UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

DR. JEROME CORSI and LARRY

KLAYMAN,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

INFOWARS, LLC, FREE SPEECH SYSTEMS,

LLC, ALEX E. JONES, DAVID JONES, and

OWEN SHROYER,

Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-CV-00298-LY

SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION FOR

ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE OF MARC

J. RANDAZZA

In supplement to the accompanying Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice, Marc J. 

Randazza sets forth as follows:

1. The bars to which Applicant has been admitted is attached as Exhibit 1.

2. Applicant has been disciplined by the Supreme Court of Nevada (and

reciprocally elsewhere).

3. More specifically, a stayed suspension was issued by the Nevada 

Supreme court in In re Marc J. Randazza, Bar No. 12265, No. 76543 (Nev.

Oct. 10, 2018) pursuant to an Order Approving Conditional Guilty Plea.

4. Copies of the Order and Conditional Guilty Plea are enclosed as Exhibits

2 and 3.

5. The Order arises from a negotiated agreement between myself and the

Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board.

6. The stipulated facts forming the basis of the discipline are as set forth in

the enclosed Conditional Guilty Plea.

7. As set forth in the Conditional Guilty Plea, the discipline arose from a 

specific circumstance where Applicant represented a company as in-

- 1 -

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY Document 26-1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 1 of 48
house counsel, along with its sister entity. Those circumstances will not 

repeat themselves as Applicant is not in-house counsel for any of his 

clients and he now recognizes where he misunderstood his ethical 

obligations.

8. The primary discipline imposed was a 12-month suspension, stayed for

18 months, during which time Applicant is fully permitted to practice law

without restriction, so long as no further discipline is imposed.

9. Applicant is otherwise abided the other conditions of the Order and

Applicant is aware of no other grievances, with the exception of

reciprocal proceedings arising from the discipline, and a “screening” by

the State Bar of Arizona which involves the same set of operative facts 

as the underlying discipline in Nevada.

1

10. Reciprocal discipline in the nature of a probation or stayed suspension

has been imposed by the State of Arizona, the Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts, and the State of California. See Exhibits 4, 5 & 6.

Reciprocal discipline of a stayed suspension was imposed by the U.S.

District Court for the District of Massachusetts and by the U.S. Patent & 

Trademark Office. See Exhibits 7 & 8. Reciprocal discipline in the nature

of an active suspension was imposed by the U.S. District Court for the 

District of Nevada, which expires on April 10, 2020. See Exhibit 9.

11. Reciprocal discipline proceedings remain pending in the State of Florida

and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

1 This screening arises from the complaint of a non-client with no involvement in the proceeding. 

This individual has also filed complaints in the State of California and the State of Florida that have 

not proceeded beyond the investigation process.

- 2 -

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY Document 26-1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 2 of 48
Exhibit 1 

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY Document 26-1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 3 of 48
1

Marc J. Randazza, Esq.

State Bar Admissions

State

Date of 

Admission Bar No.

Good 

Standing

Commonwealth of Massachusetts 01/24/2002 651477 Yes

State of Florida 03/25/2003 625566 Yes

State of California 05/20/2010 269535 Yes

State of Arizona 08/26/2010 027861 Yes

State of Nevada 01/06/2012 12265 Yes

Federal Court Admissions

Title of Court

Date of 

Admission

Good 

Standing

Supreme Court of the United States 02/28/2005 Yes

U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit 05/08/2003 Yes

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 11/06/2015 Yes

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 07/30/2013 Yes

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 11/06/2009 Yes

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 09/04/2009 Yes

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 11/03/2011 Yes

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 06/20/2003 Yes

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 09/01/2006 Yes

U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts 06/12/2002 Yes

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida 05/17/2005 Yes

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida 06/09/2003 Yes

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida 08/04/2006 Yes

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas 11/12/2009 Yes

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California 06/08/2010 Yes

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California 06/08/2010 Yes

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California 06/08/2010 Yes

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California 06/22/2010 Yes

U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona 10/19/2010 Yes

U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado 03/28/2011 Yes

U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada 02/01/2012 Suspended 

until 

4/10/20

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin 06/18/2010 Yes

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio 02/13/2012 Yes

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan 06/30/2009 Yes

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY Document 26-1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 4 of 48
Exhibit 2

