IN RE: the REINSTATEMENT OF Matthew J. PEIRCE (2026)

ORDER DENYING REINSTATEMENT

This is an automatic review of a Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board hearing panel's recommendation to dismiss suspended attorney Matthew J. Peirce's petition for reinstatement.

In 2019, this court suspended Peirce from the practice of law for three years. In re Discipline of Peirce, No. 79833, 2019 WL 6699822 (Nev. Dec. 6, 2019) (Order Approving Conditional Guilty Plea). Peirce has petitioned for reinstatement. The hearing panel recommends dismissing the petition based on findings that Peirce failed to satisfy two of the seven reinstatement criteria under SCR 116(5): (1) recognition of the wrongfulness and seriousness of the misconduct, SCR 116(5)(d); and (2) showing the requisite honesty and integrity to resume the practice of law, SCR 116(5)(f).

Based on our de novo review, we agree with the hearing panel that Peirce did not meet his burden in seeking reinstatement and otherwise did not present good and sufficient reasons for his reinstatement. See SCR 116(5) (listing seven reinstatement criteria and placing the burden on the suspended attorney to establish each by clear and convincing evidence or otherwise present good and sufficient reasons for reinstatement); Application of Wright, 75 Nev. 111, 112-13, 335 P.2d 609, 610 (1959) (reviewing a petition for reinstatement de novo). In particular, the record supports the panel's findings that Peirce minimized his misconduct, attributed it to external circumstances, and proposed vague safeguards that failed to meaningfully address the causes of his prior misconduct or the underlying concerns about preventing its recurrence. SCR 116(5)(d), (f): see In re Discipline of Arabia, 137 Nev. 568, 575, 495 P.3d 1103, 1112 (2021) (stating that this court will defer to the hearing panel's factual findings if they are not clearly erroneous and are supported by substantial evidence) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Although Peirce argues that additional conditions would alleviate the panel's concerns, the record shows that similar conditions had failed to prevent Peirce's recurring misconduct, supporting the panel's findings that such conditions would not supply good and sufficient reason for reinstatement. SCR 116(3).

We therefore approve the panel's recommendation and deny Peirce's petition for reinstatement. Peirce shall pay the costs of the reinstatement proceeding, including $2,500 under SCR 120(5), within 30 days from the date of this order, if he has not done so already.

It is so ORDERED.