Legal Opinion
Matter of Discipline of Peirce
Nevada Supreme Court
Decided February 9, 2006No. 45553PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
Per Curiam.:
In this opinion, we conclude that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is “another jurisdiction” under SCR 114, so that reciprocal discipline in Nevada for attorney misconduct penalized by the USPTO is appropriate. We further conclude that none of SCR 114(4)’s exceptions applies, and so identical discipline shall be imposed.
FACTS
Matthew Peirce was admitted to the Nevada bar in 1997. He is also admitted to practice before the USPTO. In July 2004, the USPTO’s Director of Enrollment and Discipline 1 filed a twenty-four count complaint against Peirce. Three of…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- In Re RobertsonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1992
- Mississippi Bar v. WallsMississippi Supreme Court · 2001
- In re SolerwitzDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1990
- People v. BodeSupreme Court of Colorado · 2005
- In re CohnAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- SER Olen L. York III v. W.Va. Office of Disciplinary Counsel & W.Va. Lawyer Disciplinary BoardWest Virginia Supreme Court · 2013
- In re Disciplinary Action Against StewartSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2017
- Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Carl J. SchwedlerWisconsin Supreme Court · 2017
- In Re StubbsSupreme Court of Georgia · 2009
- In Re StubbsSupreme Court of Georgia · 2009
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.