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY Document 26-1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 5 of 48
Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY Document 26-1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 6 of 48
Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY Document 26-1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 7 of 48
Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY Document 26-1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 8 of 48
Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY Document 26-1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 9 of 48
Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY Document 26-1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 10 of 48
Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY Document 26-1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 11 of 48
Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY Document 26-1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 12 of 48
Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY Document 26-1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 13 of 48
Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY Document 26-1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 14 of 48
Exhibit 3

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY Document 26-1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 15 of 48
SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

IN THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINE OF _No. 76453 

MARC J. RANDAZZA, BAR NO. 12265. F Lc 

OCT 1 0 2018 

ORDER APPROVING CONDITIONAL GUILTY PLEA 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 guilty plea agreement in exchange for a stated 

form of discipline for attorney Marc J. Randazza. Under the agreement, 

Randazza admitted to violating RPC 1.8(a) (conflict of interest: current 

clients: specific rules) and RPC 5.6 (restrictions on right to practice) in 

exchange for a 12-month suspension, stayed for a period of 18 months 

subject to conditions. 

Randazza has admitted to the facts and the violations alleged 

in two counts set forth in the amended complaint.' The record therefore 

establishes that Randazza violated the above-listed rules by loaning money 

to his client without informing the client in writing of the desirability of 

obtaining independent counsel, and by negotiating with opposing counsel to 

receive, as part of a settlement, a retainer for future legal services. 

As Randazza admitted to the violations as part of the plea 

agreement, the issue for this court is whether the agreed-upon discipline 

'In exchange for Randazza's guilty plea, the State Bar agreed to 

dismiss the remaining seven counts in the amended complaint. 

(0) 1947A IB-3q331 

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY Document 26-1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 16 of 48
sufficiently protects the public, the courts, and the legal profession. State 

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

(explaining 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 and mitigating factors." In re Discipline of 

Lerner, 124 Nev. 1232, 1246, 197 P.3d 1067, 1077 (2008). 

Randazza has admitted to violating duties owed to his client 

(conflict of interest) and the legal profession (restrictions on right to 

practice), and the admitted facts reflect that the misconduct was knowing. 

His conduct may have caused a delay in the disbursement of settlement 

funds to his client. The baseline sanction for both rule violations, before 

considering aggravating and mitigating circumstances, is suspension. 

Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, Compendium of Professional 

Responsibility Rules and Standards, Standard 4.32 (Am. Bar Ass'n 2017) 

(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"); id. Standard 7.2 

(providing that suspension is appropriate 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 record supports one aggravating circumstance (substantial experience 

in the practice of law) and three mitigating circumstances (absence of prior 

disciplinary record, full and free disclosure to disciplinary authority or 

cooperative attitude toward proceeding, and delay in disciplinary 

proceedings). Considering all the factors, we conclude that the agreed-upon 

discipline is appropriate. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

2 

(o) 1947A 

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY Document 26-1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 17 of 48
C.J. 

Gibbons 

J. 

Accordingly, we hereby suspend Marc J. Randazza for 12 

months, stayed for 18 months commencing on the date of this order, subject 

to the following conditions: (1) Randazza shall "stay out of trouble" during 

the probationary period, "meaning that he will have no new grievance 

arising out of conduct post-dating the date of the plea which results in the 

imposition of actual discipline (a Letter of Reprimand or above, SCR 102) 

against him"; (2) he shall successfully complete 20 hours of CLE in ethics in 

addition to his normal CLE requirements during the probationary period; 

(3) he shall seek the advice and approval of an independent and unaffiliated 

ethics attorney in the relevant jurisdiction before obtaining any conflicts of 

interest waivers during the probationary period; and (4) he shall pay the 

actual costs of the disciplinary proceeding, including $2,500 under SCR 120, 

within 30 days of this court's order, if he has not done so already. The State 

Bar shall comply with SCR 121.1 

It is so ORDERED. 

Cherry 

J. 

J. 

