IN RE: DISCIPLINE OF STEVEN H. BURKE (2026)

ORDER OF SUSPENSION

This is an automatic review of a Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board hearing panel's recommendation that this court suspend attorney Steven H. Burke for five years and one day for multiple violations of the Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct. We temporarily suspended Burke on July 23, 2024, pending the resolution of the disciplinary proceedings. In re Discipline of Burke, No. 88134, 2024 WL 3515554 (Nev. July 23, 2024) (Order Granting Petition for Temporary Suspension and Restricting Access to Client Funds). Thereafter, we suspended Burke for six months and one day in connection with a separate discipline matter. In re Discipline of Burke, No. 89365, 2025 WL 945705 (Nev. Mar. 25, 2025) (Order of Suspension).

Burke admitted to the facts and violations as part of a stipulation with the State Bar. The record therefore establishes that Burke violated RPC 1.3 (diligence), RPC 1.15(c) (safekeeping property), and RPC 3.4(c), (d) (fairness to opposing party or counsel) in his representation of one client. The record also establishes that Burke violated RPC 1.4(a), (b) (communication), RPC 1.8(a) (conflict of interest: current clients: specific rules), RPC 1.15(a), (c), (d) (safekeeping property), RPC 3.2(a) (expediting litigation), RPC 3.3(a) (candor toward the tribunal), RPC 3.4(c) (fairness to opposing party and counsel), and RPC 8.4(c) (misconduct) in his representation of another client. Finally, the record establishes that Burke misappropriated over $600,000 of client funds for personal use due to Burke's gambling addiction.

The issue for this court is whether the recommended discipline sufficiently protects the public, the courts, and the legal profession. 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). 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).

Burke admitted he violated duties owed to his clients (diligence, safekeeping property, communication, conflict of interest: current clients: specific rules, and misconduct) and the legal system (expediting litigation, candor toward the tribunal, fairness to opposing party or counsel). Burke also admitted his mental state was knowing or intentional because he acted with a conscious objective or purpose to take money that did not belong to him to fund his gambling addiction. See Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, Compendium of Professional Responsibility Rules and Standards 452 (Am. Bar Ass'n 2023) (defining “knowledge” and “intent”). Burke's clients were injured. One had a sizeable default judgment entered against him due to Burke failing to properly plead counterclaims and to participate in discovery. Another client was injured when Burke failed to timely disburse funds owed to the client because Burke misappropriated those funds for Burke's own use.

The baseline sanction before considering aggravating and mitigating circumstances is disbarment. See id. at Standard 4.11 (“Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly converts client property and causes injury or potential injury to a client.”). The record supports the panel's findings of seven aggravating circumstances (prior disciplinary offenses, dishonest or selfish motive, pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, vulnerability of victim, substantial experience in the practice of law, and illegal conduct). The record also supports the panel's findings of seven mitigating circumstances (personal or emotional problems, timely good faith effort to rectify consequences of misconduct, full and free disclosure to disciplinary authority or cooperative attitude toward proceeding, character or reputation, mental disability (gambling addiction), interim rehabilitation, and remorse). See SCR 102.5 (listing aggravating and mitigating circumstances which may be considered in deciding what sanction to impose). Burke has taken steps to rectify the misconduct and has acknowledged and taken steps to address his gambling addiction and the issues that fueled that addiction. Considering those circumstances, we agree with the hearing panel that a downward deviation from the baseline sanction is warranted and conclude that the recommended discipline is sufficient to serve the purpose of attorney discipline.

Accordingly, we hereby suspend attorney Steven H. Burke from the practice of law in Nevada for five years and one day from the date of his temporary suspension, July 23, 2024. Burke shall be required to participate in private mental health counseling during the remainder of his term of suspension. Restitution must be paid to the client in SBN24-0009 in full before Burke seeks reinstatement. Burke 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.¹

Herndon, C.J.

Pickering, J.

Parraguirre, J.

Bell, J.

Stiglich, J.

Cadish, J.

Lee, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We decline to impose the panel's recommended conditions on Burke's practice of law at this time because such conditions are more appropriately considered in connection with any future reinstatement proceedings.