Court Opinion

ID: 9896080
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-09 15:08:35.690624+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:38.392539
License: Public Domain

FILED SEPTEMBER 18, 2023
                                                                 CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT
                                                                   STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

       Corrected Opinion Filed 9/21/23 by Clerk of the Supreme Court

                    IN THE SUPREME COURT
                    STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                                    2023 ND 169

In the Matter of the Application for
Disciplinary Action Against Garrett
Slyva, a member of the the Bar of
the State of North Dakota
      ----------
Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court
of the State of North Dakota,                                        Petitioner
      v.
Garrett Slyva,                                                     Respondent

                                    No. 20230232

      Application for Discipline.
      REPRIMAND ORDERED.
      Per Curiam.

[¶1] The Court has before it the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
recommendations of a hearing panel of the Disciplinary Board recommending
Garrett Slyva be reprimanded by this Court and pay the costs of the
disciplinary proceeding for violations of the North Dakota Rules of Professional
Conduct. We accept the hearing panel’s findings, conclusions, and
recommendations.

[¶2] Slyva was admitted to practice law in North Dakota on November 25,
2020. The record reflects that a summons and petition for discipline were filed

                                         1
and served on Slyva by certified mail. Slyva was represented by counsel and a
hearing was held January 10, 2023.

[¶3] Slyva worked for the Fargo Public Defender’s office from January 2021
to February 2022. Approximately two months before the conduct in this
matter, Slyva put his arm around a client at the jail. At the hearing, Slyva
admitted his action was a foolish decision and that his conduct was
inappropriate. Slyva’s supervisor testified that jail officials investigated this
interaction and determined no crime had taken place. His supervisor also
testified that as a result of this incident, the Public Defender’s office prohibited
Slyva from having that type of face-to-face in-person meeting with any clients.
He was permitted to have in-person meetings with a glass partition between
him and the client.

[¶4] Despite this restriction, Slyva had the same type of face-to-face in-person
visit with the client in this matter and other clients on February 9, 2022 at the
Cass County jail. The client was uncomfortable because of Slyva’s questions
about her relationship status and because he asked her on a date. He told the
client that their conversation should “stay here because I have control of your
next court date.” Slyva denied asking her on a date and claimed she
misunderstood him.

[¶5] Because the client was uncomfortable with Slyva, she asked the
corrections deputies to listen to her phone calls with Slyva. She also filed a
statement about the incident with the jail. Jail officials investigated the
interaction and determined no crime had taken place. Slyva’s supervisor at the
Public Defender office testified the physical contact with a female client was
inappropriate and alarming because it was a female client who was
incarcerated, and therefore, vulnerable. The Public Defender’s office
terminated Slyva shortly after it learned of this incident. Based on the
testimony, the hearing panel concluded the client’s testimony regarding the
visit and the questions asked during the visit was credible.

[¶6] At the client’s next hearing, she was released from jail. Therefore, the
hearing panel concluded the client did not suffer a substantial or otherwise

                                         2
                                                                 Filed by Clerk of Supreme Court 9/21/23
serious injury as a result of Slyva’s conduct. The hearing panel concluded
Slyva’s conduct violated N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.7(a), Conflict of Interest:
General Rule, by putting his personal interests in a romantic relationship over
the client’s interest in resolving the criminal matter.

[¶7] When considering an appropriate sanction, the hearing panel considered
the aggravating factors under N.D. Stds. Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 9.22 of a
selfish motive and the vulnerability of the victim. It also considered mitigating
factors under N.D. Stds. Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 9.22 of an absence of prior
disciplinary record, a full and free disclosure to Disciplinary Board or
cooperative attitude toward proceedings, inexperience in the practice of law,
and imposition of other penalties or sanctions. The hearing panel
recommended Slyva be reprimanded by the Supreme Court. It also
recommended Slyva pay the costs and expenses of these disciplinary
proceedings in the amount of $5,961.

[¶8] This matter was referred to the Supreme Court under N.D.R. Lawyer
Discipl. 3.1(F). Objections to the hearing panel’s findings of fact, conclusions of
law and recommendations were due within 20 days of the service of the report
of the hearing panel. No objections were received. We considered the matter,
and

[¶9] ORDER, that the findings, conclusions, and recommendation for
discipline are accepted.

[¶10] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Garrett Slyva is reprimanded.

                                        3
[¶11] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Slyva pay the costs and expenses of
these disciplinary proceedings in the amount of $5,961 within 30 days of entry
of the judgment, payable to the Secretary of the Disciplinary Board, Judicial
Wing, 1st Floor, 600 East Boulevard Avenue, Bismarck, ND 58505-0530.

[¶12] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
      Daniel J. Crothers
      Lisa Fair McEvers
      Jerod E. Tufte
      Douglas A. Bahr

                                      4