Hardesty 

tL..//t,LS2 

Parraguirr Stiglich 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

3 

(0) 1947A 

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY Document 26-1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 18 of 48
cc: Chair, Southern Nevada Disciplinary Panel 

Gentile, Cristalli, Miller, Armeni & Savarese, PLLC 

Bar Counsel, State Bar of Nevada 

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

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

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

4 

(0) 1947A 

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY Document 26-1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 19 of 48
Exhibit 4

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY Document 26-1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 20 of 48
1

BEFORE THE PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE

IN THE MATTER OF A MEMBER OF 

THE STATE BAR OF ARIZONA,

MARC J. RANDAZZA,

 Bar No. 027861

Respondent.

PDJ-2018-9110

FINAL JUDGMENT AND 

ORDER OF REPRIMAND 

AND PROBATION

[State Bar No. 18-3420-RC]

FILED JANUARY 14, 2019

Under Rules 54(h) and 57(b), Reciprocal Discipline, Ariz. R. Sup. Ct.,1 a

certified copy of the Supreme Court of Nevada’s Order Approving Conditional 

Guilty Plea Agreement was received by the Presiding Disciplinary Judge (PDJ).

The Order imposed a 12-month suspension, which was stayed for 18 months 

subject to conditions. The conditions include the following terms: Respondent shall 

have no new grievances out of conduct post-dating the date of the plea which results 

in the imposition of discipline; 2) successfully complete during the period of 

probation 20 hours of continuing legal education (CLE) in ethics in addition to any

yearly CLE requirements; 3) seek the advice and approval of an independent and 

unaffiliated ethics attorney in the relevant jurisdiction before obtaining any conflict 

of interest waivers during the period of probation; 4) pay actual costs of disciplinary 

 

1 Unless otherwise stated, all rule references are to the Ariz. R. Sup. Ct.

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY Document 26-1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 21 of 48
2

proceeding including $2,500.00 under SCR 120. The suspension was for Mr. 

Randazza’s failure to avoid conflict of interests with clients and failure to advise the 

client of their right to seek the advice of independent counsel regarding a promissory 

note.

Notice of the filing of that Order was issued to the parties on November 11, 

2018, in compliance with Rule 57(b)(2). Under Rule 57(b)(3), the PDJ “shall impose 

the identical or substantially similar discipline” unless Bar Counsel or Respondent 

establishes by preponderance of the evidence one of the four elements listed under 

that rule. Both the State Bar and Mr. Randazza filed responses. The State Bar asserts 

under Rule 57(b)(3), no factors are applicable, and a sanction of reprimand and 

probation are appropriate under the facts of this matter. Mr. Randazza asserts 

suspension in this matter is not warranted and would in fact be punitive. He states 

the appropriate resolution in this matter is to stay these proceedings until successful 

completion his term of probation in Nevada and to then dismiss this matter. In the 

alternative, Mr. Randazza requests a reprimand, or at most, be placed on probation 

with no additional terms.

Arizona does not recognize a stayed suspension subject to conditions. Rule 

60, Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. Therefore, the imposition of an identical sanction is not 

appropriate and a suspension in Arizona may not be stayed in favor of probation. 

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY Document 26-1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 22 of 48
3

We are reminded that the objective of lawyer discipline proceedings is to 

protect the public, the profession, and the administration of justice, and not to punish

the lawyer. In re Neville, 147 Ariz. 106, 708 P.2d 1297. Imposing a reprimand and

probation serves to advise the Bar and the public that Mr. Randazza engaged in 

conduct that violated the Rules of Professional Conduct. It serves the purpose of 

protecting the public, the integrity of the profession, educating other lawyers, and 

instilling confidence in the integrity of the disciplinary process. A reprimand and 

eighteen (18) months of probation is substantially similar discipline

Now Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED imposing reciprocal discipline of reprimand and eighteen 

(18) months of probation upon Respondent, MARC J. RANDAZZA, Bar No. 

027861, effective immediately. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Mr. Randazza shall be placed on probation 

for eighteen (18) months to run concurrently with the terms and conditions as set 

forth in the Nevada Order Approving Guilty Plea Agreement dated October 10, 

2018.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Mr. Randazza shall be responsible for the 

costs associated with this matter in the amount of $1,200.00. 

DATED this 14th day of January 2019.

