IN RE: DISCIPLINE OF Erik C. SEVERINO (2018)

ORDER IMPOSING RECIPROCAL DISCIPLINE

This is a petition under SCR 114 for reciprocal discipline of attorney Erik C. Severino, based on his reprimand in Arizona. Severino did not self-report his Arizona discipline as required by SCR 114(1) and he has not responded to the petition. See SCR 114(3).

Severino was reprimanded in Arizona on April 25, 2018. Severino had expanded his law practice to Arizona and hired a non-attorney office manager as well as an Arizona-barred attorney. Severino admitted to the Arizona court that he failed to diligently manage the cases in that office; failed to properly supervise the office manager; allowed improper fee-splitting with the office manager; and, in at least one instance, accepted money from a client and then failed to perform any legal work. Based on these facts, Severino admitted to having violated Arizona rules of professional conduct equivalent to Nevada's RPC 1.3 (diligence); RPC 5.3(a) (responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistants); RPC 7.2(n) (advertising: fee-splitting); and RPC 8.4(d) (misconduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). No aggravating or mitigating circumstances were found.

SCR 114(4) provides that this court shall impose identical reciprocal discipline unless the attorney demonstrates or this court finds that at least one of four factors is present: (1) the procedure in the other jurisdiction denied the attorney due process; (2) there is such an infirmity of proof of the misconduct in other jurisdictions that this court cannot accept the other court's decision; (3) substantially different discipline is warranted in this state; or (4) the established misconduct does not constitute misconduct under the rules of this state. None of the exceptions apply to this case and so we grant the petition for reciprocal discipline. Accordingly, we hereby publicly reprimand Severino for his violations of the rules of professional conduct. The State Bar shall comply with SCR 121.1.

It is so ORDERED.