be gravely unjust, or his misconduct
does not justify suspension by this Court. (Id. at
3.) He further notes that other federal court have continued
to allow him to practice while he is subject to the NSC's
probationary conditions. (Id. at 5-6.)
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. Randazza from practice before this
Court because the NSC's disciplinary adjudication
regarding Mr. Randazza following his conditional guilty plea
appears to have been proper, and he presents no clear and
convincing evidence to the contrary. Procedurally, Mr.
Randazza 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).
Substantively, while Mr. Randazza 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. 3
at 17.) And the Court sees no substantial reasons not to
suspend Mr. Randazza based on its review of the record.
See LR IA 11-7(e)(3). The Court will therefore
suspend Mr. Randazza.
said, Mr. Randazza 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.
Randazza 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 Marc J. Randazza, Bar No. 12265, is
hereby suspended from practice in the United States ...