 William J. O’Neil 

William J. O’Neil, Presiding Disciplinary Judge

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY Document 26-1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 23 of 48
4

Copy of the foregoing e-mailed/mailed

this 14th day of January 2019, to:

Jon Weiss

Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP

201 E. Washington Street, Suite 1200

Phoenix, AZ 85004-2595

Email: jweiss@lrrc.com

Respondent’s Counsel

Maret Vessella

Chief Bar Counsel

State Bar of Arizona

4201 North 24th Street, Suite 100

Phoenix, AZ 85016-6288

Email: LRO@staff.azbar.org

by: AMcQueen

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY Document 26-1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 24 of 48
Exhibit 5

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY Document 26-1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 25 of 48
THE COUNTY OF SUFFOLK

SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT

MAURA S. DOYLE, CLERK

5/14/2019 2:54 PM

RECEIVED 

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY Document 26-1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 26 of 48
Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY Document 26-1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 27 of 48
Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY Document 26-1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 28 of 48
Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY Document 26-1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 29 of 48
Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY Document 26-1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 30 of 48
Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY Document 26-1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 31 of 48
Exhibit 6

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY Document 26-1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 32 of 48

Exhibit 7

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY Document 26-1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 34 of 48
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

_______________________________________

)

IN RE: MARC J. RANDAZZA, )

)

Respondent. ) Misc. Business Docket No.

) 18-mc-91490-FDS

)

)

_______________________________________)

ORDER CONCERNING RECIPROCAL DISCIPLINE

SAYLOR, J.

On October 29, 2018, respondent Marc J. Randazza notified the court that he had been 

subject to attorney discipline by the Supreme Court of Nevada. On November 19, 2018, the 

court issued an order to respondent pursuant to Local Rule 83.6.9(b) to show cause within 28 

days why this Court should not impose the identical discipline. On December 12, 2018, 

respondent filed a response to the order to show cause.

It appears that the discipline imposed by the Supreme Court of Nevada was effectively a 

term of probation, with a suspension stayed until April 10, 2020, with the respondent subject to 

certain conditions, including that he “stay out of trouble” and complete additional ethics training.

Under Local Rule 83.6.9(d), “[i]n the event the [disciplinary] action imposed in the other 

jurisdiction has been stayed there, any reciprocal action taken by this court shall be deferred until 

such stay expires.” Under the circumstances, this Court will not take reciprocal disciplinary 

action until the Nevada stay expires on April 10, 2020; provided, however, that this Court 

reserves the right to vacate or modify this Order pending further developments in Nevada or 

elsewhere. Respondent is directed to notify the Court of the status of the Nevada matter within 

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY Document 26-1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 35 of 48 Case 1:18-mc-91490-FDS Document 10 Filed 12/19/18 Page 1 of 2
2

14 days after the stay in that proceeding expires.

So Ordered.

/s/ F. Dennis Saylor IV

F. Dennis Saylor, IV

Dated: December 19, 2018 United States District Judge

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY Document 26-1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 36 of 48 Case 1:18-mc-91490-FDS Document 10 Filed 12/19/18 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 8

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY Document 26-1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 37 of 48
United States Patent and Trademark Office

Office of the General Counsel

Juiy23,2019

CERTIFIED MAIL 7ỚI1 Л<Я0 0000 ổ/âSß

RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Mr. Marc j. Rairdazza

Randazza Legal Group, PLLC

2764 Lake Sahara Dl'ive, Suite 109

Las Vegas, Nevada 89117

PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL

Re: File NO.D2019-25

FINAL ORDER PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §11.24

Dear Mr. Randazza:

Enclosed please find a service copy of a Final Order signed on behalf of the Under Secretary of

Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark

Office.

The Final Ordei- will be published on the USPTO FOIA web page

(https://foiadocuments.uspto.gOv/oed/t and the Notice of Stayed Suspension will be published in

the Official Gazette.

If you require any additional infoi'mation 01' I'ecords, yoLi nray contact the Office of Enrollment

and Discipline at 571-272-4097, 01' by writing to Mail Stop OED, u.s. Patent and Ti'ademark

Office, Ρ.Ο. Βοχ 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450.

Shrcerely^

)/\Эу-؟ч

Trida Choe

Associate Counsel

Office of General Law

Ρ.0 Box 1450/Alexanoria, VA22313-1450

'.USPTO.GOV

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY Document 26-1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 38 of 48
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF THE

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

In the Matter of: )

)

Marc j. Randazza, ) Proceeding No. D2019-25

)

Respondent )

FINAL ORDER PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 11.24

Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 11.24(b), Marc j. Randazza (“Respondent”) is hereby suspended

from the practice of trademark and other non-patent law before the United States Patent and

Trademark Office (“USPTO” or “Office”) for one year, stayed for eighteen months subject to

conditions, for violation of 37 C.F.R. § 11.804(h).

