IN RE: DISCIPLINE OF MICHAEL A. HAGEMEYER (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 Michael A. Hagemeyer. Under the agreement, Hagemeyer admitted to violating RPC 1.8 (conflict of interest: current clients: specific rules) and RPC 1.15 (safekeeping property). Hagemeyer agreed to a one-year suspension, stayed for three years subject to certain conditions.

Hagemeyer admitted to entering into a private loan agreement with clients, who were his close friends, after settling their personal injury case. Hagemeyer did not memorialize the loan agreement in writing, advise his clients of the desirability of seeking outside legal counsel in writing, or obtain the clients’ informed consent in writing. Hagemeyer also admitted to commingling his attorney fees with the clients’ portion of the settlement proceeds in Hagemeyer's IOLTA account and failing to withdraw the entirety of his attorney fees from the IOLTA account once earned.

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).

Hagemeyer admitted to knowingly violating duties owed to clients (safekeeping property and conflict of interest). Hagemeyer further admitted the conduct caused potential injury to his clients. The baseline sanction for such violations, before considering the aggravating or mitigating circumstances, is suspension. See Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, Compendium of Professional Responsibility Rules and Standards, Standard 4.12 (Am. Bar Ass'n 2023) (providing that suspension is appropriate “when a lawyer knows or should know that he is dealing improperly with client property and causes injury or potential injury to a client”); Standard 4.32 (providing that suspension is appropriate “when a lawyer knows of a conflict of interest and does not fully disclose to a client the possible effect of that conflict, and causes injury or potential injury to a client”). The record supports four aggravating circumstances (prior disciplinary offenses, a pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, and substantial experience in the practice of law) and four mitigating circumstances (personal or emotional problems, full and free disclosure to disciplinary authority or cooperative attitude toward the proceeding, physical disability, and remorse). Considering all four factors, we conclude that the agreed-upon discipline is appropriate.

Accordingly, we hereby suspend attorney Michael A. Hagemeyer from the practice of law in Nevada for one year, with the suspension stayed for three years from the date of this order, subject to the conditions outlined in the panel's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation. Those conditions include requirements that Hagemeyer pay restitution to the clients during the first year of the stayed suspension; complete six additional continuing legal education credits per year for the duration of the stay in the areas of ethics and IOLTA; refrain from depositing or holding funds for himself or an immediate family member in Hagemeyer's IOLTA; provide monthly reconciliation reports to the Office of Bar Counsel; and engage in no conduct involving client funds for which a reprimand is issued or a complaint is filed. Hagemeyer 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.