IN RE: DISCIPLINE OF CARL E. G. ARNOLD (2026)

ORDER APPROVING CONDITIONAL ADMISSION AGREEMENT

This is an automatic review of a Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board hearing panel's recommendation that this court approve, pursuant to SCR 113, a conditional admission agreement in exchange for a stated form of discipline for attorney Carl E. G. Arnold. Under the agreement, Arnold admitted to violating RPC 1.3 (diligence); RPC 3.2(a) (expediting litigation); RPC 3.4(c) (fairness to opposing counsel); RPC 5.3(a) (responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistants); and RPC 8.4(d) (misconduct: conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). Arnold agreed to a six-month-and-one-day suspension, stayed for one year, subject to certain conditions.

The current matter involves one grievance arising from Arnold's failure to comply with this court's notices and orders relating to a client's appeal from a criminal conviction. Arnold admitted to failing to timely file a rough draft transcript request, failing to file a docketing statement, failing to review transcripts for appeal, failing to prepare an opening brief, and failing to file an appendix despite this court's notices and orders. Arnold was removed as counsel of record.

The issue for this court is whether the agreed-upon discipline sufficiently protects the public, the courts, and the legal profession. See In re Discipline of Arabia, 137 Nev. 568, 571, 495 P.3d 1103, 1109 (2021) (stating the purpose of attorney discipline). 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).

Arnold stipulated to application of ABA Standard 4.42 (Duties Owed to Clients—Lack of Diligence), ABA Standard 6.22 (Abuse of Legal Process), and ABA Standard 7.2 (Violations of Duties Owed as a Professional). See Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, Compendium of Professional Responsibility Rules and Standards 442 (Am. Bar Ass'n 2023). Arnold admitted to committing the violations with a knowing mental state and stipulated his misconduct resulted in injury to the client. The baseline sanction for such violation, before considering the aggravating or mitigating circumstances, is suspension. See id., at Standard 4.42(a) (providing that suspension is appropriate when a lawyer “knowingly fails to perform services for a client and causes injury or potential injury to a client”); id., at Standard 6.22 (providing that suspension is 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”); id., at Standard 7.2 (providing that suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer “knowingly engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed as a professional and causes injury or potential injury to a client, the public, or the legal system”). The record supports three aggravating circumstances (prior disciplinary offenses, multiple offenses, and substantial experience in the practice of law) and three mitigating circumstances (absence of dishonest or selfish motive, full and free disclosure to disciplinary authority or cooperative attitude toward proceeding, and remorse). Considering all four factors, we conclude that the agreed-upon discipline is appropriate.

Accordingly, we hereby suspend attorney Carl E. G. Arnold from the practice of law in Nevada for six months and one day from the date of this order, stayed for one year, subject to the conditions outlined in the panel's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation. Those conditions include requirements that Arnold not engage in conduct for which a reprimand is issued or a complaint filed for violating any Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct during the stayed period; and fully cooperate with a mentor providing quarterly reports to the State Bar with specified information, every 90 days during the stay period. Arnold shall also pay the cost 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.

Bell, J.

Stiglich, J.

Cadish, J.