Background

By Order dated October 10, 2018, the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada in its order

๒. In the Matter of Discipline of Marc j. Randazza, Esq.) Bar No. 12265,

suspended Respondent for one year, stayed for eighteen months subject to conditions, from the

practice of law in that jurisdiction.

On June 11,2019, a “Notice and Order Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §11.24” (“Notice and

Order”), was sent by certified mail (receipt no. 70172620000001058230) notifying Respondent

that the Director of the Office of Enrollment and Discipline (“OED Director”) had filed a

^Complaint for Reciprocal Discipline Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 11.24” (“Complaint”) requesting

that the Director of the USPTO impose reciprocal discipline upon Respondent identical to the

discipline imposed by the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada on October 10, 2018 in In the

Matter of Discipline of Marc j. Randazza, Esq., Bar No. 12265, No.٦b4ST. TUoNortoo

and Order was delivered to Respondent on June 14, 2019.

The Notice and Order provided Respondent an opportunity to file, within forty (40) days.

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY Document 26-1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 39 of 48
a response opposing the imposition of reciprocal discipline identical to that imposed by the State

of Nevada, based on one or more of the reasons provided in 37 C.F.R. § 11.24(d)(1).

Respondent filed a timely letter dated July 15,2019 responding to the Notice and Order.

Analysis

In his response. Respondent indicates that he is “amenable to tlie imposition of discipline

identical to that imposed by the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada in In the Matter of

Discipline ofMarc j. Randazza, Esq., Bar No. 722Ố5, CaseNo. 76453.” (Ex. 1). He further

states that he “[does] not believe there is any genuine issue of material fact that the imposition of

identical discipline would be unwarranted.” Id.

Given that Respondent believes that it is appropriate for the USPTO to impose reciprocal

discipline on the same terms and conditions as those set forth in the October 10, 2018 Order of

the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada in In the Matter of Discipline of Marc j. Randazza,

Esq., Bar No. 12265, Case No. 76453, it is hereby determined that there is no genuine issue of

material fact under 37 C.F.R. § 11.24(d), and that it is the appropriate discipline to suspend

Respondent from the practice of trademark and other non-patent law before the USPTO for one

year, stayed for eighteen months, subject to Respondent’s successful compliance with condition's

during the eighteen-month stay, as set by the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada.

ACCORDWGLY, it is liereby ORDERED that:

1. Respondent be, and hereby is, suspended from the practice of trademark and other

non-patent law before the USPPO for one year, stayed for eighteen months, subject to

Respondent’s successfill compliance with conditions during the eighteen-month stay, as set by

the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada, effective the date of this Final Order;

2. Ehe OED Director publish a notice in the Official Gazette that is materially

consistent with the following:

2

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY Document 26-1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 40 of 48
Notice of Stayed Suspension

This notice concerns Marc j. Randazza of Las Vegas, Nevada, who is authorized

to practice before the Office in trademark and non-patent matters. In a reciprocal

disciplinary proceeding, the Director of the Llnited States Patent and Trademark

Office (“USPTO”) has ordered that Mr. Randazza be suspended from practice

before the USPTO in trademark and other non-patent matters for one year, stayed

for eighteen months subject to conditions, for violating 37 C.F.R. § 11.804(h),

predicated upon being suspended (stayed) from the practice of law by a duly

constituted authority of a State. Mr. Randazza is not authorized to practice before

the Office in patent matters.

Mr. Randazza was suspended for one year, stayed for eighteen months subject to

conditions set by the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada, for knowingly

violating duties owed to his client (conflict of interest) and the legal profession

(restrictions on the right to practice) arising out of a matter in which Mr.

Randazza loaned money to his client without informing the client in witing of the

desirability of obtaining independent counsel, and by negotiating with opposing

counsel to receive, as part of a settlement, a retainer for future legal services.

