IN RE: DISCIPLINE OF Calder B. GABROY (2026)

ORDER OF SUSPENSION

This is an automatic review of a Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board hearing panel's recommendation that attorney Calder B. Gabroy be reprimanded for violating RPC 1.1 (Competence), RPC 3.3(a)(1) (Candor Toward the Tribunal), RPC 3.4(c), (d) (Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel), and RPC 8.4(c), (d) (Misconduct).

The State Bar has the burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that Gabroy committed the violations charged. In re Discipline of Drakulich, 111 Nev. 1556, 1566, 908 P.2d 709, 715 (1995). We will defer to the hearing panel's findings of fact unless those findings are clearly erroneous or not supported by substantial evidence. In re Discipline of Arabia, 137 Nev. 568, 575, 495 P.3d 1103, 1112 (2021). Here, the record does not support Gabroy's claim that he was prejudiced by the State Bar “utilizing” excluded exhibits at the disciplinary hearing. And substantial evidence supports the hearing panel's findings that Gabroy violated the above-referenced rules while representing a client in a civil matter. Gabroy failed to meaningfully participate in the discovery process, disobeyed a court order to provide supplemental briefing, misrepresented to the court that he had submitted interrogatory responses, and submitted multiple district court filings containing little to no legal analysis or support. As a result of Gabroy's actions, the district court struck the client's answer and entered a default judgment against the client for nearly $2.5 million.

Turning to the appropriate discipline for those violations, “the hearing panel's recommendation is persuasive,” In re Arabia, 137 Nev. at 578, 495 P.3d at 1114-15, but our review is de novo. SCR 105(3)(b). 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); see also SCR 102.5(1). Although the State Bar suggests the hearing panel failed to engage with those factors, the record does not support this contention.

The State Bar challenges the hearing panel's finding that Gabroy had a negligent mental state. As to the RPC 1.1 violation, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the panel's finding of a negligent mental state. Gabroy's actions certainly fell below “the standard of care that a reasonable lawyer would exercise in the situation.” Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, Compendium of Professional Responsibility Rules and Standards, 452 (Am. Bar Ass'n 2023) (Standards) (defining a negligent mental state). But we cannot agree with the State Bar that Gabroy had a “conscious awareness of the nature” of his misconduct. Id. (describing a knowing mental state).

As to the remaining violations, we agree with the State Bar that substantial evidence does not support a negligent mental state. Rather, the record demonstrates Gabroy acted with a knowing mental state when violating RPC 3.3(a)(1) (Candor Toward the Tribunal), RPC 3.4(c), (d) (Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel), and RPC 8.4(c), (d) (Misconduct). Gabroy told the court he had provided interrogatory responses to the court and opposing counsel but later admitted he did not prepare or serve interrogatory responses. Gabroy also admitted he did not file a supplemental opposition to the plaintiff's motion for sanctions, despite the district court ordering him to do so, because he did not feel it was necessary. Because Gabroy knowingly failed to participate in discovery, disobeyed a court order, and made false representations to the court, we conclude substantial evidence does not support the hearing panel's finding that Gabroy had a negligent mental state when violating RPC 3.3(a)(1), RPC 3.4(c), (d), and RPC 8.4(c), (d).

Turning to the other factors, Gabroy violated duties owed to his client (competence) and the legal system (candor toward the tribunal, fairness to opposing party and counsel, and misconduct). Gabroy's actions caused actual harm to his client, to the opposing party, and to the court. Gabroy's actions delayed the proceedings, caused the district court to expend significant effort reviewing discovery responses, and resulted in a sizeable default judgment entered against the client.

Because the most serious misconduct was Gabroy's knowing violation of his duty of candor to the court, the baseline sanction, before considering aggravating or mitigating circumstances, is suspension.¹ See Standards, Standard 6.22 (“Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knows that he or she is violating 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.”). Whether to deviate from that baseline depends on any aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Substantial evidence supports the panel's findings of one aggravating circumstance (refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of the conduct) and two mitigating circumstances (absence of a prior disciplinary record and inexperience in the practice of law). See SCR 102.5 (listing aggravating and mitigating circumstances which may be considered in deciding what sanction to impose). Although the hearing panel did not find the additional aggravating circumstance of pattern of misconduct, we agree with the State Bar that this aggravating circumstance applies given that Gabroy's misconduct spanned the course of several months.

Considering all the Lerner factors, we conclude the hearing panel's recommendation for a reprimand is insufficient. Rather, we conclude a stayed six-month-and-one-day suspension with the conditions recommended by the hearing panel better serves the purpose of attorney discipline. See In re Discipline of Arabia, 137 Nev. 568, 571, 495 P.3d 1103, 1109 (2021) (explaining that the purpose of attorney discipline “is to protect the public, the courts, and the legal profession,” not to punish the attorney).

Accordingly, we hereby suspend attorney Calder B. Gabroy from the practice of law for six months and one day. The suspension is stayed in favor of a probationary period of twenty-four months commencing from the date of this order. The probationary period will be subject to Gabroy's full and good faith compliance with the conditions outlined in the panel's disciplinary recommendation. Those conditions include the requirement that Gabroy obtain an attorney mentor approved by the State Bar who is not related to him by blood or marriage and who is in good standing with the State Bar. Gabroy should meet monthly with the attorney mentor and follow practice and office management recommendations offered by the mentor. The mentor shall provide written, candid quarterly reports to the State Bar documenting the mentorship progress or lack thereof. Gabroy must also complete double the annual continuing legal education (CLE) hours for one calendar year, to include 3 hours in Legal Research and Writing, 3 hours in Ethics, and 3 hours in Civil Procedure. Gabroy 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.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The hearing panel did not expressly identify a baseline or presumptive sanction.