IN RE: DISCIPLINE OF RULON JAY HUNTSMAN (2026)

ORDER OF SUSPENSION

This is an automatic review of a Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board hearing panel's recommendation that attorney Rulon Jay Huntsman be suspended from the practice of law for one year for violating RPC 1.3(a) (diligence), RPC 3.2(a) (expediting litigation), and RPC 8.4(d) (misconduct). Because no briefs have been filed, this matter stands submitted for decision based on the record. SCR 105(3)(b).

The State Bar has the burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that Huntsman committed the violations charged. In re Discipline of Drakulich, 111 Nev. 1556, 1566, 908 P.2d 709, 715 (1995). Here, however, the facts and charges in the complaint are deemed admitted because Huntsman's attempts to answer the complaint were struck and a default was entered.¹ SCR 105(2). The admitted facts establish that Huntsman violated the above-referenced rules by failing to abide by Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure and this court's orders in representing the appellant in Docket No. 87966, including not timely filing a case appeal statement and docketing statement, and failing to file a transcript request form. Consequently, we dismissed the appeal and sanctioned Huntsman. See Connell v. Grosnick, No. 87966, 2024 WL 2124936 (Nev. May 10, 2024) (Order Dismissing Appeal and Referring Counsel to State Bar for Investigation).

Turning to the appropriate discipline, we review the hearing panel's recommendation de novo. SCR 105(3)(b). In determining the appropriate discipline, this court weighs 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); SCR 102.5(1).

Huntsman knowingly violated duties to his client (diligence) and the legal system (expediting litigation and misconduct). Huntsman's conduct injured his client as his client's appeal was dismissed. The baseline sanction for that misconduct, before consideration of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, is suspension. See Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, Compendium of Professional Responsibility Rules and Standards, Standard 4.42(a) (Am. Bar Ass'n 2023) (providing 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”); 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 party, or causes interference or potential interference with a legal proceeding.”). The panel found and the record supports five aggravating circumstances (prior disciplinary offenses, pattern of misconduct, refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of the conduct, vulnerability of the victim, and substantial experience in the practice of law) and no mitigating circumstances.

Considering all the factors, we agree with the panel that a suspension is warranted. Given Huntsman's lengthy disciplinary history, coupled with the fact Huntsman blamed his misconduct on his client and Huntsman's apparent lack of remorse, we conclude a one-year suspension serves the purpose of attorney discipline. 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 suspend attorney Rulon Jay Huntsman from the practice of law in Nevada for one year from the date of this order. Huntsman shall pay the costs of the disciplinary proceedings, including $2,500 under SCR 120, within 30 days from the date of this order. The parties shall comply with SCR 115 and SCR 121.1.

It is so ORDERED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The State Bar served Huntsman with the complaint and disciplinary rules of procedure by regular and certified mail at his SCR 79 address and by email. Huntsman served the State Bar with two responses, but those responses were struck because they did not comply with the pleading rules.

Herndon, C.J.

Pickering, J. Bell, J. Cadish, J. Parraguirre, J. Stiglich, J. Lee, J.