This action is taken pursuant to the provisions of 35 Ll.s.c. § 32 and

37 C.F.R. § 11.24. Disciplinary decisions are available for public review at the

Office of Enrollment and Discipline’s FOIA Reading Room, located at:

https://foiadocuments.uspto.gov/oed/:

and

3 The OED Director give notice pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §11.59 of the public

discipline and the reasons for the discipline to disciplinary enforcement agencies in the state(s)

where Respondent is admitted to practice, to courts where Respoirdent is known to be admitted.

and to the public.

ذ\ [ใ

David .Shewchuk '

Deputy General Counsel for General Law

United States Patent and Trademark Office

Date

on delegated authority by

Andrei lancu

Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and

Director of the LJnited States Patent and Trademark Office

3

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY Document 26-1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 41 of 48
cc:

OED Director

Mr. Marc j. Randazza

Randazza Legal Group, PLLC

2764 Lake Sahara Drive, Suite 109

Las Vegas, Nevada 89117

4

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY Document 26-1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 42 of 48
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that the foregoing Final Order Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §11.24 was mailed

by first-class certified mail, return receipt requested, on this day to the Respondent at the address

listed by the Nevada State Bar for Respondent and to where the OED Director reasonably

believes Respondent receives mail::

Mr. Marc 1. Randazza

Randazza Legal Group, PLLC

2764 Lake Sahara Drive, Suite 109

Las Vegas, Nevada 89117

-Date flnited States Patent and Trademark Office

P.O.Box 1450

Alexandria, VA 22313-1450

5

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY Document 26-1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 43 of 48
Notice of Staved Suspension

This notice concerns Marc j. Randazza of Las Vegas, Nevada, who is authorized

to practice before the Office in trademark and non-patent matters, in a reciprocal

disciplinary proceeding, the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark

Office (“USPTO”) has ordered that Mr. Randazza be suspended from practice

before the LISPTO in trademark and other non-patent matters for one year, stayed

for eighteen months subject to conditions, for violating 37 C.F.R. § 11.804(h),

predicated upon being suspended (stayed) from the practice of law by a duly

constituted authority of a State. Mr. Randazza is not authorized to practice before

the Office in patent matters.

Mr. Randazza was suspended for one year, stayed for eighteen months subject to

conditions set by the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada, for knowingly

violating duties owed to his client (conflict of interest) and the legal profession

(restrictions on the right to practice) arising out of a matter in which Mr.

Randazza loaned money to his client without informing the client in writing of the

desirability of obtaining independent counsel, and by negotiating with opposing

counsel to receive, as part of a settlement, a retainer for firture legal services.

This action is taken pursuant to the provisions of 35 Ư.S.C. § 32 and

37 C.F.R. § 11.24. Disciplinary decisions are available for public review at the

Office of Enrollment and Discipline’s FOIA Reading Room, located at:

https://foiadocuments.uspto.rov/oed/.

V( 1ل\ا 20\θ\ L|-

David Shewchuk '

Deputy General Counsel for General Law

United States Patent and Trademark Office

Date

on delegated authority by

Andrei lancu

Linder Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and

Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY Document 26-1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 44 of 48
Exhibit 9

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY Document 26-1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 45 of 48
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

* * *

In re: Marc J. Randazza,

Attorney at Law, Bar No. 12265

Case No. 2:19-cv-01765-MMD

ORDER OF SUSPENSION

I. SUMMARY

This is an attorney discipline matter. Before the Court is Marc J. Randazza’s

response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) why he should not be suspended 

from practice before this Court following the Order Approving Conditional Guilty Plea 

Agreement filed by the Nevada Supreme Court (“NSC”) on October 10, 2018. (ECF Nos. 

1 (OSC), 3 (the “Response”).) As further explained below, the Court will suspend Mr. 

Randazza from practice before this Court because this Court has neither the obligation, 

resources, nor inclination to monitor Mr. Randazza’s compliance with the probationary 

conditions the NSC imposed on him. However, Mr. Randazza may file a petition for 

reinstatement once he has fully discharged those conditions and can produce a certificate 

of good standing from the NSC reflecting the same.

