No. 83339 

FILED 

JAN 27 2022

plot 

EF DEPLRY CLERK 

A. BR 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

IN THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINE OF 

AARON A. AQUINO, BAR NO. 11772. 

ORDER OF DISBARMENT 

This is an automatic review of a Southern Nevada Disciplinary 

Board hearing panel's recommendation that attorney Aaron A. Aquino be 

suspended from the practice of law for three years based on three 

violations of RPC 1.15 (safekeeping property); two violations of RPC 1.3 

(diligence); and one violation each of RPC 1.4 (communication), RPC 1.16 

(declining or terminating representation), RPC 1.5 (fees), RPC 8.1 (Bar 

admission and disciplinary matters), and RPC 8.4 (misconduct). The State 

Bar has filed a brief opposing the panel's recommendation and instead 

seeking disbarment. Aquino has not filed a brief. 

We employ a deferential standard of review with respect to the 

hearing panel's findings of fact, SCR 105(3)(b), and thus, will not set them 

aside unless they are clearly erroneous or not supported by substantial 

evidence, see generally Sowers v. Forest Hill Subdivision, 129 Nev. 99, 105, 

294 P.3d 427, 432 (2013); Ogawa v. Ogawa, 125 Nev. 660, 668, 221 P.3d 699, 

704 (2009). In contrast, we review a disciplinary panel's conclusions of law 

and recommended discipline de novo. SCR 105(3)(b). 

The State Bar has the burden of showing by clear and 

convincing evidence that Aquino committed the violations charged. In re 

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

defer to the panel's findings of fact in this matter as Aquino and the State 

Bar stipulated to them during the disciplinary proceedings. Based on those 

findings, we agree with the panel's conclusions that the State Bar 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

()) 1947A affgaira 
SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

0.11 I 947A 44MISE, 

established by clear and convincing evidence that Aquino violated the 

above-listed rules by misappropriating approximately $700,000 in client 

funds, failing to properly communicate with clients, and failing to respond 

to inquiries from the State Bar. 

In determining whether the panel's recommended discipline is 

appropriate, 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). We must ensure 

that the discipline is sufficient to protect the public, the courts, and the legal 

profession. See State Bar of Nev. v. Claiborne, 104 Nev. 115, 213, 224, 756 

P.2d 464, 527-28, 535 (1988) (noting the purpose of attorney discipline). 

Aquino violated duties owed to his clients, to the public, and to 

the legal profession. Because Aquino knew his accounts were out of balance, 

misled clients regarding their funds, and could not explain how the personal 

purchases from his accounts related to client costs, Aquino knowingly 

violated his ethical duties. Aquino's misconduct caused injury to his clients 

as they did not receive their funds or their lienholders were not paid. Based 

on the most serious instance of misconduct at issue, see Standards for 

Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, Compendium of Professional Responsibility 

Rules and Standards 452 (Am. Bar Ass'n 2018) (The ultimate sanction 

imposed should at least be consistent with the sanction for the most serious 

instance of misconduct among a number of violations . . . ."), we agree with 

the State Bar that the baseline sanction before considering aggravating and 

mitigating circumstances is disbarment. See id. Standard 4.11, at 455 

(Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly converts 

client property and causes injury or potential injury to a client."). The 

record supports the panel's findings of two aggravating circumstances (prior 

2 
discipline and "the almost uniform failure to monitor what was going on 

with [his] accounte). But to the extent the record supports the mitigating 

circumstances found by the panel (acceptance of responsibility, 

inexperience in the practice of law, personal and emotional problems, and 

remorse), we conclude they do not warrant a downward deviation from 

disbarment. 

Accordingly, we hereby disbar attorney Aaron A. Aquino from 

the practice of law in Nevada. Such disbarment is irrevocable. SCR 201(1). 

Aquino shall pay the costs of the disciplinary proceedings, including $3,000 

under SCR 120, within 30 days from the date of this order if he has not 

already done so. The parties shall comply with SCR 115 and 121.1. 

It is so ORDERED. 

Parraguirr 

, J. 

Hardesty Stiglich 

6,fic , J. LIZeMi.A_) , J. 

Cadish Silver 

, J. 

Piektfayv 

, J. 

Pickering Herndon 

cc: Chair, Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board 

Pitaro & Fumo, Chtd. 

Bar Counsel, State Bar of Nevada 

Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada 

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

3 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(01 19.47A etlgem 

• 

, :•