meet multiple deadlines, which resulted in this court issuing orders 

imposing conditional sanctions. Initially, Braecklein failed to timely file 

the rough draft transcript request form. After the conditional sanctions 

order was issued, she filed the form and the sanctions were vacated. She 

also informed the court that the district court had granted the client's 

proper person motion to discharge her as counsel, but she stated that she 

would provide the fast track statement and appendix as had been directed 

by this court. She was given multiple extensions of time to do so, but 

failed to file the required documents. This resulted in another order 

imposing conditional sanctions. After she again failed to file the 

documents, this court issued an order to appear and show cause that 

required Braecklein to appear for a hearing before the court. Braecklein 

complied and this court issued an order that no further sanctions would be 

imposed and gave her a further extension of time to file the fast track 

statement and appendix. She sought another extension, which was denied 

but she was provided ten additional days to file the documents. When she 

failed to comply, another order was issued giving another deadline for 

filing the documents and which stated that failure to comply would result 

in removal as counsel, referral to the state bar, and prohibition from 

practicing before this court. She again failed to comply, and this court 

issued the order imposing the sanctions. 

The disciplinary panel found that Braecklein violated RPC 1.1 

(competence), RPC 1.3 (diligence), RPC 3.2 (expediting litigation), and 

RPC 8.1(b) (bar admission and disciplinary matters). The panel found 

several aggravating and mitigating factors in regard to this count. As 

aggravating factors, the panel found: (1) prior disciplinary offenses; (2) a 

pattern of misconduct; (3) multiple offenses; (4) vulnerability of victim; 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

2 

(0) 19(t7A 
and (5) substantial experience in the practice of law. See SCR 102.5. In 

mitigation, the panel found an absence of dishonest or selfish motive, 

personal problems, cooperative attitude towards the proceedings, and 

remorse and remoteness of prior offenses. Id. 

Based on these findings, the panel recommended that 

Braecklein: (1) be issued a public reprimand; (2) be required to take an 

additional ten hours of continuing legal education (CLE) relating to law 

office management each year for the next two years; (3) obtain a mentor 

that is approved by the state bar and who will be responsible for providing 

quarterly reports to the state bar for the next two years; (4) refrain from 

providing any pro-bono services for the next two years; (5) refrain from 

practicing before the Nevada Supreme Court for the next two years; and 

(6) pay the state bar costs of the disciplinary proceedings, pursuant to SCR 

120, within 30 days. 

Although persuasive, the findings and recommendations of a 

panel of thefl Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board are not binding, and this 

court's automatic review of a panel's decision is conducted de novo. SCR 

105(3)(b); In re Discipline of Droz, 123 Nev. 163, 168, 160 P.3d 881, 884-85 

(2007). The panel's findings of misconduct must be supported by clear and 

convincing evidence. In re Discipline of Drakulich, 111 Nev. 1556, 1566, 

908 P.2d 709, 715 (1995). 

Having reviewed the record, we conclude that clear and 

convincing evidence supports the panel's findings that Braecklein 

committed the violations alleged. See SCR 105(2)(0. We further conclude 

that the panel's recommended discipline is appropriately tailored to 

Braecklein's misconduct, and we approve the recommendation, except as 

to one condition. We reject the recommended condition that Braecklein 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

10) 1947A 
exu cup 

Pickering 

, J. 

/circa.. SLA.k. ‘ 

Hardesty 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A c(ea 

Parraguir 

tei 

Cherry 

4 

Gibbons 

, C.J. 

refrain from providing any pro-bono services for the next two years. The 

obligation to perform pro-bono services is an ethical duty, and therefore it 

is inappropriate to prohibit the performance of pro-bono services as a 

disciplinary condition. 

Accordingly, Braecklein is hereby publicly reprimanded for her 

misconduct. Additionally, Braecklein is required to take an additional ten 

hours of CLE relating to law office management each year for the next two 

years, obtain a mentor that is approved by the state bar and who will be 

responsible for providing quarterly reports to the state bar for the next 

two years, refrain from practicing before this court for the next two years, 

and pay the state bar costs of the disciplinary proceedings, pursuant to 

SCR 120, within 30 days of receipt of a bill of costs from the State Bar. 

It is so ORDERED. 
SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

SAITTA, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part: 

While I concur with the majority in concluding that clear and 

convincing evidence supports the panel's findings that Braecklein 

committed the violations alleged, I dissent from the discipline imposed. 

Braecklein has already been subject to prior discipline involving 

reprimands on multiple occasions in the past. Accordingly, more severe 

discipline is now appropriate based on her continued misconduct. I would 

impose a six-month suspension from the practice of law, along with 

further discipline that she refrain from providing pro-bono services for an 

additional six months. While I agree that pro-bono service is an important 

ethical duty of an attorney, it is unhelpful if the client is harmed by the 

attorney's conduct while providing pro-bono services, which is what 

occurred in this matter. Instead, based on the six-month suspension and 

further six-month refrain from providing pro-bono services, I would 

additionally require that Braecklein pay $500 to an organization or group 

that provides pro-bono services, similar to the contribution amount 

recommended under RPC 6.1(a)(3)(ii) for attorneys to contribute per year 

if they do not provide pro-bono services. 

, J. 

Saitta 

cc: Jeffrey Albregts, Chair, Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board 

David A. Clark, Bar Counsel 

Judith H. Braecklein 

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

Perry Thompson, Admissions Office, U.S. Supreme Court 

5 

(0) IN7A,