IN RE: DISCIPLINE OF RYAN J. CANN (2025)

ORDER IMPOSING RECIPROCAL DISCIPLINE AND SUSPENDING ATTORNEY (DOCKET NO. 90554) AND REJECTING CONDITIONAL ADMISSION AGREEMENT AND REMANDING (DOCKET NO. 90552)

Docket No. 90554 is a petition by the Nevada State Bar seeking reciprocal discipline under SCR 114 based on attorney Ryan J. Cann's two-year suspension from practicing before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). That suspension is based on Cann's admitted violations of USPTO rules of professional conduct 37 C.F.R. § 11.101 (competence), 37 C.F.R. § 11.103 (diligence), 37 C.F.R. § 11.104 (communication), 37 C.F.R. § 11.115 (failure to safekeep client property), and 37 C.F.R. § 11.804 (misrepresenting information to clients). Docket No. 90552 is an automatic review of a Northern Nevada Disciplinary Board hearing panel's recommendation that this court approve, under SCR 113, a conditional admission agreement in exchange for a stated form of discipline for Cann. The agreement calls for a stayed one-year suspension, subject to a two-year probation with conditions, for Cann's admitted violations of RPC 1.3 (diligence), RPC 1.4 (communication), and RPC 1.15 (safekeeping property).

In the proceedings before the USPTO, Cann stipulated that in representing five patent-applicant clients between 2018 and 2022, Cann violated the above-referenced USPTO rules of professional conduct. Cann (1) failed to meet formal patent application requirements resulting in the applications’ abandonment; (2) failed to reasonably communicate with the clients; (3) failed to hold advanced funds in a client trust account; and (4) intentionally misrepresented the patent applications’ statuses to the clients. Cann agreed to a two-year suspension from practice before the USPTO and a two-year probationary term to commence upon his reinstatement by the USPTO's Office of Enrollment and Discipline. Cann failed to self-report the USPTO discipline as required by SCR 114(1). See In re Discipline of Peirce, 122 Nev. 77, 79, 128 P.3d 443, 444 (2006) (concluding that “another jurisdiction” as used in SCR 114 includes the USPTO). After receiving a copy of the USPTO discipline order, the Nevada State Bar filed the petition for reciprocal discipline at issue in Docket No. 90554. Cann has not responded to the petition.

Meanwhile, Cann faced disciplinary proceedings related to misconduct involving another patent client. In the conditional admission agreement at issue in Docket No. 90552, Cann admitted that during the course of representing a client between September 2021 and September 2023, he violated RPC 1.3 (diligence), RPC 1.4 (communication), and RPC 1.15 (safekeeping property). Cann failed to (1) diligently and promptly prepare a client's intellectual property filings with the USPTO; (2) respond to that client's requests for information; and (3) deposit advanced fees and expenses into a client trust account. The Nevada discipline proceedings thus addressed substantially the same type of misconduct during roughly the same period as the USPTO discipline proceedings. We thus elect to consider these matters together.

We first consider whether SCR 114 requires reciprocal discipline based on the USPTO order. That rule mandates identical reciprocal discipline, unless any of four exceptions applies. Those exceptions are: (1) the other jurisdiction failed to provide adequate notice, (2) “there was such an infirmity of proof establishing the misconduct” in the other jurisdiction that this court could not accept the decision of that jurisdiction, (3) the established misconduct warrants sufficiently different discipline in this jurisdiction, or (4) the established misconduct does not constitute misconduct under Nevada's professional conduct rules.

None of the exceptions to reciprocal discipline apply here. Cann admitted the misconduct at issue, acknowledged that it violated the USPTO rules of professional conduct, and agreed to the discipline. Thus, SCR 114’s due process and evidentiary requirements are satisfied. Cann's misconduct likewise warrants suspension in Nevada, especially considering Cann's experience and prior reprimands for violating rules governing diligence, communication, and safekeeping client property. See Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, Compendium of Professional Responsibility Rules and Standards, Standard 4.42 (Am. Bar Ass'n 2023) (stating that suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly fails to perform services for a client and causes injury or potential injury to a client; or a lawyer engages in a pattern of neglect and causes injury or potential injury to a client); Standard 8.2 (stating that suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer has been reprimanded for the same or similar misconduct and engages in further similar acts of misconduct that cause injury or potential injury to a client, the public, the legal system, or the profession). Thus, reciprocal discipline is required.

Turning to the automatic review of the conditional admission agreement, we generally consider whether the agreed-upon discipline sufficiently protects the public, the courts, and the legal profession. See In re Discipline of Arabia, 137 Nev. 568, 571, 495 P.3d 1103, 1109 (2021) (stating the purpose of attorney discipline). The determination of appropriate discipline is guided by 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).

Cann admitted to knowingly violating duties owed to his clients (diligence, communication, and safekeeping property). The record supports the panel's finding of two aggravating circumstances (substantial experience in the practice of law and prior disciplinary offenses) and two mitigating circumstances (full and free disclosure to the disciplinary authority and acceptance of responsibility). While Cann and bar counsel agreed to a downward deviation from Standard 4.42(a)’s baseline actual suspension, the conditional admission agreement did not consider the USPTO's final disciplinary order. Although the USPTO discipline order was entered before the formal hearing on the conditional admission agreement, it was not mentioned at the hearing. It appears that the State Bar first learned about the USPTO order after the hearing panel entered its written decision, which in turn raises questions as to the agreed-upon discipline in Docket No. 90552.

Accordingly, as none of the exceptions to SCR 114(4)’s identical discipline requirements apply, we grant the petition for reciprocal discipline in Docket No. 90554. Attorney Ryan J. Cann is suspended from the practice of law in Nevada for two years commencing from the date of this order. If Cann is granted reinstatement to practice before the USPTO, Cann must provide the Nevada State Bar proof of compliance with the probation conditions outlined in the USPTO's discipline order. For the reasons stated in this order, we reject the conditional admission agreement in Docket No. 90552 and remand that matter to the Northern Nevada Disciplinary Board for further proceedings to confirm and/or reconsider the agreement in light of the USPTO discipline order. The parties shall comply with SCR 115 and SCR 121.1.

It is so ORDERED.

Herndo, C.J.

Pickering, J.

Bell, J.

Cadish, J.

Parraguirre, J.

Stiglich, J.

Lee, J.