II. BACKGROUND

Mr. Randazza was suspended by the NSC following his conditional guilty plea to 

a charge that he violated “RPC 1.8(a) (conflict of interest: current clients: specific rules) 

and RPC 5.6 (restrictions on right to practice).” (ECF No. 3 at 15.) While Mr. Randazza’s 

suspension was stayed, he is currently subject to several probationary conditions 

imposed by the NSC. (Id. at 17.) Until at least April 10, 2020, Mr. Randazza must: (1) 

“stay out of trouble;” (2) successfully complete 20 hours of ethics CLE in addition to his 

normal CLE requirements; and (3) seek the advice of an independent and unaffiliated 

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY Document 26-1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 46 of 48 Case 2:19-cv-01765-MMD Document 5 Filed 10/22/19 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ethics attorney in each relevant jurisdiction before obtaining any conflicts of interest 

waivers. (Id. at 3, 15, 17.)

This Court issued the OSC as to why Mr. Randazza should not be suspended from 

practice in this Court on September 6, 2019. (ECF No. 1.) Mr. Randazza timely filed his 

Response on October 3, 2019. (ECF No. 3.) In his Response, he argues that this Court 

should allow him to continue practicing before it because he is still allowed to practice law 

before the Nevada state courts, and he is currently complying with the probationary 

conditions the NSC imposed on him. (Id. at 3-5.) He also argues that his suspension from 

practice by this Court would either be gravely unjust, or his misconduct does not justify 

suspension by this Court. (Id. at 3.) He further notes that other federal court have 

continued to allow him to practice while he is subject to the NSC’s probationary conditions. 

(Id. at 5-6.)

III. DISCUSSION

This Court imposes reciprocal discipline on a member of its bar when that person 

is suspended or otherwise disciplined by a state court unless it determines that the state’s 

disciplinary adjudication was improper. See In re Kramer, 282 F.3d 721, 724 (9th Cir. 

2002). Specifically, the Court will only decline to impose reciprocal discipline if the 

attorney subject to discipline presents clear and convincing evidence that:

(A) the procedure in the other jurisdiction was so lacking in notice or opportunity to 

be heard as to constitute a deprivation of due process; (B) there was such an 

infirmity of proof establishing the misconduct as to give rise to a clear conviction 

that the court should not accept as final the other jurisdiction’s conclusion(s) on 

that subject; (C) imposition of like discipline would result in a grave injustice; or (D) 

other substantial reasons justify not accepting the other jurisdiction’s 

conclusion(s). 

LR IA 11-7(e)(3); see also In re Kramer, 282 F.3d at 724-25 (stating that the attorney 

bears the burden by clear and convincing evidence).

The Court will suspend Mr. Randazza from practice before this Court because the 

NSC’s disciplinary adjudication regarding Mr. Randazza following his conditional guilty 

plea appears to have been proper, and he presents no clear and convincing evidence to 

the contrary. Procedurally, Mr. Randazza did not submit a certified copy of the entire 

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY Document 26-1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 47 of 48 Case 2:19-cv-01765-MMD Document 5 Filed 10/22/19 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

record from the NSC or present any argument as to why less than the entire record will 

suffice. See LR IA 11-7(e)(3). Substantively, while Mr. Randazza does appear to be 

allowed to practice in the Nevada state courts, he is also subject to probationary 

conditions that this Court has neither the obligation, resources, nor inclination to monitor. 

(ECF No. 3 at 17.) And the Court sees no substantial reasons not to suspend Mr. 

Randazza based on its review of the record. See LR IA 11-7(e)(3). The Court will therefore 

suspend Mr. Randazza.

That said, Mr. Randazza is free to petition the Court for reinstatement under LR IA 

11-7(i) assuming he is able to successfully complete his term of probation with the NSC. 

Any petition for reinstatement should not be filed until Mr. Randazza has successfully 

discharged each and every probationary condition imposed on him by the NSC, and he 

is able to present both a certificate of good standing from the NSC and evidence sufficient 

to establish that his practice in the Nevada state courts is fully unencumbered by any 

probationary or other conditions stemming from his conditional guilty plea or any other 

discipline imposed on him by the NSC.

IV. CONCLUSION

It is therefore ordered that Marc J. Randazza, Bar No. 12265, is hereby suspended 

from practice in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada.

DATED THIS 22

nd day of October 2019.

MIRANDA M. DU

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00298-LY Document 26-1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 48 of 48 Case 2:19-cv-01765-MMD Document 5 Filed 10/22/19 Page 3 of 3