IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

IN THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINE OF 

KEVIN D. HOLTMAN, BAR NO. 11603. 

No. 83770 

FILED 

JAN 2 8 2022 

ORDER OF SUSPENSION 

This is an automatic review of a Southern Nevada Disciplinary 

Board hearing panel's recommendation that Kevin D. Holtman be 

suspended for two years and one day based on violations of RPC 1.3 

(diligence), RPC 1.4 (communication), RPC 3.2 (expediting litigation), and 

RPC 8.1 (disciplinary matters). Because no briefs have been filed, this 

matter stands submitted for decision based on the record. SCR 105(3)(b). 

The State Bar has the burden of showing by clear and 

convincing evidence that Holtman committed the violations charged. In re 

Discipline of Drakulich, 111 Nev. 1556, 1566, 908 P.2d 709, 715 (1995). 

Here, however, the facts and charges alleged in the complaint are deemed 

admitted because Holtman failed to answer the complaint and a default was 

entered. SCR 105(2). The record therefore establishes that Holtman 

violated the above-referenced rules by failing to diligently investigate 

claims and litigate on behalf of two clients, by failing to communicate with 

those clients, and by failing to respond to the State Bar's inquiries. 

Turning to the appropriate discipline, we review the hearing 

panel's recommendation de novo. SCR 105(3)(b). Although we 

“must . . . exercise independent judgment," the panel's recommendation is 

1The complaints and the notice of intent to take a default were served 

on Holtman via mail at his SCR 79 address and another address and via 

email at his SCR 79 email address and an alternate email address. 

Holtman never responded to the Bar's letters. 

zi- 07,9 0 I 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 46111*. 
SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEvADA 

401 1947A .09P11. 

persuasive. In re Discipline of Schaefer, 117 Nev. 496, 515, 25 P.3d 191, 204 

(2001). 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). 

Holtman violated duties owed to his clients and the profession. 

Holtman's mental state appears to have been intentional or knowing. His 

misconduct harmed his clients by causing their cases to be delayed and 

failing to properly investigate their claims. Holtman's failure to cooperate 

with the disciplinary investigation harmed the integrity of the profession, 

which depends on a self-regulating disciplinary system. 

The baseline sanction for Holtman's misconduct, before 

considering aggravating and mitigating circumstances, is suspension. See 

Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, Compendium of Professional 

Responsibility Rules and Standards, Standard 4.42 & Standard 7.2 (Am. 

Bar Ass'n 2017) (recommending suspension when "a lawyer knowingly fails 

to perform services for a client and causes injury or potential injury to a 

clienr and 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 panel found and the record 

supports five aggravating circumstances (pattern of misconduct, multiple 

offenses, bad faith obstruction by intentionally failing to comply with rules 

or orders, vulnerability of the victim, and substantial experience in the 

practice of law). As we recently suspended Holtman for three years In re 

Discipline of Holtman, No. 82993, 2021 WL 4399344 (Nev. Sept. 24, 2021) 

(Order of Suspension), the mitigating circumstance of absence of prior 

discipline does not apply. Considering all the factors and that the hearing 

2 
panel recommends Holtman pass the Nevada Bar Examination and the 

Multi-State Professional Responsibility Examination before applying for 

reinstatement, the recommended two-year-and-one-day suspension is 

sufficient to serve the purpose of attorney discipline. See State Bar of Nev. 

v. Claiborne, 104 Nev. 115, 213, 756 P.2d 464, 527-28 (1988) (observing the 

purpose of attorney discipline is to protect the public, the courts, and the 

legal profession, not to punish the attorney). 

Accordingly, we hereby suspend attorney Kevin D. Holtman 

from the practice of law in Nevada for a period of two years and one day 

commencing from the date of this order. Before applying for reinstatement, 

Holtman shall take and pass the Nevada Bar Examination and the MultiState Professional Responsibility Examination. Further, Holtman shall 

pay the costs of the disciplinary proceedings, including $2,500 under SCR 

120(3), within 30 days from the date of this order. The parties shall comply 

with SCR 115 and SCR 121.1. 

It is so ORDE 

Parraguirre 

11..t 4,42\ ,J. 

Hardesty Stiglich 

C41tvA, , J. Pidettai' f , J. 

Cadish Pickering 

Herndon 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A (41/01r. 

3 
SILVER, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part: 

I concur in the decision to suspend Holtman and with the length 

of the suspension. But I would impose this suspension consecutive to the 

three-year suspension that Holtman began serving on September 24, 2021. 

In re Discipline of Holtman, No. 82993, 2021 WL 4399344 (Nev. Sept. 24, 

2021) (Order of Suspension) (suspending Holtman for three years for failing 

to pursue litigation on behalf of a client, failing to communicate with clients, 

making misrepresentation to clients, and failing to participate in the 

disciplinary proceedings). I therefore dissent with respect to when the 

suspension in this matter commences. 

dZtjAA J. 

Silver 

cc: Chair, Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board 

Kevin D. Holtman 

Bar Counsel, State Bar of Nevada 

Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada 

Admissions Office, U.S. Supreme Court 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

0)1 I947A 4E*. 

4