capacity to practice law and to file a report of the expert's findings by July 

21, 2014. 1To date, LaMadrid has failed to file such a report. In light of 

LaMadrid's failure to comply with our order to provide a recent 

examination of her capacity to practice law, we conclude that LaMadrid is 

not incapacitated from practicing law and that disciplinary proceedings 

against her, including the one in Docket No. 61137, may resume. See SCR 

117(3). 2 

The disciplinary proceedings against LaMadrid in Docket No. 

61137 arose when LaMadrid, who was working for a firm, accepted money 

and gifts directly from clients and did not deposit retainer funds into the 

firm's trust account. LaMadrid kept the funds for personal use, failed to 

perform requested legal services, and failed to communicate with clients 

and the State Bar. Despite proper notice, LaMadrid did not appear at the 

hearing before the disciplinary board hearing panel. The panel found that 

LaMadrid violated RPC 1.3 (diligence), RPC 1.4 (communication), RPC 1.5 

(safekeeping property), RPC 8.1 (b) (bar admission and disciplinary 

matters), and RPC 8.4(c) (misconduct). The panel recommended that 

LaMadrid be suspended from the practice of law for one year and be 

ordered to pay the costs of the disciplinary proceedings 

'Our order was sent to the address LaMadrid has on file with this 

court, which appears to be the same permanent mailing address LaMadrid 

has provided to the State Bar pursuant to SCR 79(1)(a); see also SCR 

79(3). 

2In light of our determination, we will take no further action on the 

petition in Docket No. 62803, and that matter is now closed. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

2 

(0) 1947A Apt. 
The findings and recommendations of a disciplinary board 

hearing panel are persuasive; however, our automatic review of a panel 

decision recommending a suspension is conducted de novo, requiring the 

exercise of independent judgment by this court. SCR 105(3)(b); In re 

Discipline of Stuhff, 108 Nev. 629, 633, 837 P.2d 853, 855 (1992). Having 

reviewed the record of the disciplinary proceedings, we conclude that clear 

and convincing evidence supports the findings that LaMadrid violated 

RPC 1.3 (diligence), RPC 1.4 (communication), RPC 1.15 (safekeeping 

property), RPC 8.1(b) (bar admission and disciplinary matters), and RPC 

8.4(c) (misconduct). SCR 105(2)(f). We further conclude that the panel's 

recommended discipline is appropriately tailored to LaMadrid's 

misconduct. Accordingly, LaMadrid is hereby suspended from the practice 

of law for one year. 3Additionally, LaMadrid shall pay the costs of the 

disciplinary proceedings within 30 days of receipt of the State Bar's bill of 

costs. See SCR 120. 

3We note that LaMadrid is currently suspended for failure to 

complete required continuing legal education (CLE) requirements. The 

suspension imposed in this order is separate from and in addition to 

LaMadrid's CLE suspension; the suspension imposed here shall not begin 

until LaMadrid has resolved her CLE suspension. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 
, C.J. 

Parraguirre 

rc-L 

Hardesty 

) 

Douglas 

LaMadrid and the State Bar shall comply with the applicable 

provisions of SCR 115 and SCR 121.1. 

It is so ORDERED. 4 

Pidebt j 

Pickering 

J. 

Saitta 

cc: David A. Clark, Bar Counsel 

Kimberly K. Farmer, Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada 

Joslyn J. LaMadrid 

Jeffrey Albregts, Chair, Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board 

Perry Thompson, U.S. Supreme Court Admissions Office 

4This constitutes our final disposition of these matters. Any new 

proceedings concerning LaMadrid shall be docketed as a new and separate 

matter. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 4 

(0) I V47A