IN RE: DISCIPLINE OF MIGUEL ANGEL OLANO (2025)

ORDER IMPOSING RECIPROCAL DISCIPLINE

This is a petition under SCR 114 for reciprocal discipline of attorney Miguel Angel Olano based on his discipline in California. Olano self-reported the California discipline as required by SCR 114(1). Olano has not responded to the petition. See SCR 114(3) (allowing but not requiring a response).

Olano represented a client in an immigration matter for purposes of filing an adjustment of status (AOS) application. The client paid part of a flat fee by depositing $2,000 directly into Olano's checking account. Despite receiving all required documents and immigration service and filing fees, Olano failed to file the AOS. Over several months, Olano falsely told the client that the application had been filed and was pending. As a result, the client fell out of status and lost her work authorization. After meeting with the client, Olano returned the unfiled forms and later refunded the client's fees through two cashier's checks.

Based on these facts, the California State Bar found Olano violated California rules of professional conduct equivalent to Nevada's RPC 1.3 (diligence), RPC 1.4 (communication), RPC 1.15 (safekeeping property), and RPC 8.4 (misconduct). The California State Bar found two aggravating factors (multiple acts of wrongdoing and significant harm to a vulnerable person) and two mitigating factors (absence of a prior disciplinary record and cooperation with disciplinary authorities). The California State Bar further found that Olano acted willfully and recklessly in causing injury to his client. The California State Bar recommended a one-year suspension with all but 60 days stayed, and one year of probation with conditions. The Supreme Court of California adopted the recommendation.

Under SCR 114(4), this court must impose identical reciprocal discipline unless the attorney demonstrates, or this court determines, that any of four exceptions apply. 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, and (4) the established misconduct does not constitute misconduct under Nevada's professional conduct rules. SCR 114(4).

None of the exceptions apply, so we grant the petition for reciprocal discipline. Accordingly, we hereby suspend attorney Miguel Angel Olano for one year, with all but the first 60 days stayed, subject to a one-year probation, beginning on the date of this order. Olano's probation shall be subject to the terms set forth in the California discipline order. The parties shall comply with SCR 115 and SCR 121.1.

It is so ORDERED.

Herndon, C.J.

Bell, J.

Stiglich, J.