IN RE: DISCIPLINE OF ANDREW D. SEDLOCK (2025)

ORDER OF DISBARMENT

This is an automatic review of a Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board hearing panel's recommendation that attorney Andrew D. Sedlock be disbarred based on violations of RPC 1.2 (scope of representation and allocation of authority between client and lawyer), RPC 1.3 (diligence), RPC 1.4 (communication), RPC 1.8 (conflicts of interest: current clients: specific rules), RPC 1.15 (safekeeping property), RPC 1.16 (declining or terminating representation), RPC 3.2 (expediting litigation), RPC 7.3 (solicitation of clients), RPC 8.1 (bar admission and disciplinary matters), and RPC 8.4 (misconduct). Because no briefs have been filed, this matter stands submitted for decision based on the record. SCR 105(3)(b).

The State Bar has the burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that Sedlock committed the violations charged. In re Discipline of Drakulich, 111 Nev. 1556, 1566, 908 P.2d 709, 715 (1995). Here, however, the facts and charges alleged in the complaint are deemed admitted because Sedlock failed to answer the complaint, and a default was entered.¹ SCR 105(2). The record therefore establishes that Sedlock violated the above-referenced rules by (1) failing to diligently represent a personal injury client, which required the client to retain new counsel to remedy an adverse ruling; (2) retaining a third-party to impermissibly solicit clients at the scene of a car accident; (3) improperly advancing client settlement funds to cover litigation costs for personal injury cases; (4) settling cases without client authorization; (5) failing to disburse settlement payouts, commingling client and operating funds, and mishandling and misappropriating roughly $300,000 in client funds; (6) failing to pay approximately $103,695 in medical liens on behalf of clients; (7) failing to communicate with clients as to the status of their cases; (8) failing to terminate client representation after abandoning his law firm; and (9) failing to respond to the State Bar's lawful requests for information and participate in the disciplinary proceedings.

Turning to the appropriate discipline, we review the hearing panel's recommendation de novo. SCR 105(3)(b). Although we “must ․ exercise independent judgment,” the panel's recommendation is persuasive. In re Discipline of Schaefer, 117 Nev. 496, 515, 25 P.3d 191, 204 (2001). In determining the appropriate discipline, we weigh four factors: “the duty violated, the lawyer's mental state, the potential or actual injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct, and the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors.” In re Discipline of Lerner, 124 Nev. 1232, 1246, 197 P.3d 1067, 1077 (2008).

Sedlock intentionally or knowingly violated duties owed to clients (safekeeping property, conflicts of interest, communication, and diligence), the legal system (expediting litigation), and the profession (failing to decline or properly withdraw representation and failing to respond to lawful requests for information by a disciplinary authority). Sedlock's clients suffered actual injuries through financial loss and Sedlock's lack of communication and diligent representation. And Sedlock's failure to cooperate in the disciplinary investigation harmed the integrity of the profession, which depends on a self-regulating disciplinary system. The baseline sanction for such misconduct, before considering aggravating or mitigating factors, is disbarment. See Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, Compendium of Professional Responsibility Rules and. Standards, Standard 4.11 (Am. Bar Ass'n 2023) (“Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly converts client property and causes injury or potential injury to a client.”). The record supports the panel's findings of one mitigating circumstance (absence of prior discipline) and five aggravating circumstances (dishonest or selfish motive, pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, substantial experience in the practice of law, and indifference to making restitution). Considering the relevant factors, including the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, we agree with the hearing panel that disbarment is appropriate and serves the purpose of attorney discipline. In re Discipline of Arabia, 137 Nev. 568, 571, 495 P.3d 1103, 1109 (2021) (recognizing that the purpose of attorney discipline is to protect the public, the courts, and the legal profession).

Accordingly, we hereby disbar attorney Andrew D. Sedlock from the practice of law in Nevada. Such disbarment is irrevocable. SCR 102(1). Sedlock shall pay the costs of the disciplinary proceedings, including $3,000 under SCR 120(3) plus the costs for the disciplinary proceeding as specified in SCR 120(1) and set forth in the State Bar's Memorandum of Costs filed March 7, 2024, within 30 days from the date of this order. The State Bar shall comply with SCR 121.1.

It is so ORDERED.

Herndon, C.J.

Pickering, J.

Parraguirre, J.

Bell, J.

Stiglich, J.

Cadish, J.

Lee, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The complaint and notice of intent to proceed on a default basis were served through certified mail at Sedlock's last known physical address and were emailed to Sedlock. While Sedlock had a conference call with the State Bar before the filing of the disciplinary complaint, Sedlock failed to respond to the complaint after it was filed and failed to appear at the disciplinary hearing.