IN RE: DISCIPLINE OF ALDA A. ANDERSON (2025)

ORDER APPROVING CONDITIONAL ADMISSION AGREEMENT

This is an automatic review of a Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board hearing panel's recommendation that this court approve, pursuant to SCR 113, a conditional admission agreement in exchange for a stated form of discipline for attorney Alda A. Anderson. Under the agreement, Anderson admitted to violating RPC 1.3 (diligence), RPC 1.15(a) (safekeeping property), RPC 1.15(d) (safekeeping property), and SCR 78(l)(b) (maintenance of trust funds in approved financial institutions). Anderson agreed to a six-month-and-one-day suspension with the suspension stayed subject to one year of probation.

Anderson admitted the facts and violations as part of the agreement with the State Bar. Anderson thus admitted to failing to preserve complete records of client funds for a period of five years after failing to locate a client's file; failing to promptly deliver funds to a lienholder after approximately three years, despite the lienholder's multiple attempts at contacting Anderson; and failing to provide copies of billing, accounting, trust documents, and copies of all disbursement sheets and settlement documents to the State Bar for inspection upon request.

The issue for this court is whether the agreed-upon discipline sufficiently “protect[s] the public, the courts, and the legal profession.” In re Discipline of Arabia, 137 Nev. 568, 571, 495 P.3d 1103, 1109 (2021) (stating the purpose of attorney discipline). 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).

Anderson admitted to knowingly violating duties owed to a client (diligence and safekeeping property) and to the profession (maintenance of trust funds in approved financial institutions). Anderson further admitted injury and potential injury to a client and the profession. The baseline sanction for such violations, before considering the aggravating or mitigating circumstances, is suspension. Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, Compendium of Professional Responsibility Rules and. Standards, Standard 4.12 (Am. Bar Ass'n 2023) (providing that suspension is 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 4.42(a) (providing that suspension is appropriate when “a lawyer knowingly fails to perform services for a client and causes injury or potential injury to a client”); Standard 7.2 (providing that suspension is appropriate “when 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”). The record supports three aggravating circumstances (prior disciplinary offenses, multiple offenses, and substantial experience in the law) and three mitigating circumstances (absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, timely good faith effort to make restitution or to rectify consequences of misconduct, and remorse). Considering all four factors, we conclude that the agreed-upon discipline is appropriate.

Accordingly, we hereby suspend attorney Alda A. Anderson from the practice of law for six months and one day from the date of this order, but we stay the suspension for twelve months subject to the conditions outlined in the conditional admission agreement. Those conditions include the requirement that Anderson engage in no professional misconduct that results in a screening panel recommending new disciplinary charges be filed. Anderson shall also pay the costs of the disciplinary proceedings, including $2,500 under SCR 120, 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.

Bell, J.

Stiglich, J.