IN RE: DISCIPLINE OF JOHN TAYLOR OBLAD (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 John Taylor Oblad. Under the agreement. Oblad admitted to violating RPC 1.3 (Diligence), RPC 1.4 (Communication), RPC 1.5 (Fees), RPC 1.8 (Conflict of Interest), RPC 1.15(a), (d), and (e) (Safekeeping Property). RPC 3.2 (Expediting Litigation), RPC 3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal). RPC 3.4 (Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel), RPC 8.1 (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and SCR 78(1)(b) (maintenance of trust funds in approved financial institutions). Oblad agreed to a three-year suspension with the suspension stayed subject to a twenty-four-month term of probation.

Oblad admitted the facts and violations as part of the agreement with the State Bar. Oblad thus admitted to mismanaging an IOLTA trust account by commingling and misappropriating client funds, failing to properly maintain IOLTA trust account records, and failing to timely disburse funds to multiple clients and to one client's lienholder. Oblad also admitted to failing to communicate with a client about the status of the client's case, failing to communicate with opposing counsel about finalizing a settlement, failing to attend multiple court hearings resulting in the court issuing an order to show cause, providing financial assistance to a client in connection with pending or contemplated litigation, and failing to respond to the State Bar's lawful demands for information.

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).

Oblad admitted to knowingly violating duties owed to clients (diligence, communication, conflict of interest, and safekeeping property), to the profession (fees, disciplinary matters, and maintenance of trust funds in approved financial institutions), and to the legal system (expediting litigation, candor toward the tribunal, and fairness to opposing party and counsel). Oblad further admitted actual injury and potential injury to clients, the profession, and the legal system. 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 6.12 (providing that suspension is appropriate when a lawyer knows “that material information is improperly being withheld, and takes no remedial action, and causes injury or potential injury to a party to the legal proceeding”); Standard 6.22 (providing that suspension is appropriate when a lawyer knowingly “violate[s] a court order or rule, and causes injury or potential injury to a client or a party, or causes interference or potential interference with a legal proceeding”); 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 practice of law) and three mitigating circumstances (personal or emotional problems, interim rehabilitation, and remorse). Considering all four factors, we conclude that the agreed-upon discipline is appropriate.

Accordingly, we hereby suspend attorney John Taylor Oblad from the practice of law for three years from the date of this order. That suspension shall be stayed and Oblad placed on probation for twenty-four months subject to the terms and conditions outlined in the conditional admission agreement. Those terms and conditions include that Oblad engage in no professional misconduct that results in a screening panel recommending new disciplinary charges be filed, engage in mental health treatment, satisfy all outstanding lienholders and disburse remaining client settlement funds, and engage a law practice mentor. Oblad 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.