Court: Lawyers driving drunk shouldn’t lose their licenses on the first offense

By Cy Ryan

Tuesday, Nov. 1, 2011 | 10:32 a.m.

The Nevada Supreme Court has ruled that a first-time, drunken-driving conviction isn't reason to suspend a lawyer's license or issue some other professional discipline.

The ruling came in response to the cases of several attorneys convicted of drunken driving. Of those cases, the court said, "The gravity of drinking and driving cannot be minimized; however, first offense driving under the influence is not the type of offense for such professional discipline."

Lawyers Trevor Hatfield, James Griffin and Daniel O'Laughlin all reported convictions to the bar within 30 days as required by Supreme Court rules.

Griffin, of Las Vegas, was convicted of driving under the influence in San Bernardino, Calif. O'Laughlin, who has a license to practice law in Nevada but lists El Cajon, Calif. as his home address, pleaded guilty to the drunken driving offense in San Diego, Calif. Hatfield, of Las Vegas, was convicted in Clark County.

Attorney Douglas Clark of Las Vegas failed to report his conviction within 30 days. The court said this "appears, in itself, to be an act of misconduct constituting grounds for discipline."

Clark's license has been suspended pending the outcome of formal disciplinary proceedings on allegations of misconduct towards clients. The cases will be consolidated.

The court said its rules do not categorize the first case of drunken driving as a serious offense. As a result, it is up to the court to decide whether to issue a suspension and refer the case to the state Bar of Nevada for disciplinary action.