In Re: Geraldine Kirk-Hughes, Attorney at Law, Bar No. 3444

Filing 6

ORDER OF SUSPENSION. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 9/20/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LQ)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

***

6

In re: Geraldine Kirk-Hughes,
Attorney at Law, Bar No. 3444

Case No. 2:18-cv-00323-MMD
ORDER OF SUSPENSION

7
8
9
10

I.

SUMMARY

11

This is an attorney discipline matter. Before the Court is Geraldine Kirk-Hughes’s

12

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

13

from practice before this Court following the Order of Suspension and Remand—filed by

14

the Nevada Supreme Court (“NSC”) on December 11, 2017—suspending her from

15

practice in the Nevada state courts for four years. (ECF Nos. 1 (OSC), 3 (the

16

“Response”).) As further explained below, the Court will suspend Ms. Kirk-Hughes

17

because she is currently suspended from practice by the NSC, and the Court is

18

unpersuaded her due process rights were violated in the course of those suspension

19

proceedings. However, Ms. Kirk-Hughes may of course file a petition for reinstatement

20

once she is fully readmitted to practice before the NSC and can produce a certificate of

21

good standing from the NSC reflecting the same.

22

II.

BACKGROUND

23

Ms. Kirk-Hughes was suspended by the NSC for four years following findings by

24

the Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board that she committed numerous disciplinary

25

infractions—which were not her first. (ECF No. 1 at 14; see also id. at 7-15.) As that order

26

was filed on December 11, 2017, she is currently suspended from practicing in the

27

Nevada state courts. (Id. at 7, 14.)

28

///

1

This Court issued the OSC as to why Ms. Kirk-Hughes should not be suspended

2

from practice in this Court on January 22, 2018. (Id.) Ms. Kirk-Hughes timely filed her

3

Response on February 21, 2018. (ECF No. 3.) In her lengthy Response, she basically

4

seems to argue that she was deprived of due process, and her Fourth Amendment (and

5

other constitutional) rights were violated, because of the way that the Nevada State Bar

6

began its investigation leading to her suspension—by subpoenaing records from the

7

banks where she maintained her client trust accounts. (Id.; see also ECF No. 1 at 9

8

(summarizing what appears to be an identical argument that she also raised with the

9

NSC).) Amongst her voluminous collection of exhibits to her Response, Ms. Kirk Hughes

10

includes a brief she apparently submitted to the NSC, in which she raises substantially

11

the same arguments she raises in her Response. (ECF No. 3-6 at 3-10.) Notably, in

12

neither her Response nor any of its exhibits does she contend that she did not commit

13

the disciplinary infractions she was found to have committed by the NSC, show any

14

remorse, or present any evidence of her efforts at rehabilitation.

15

III.

DISCUSSION

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

attorney subject to discipline presents clear and convincing evidence that:

24

(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).

25

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

26

bears the burden by clear and convincing evidence).

21
22
23

27

The Court will suspend Ms. Kirk-Hughes because the Court is unpersuaded her

28

due process rights were violated during the proceedings leading to her suspension by the
2

1

NSC. To start, she does not even dispute that: (1) she is currently suspended from

2

practice by the NSC; and (2) she committed the infractions leading to her suspension—

3

which are significant, especially considering they appear to reflect a pattern of conduct.

4

(ECF No. 3; see also ECF No. 1 at 13 (“Kirk-Hughes also has a lengthy disciplinary

5

history”).) She also takes no responsibility for her actions, nor does she express any

6

remorse. (ECF No. 3; see also ECF No. 1 at 13 (“she refuses to acknowledge any

7

misconduct in regard to her actions.”).)

8

Instead, the substance of Ms. Kirk-Hughes’ Response appears to target LR IA 7-

9

11(e)(3)(A), arguing that her procedural due process rights were violated by the state

10

disciplinary proceedings. (ECF No. 3 at 6-7.) The Court is unpersuaded. The record

11

reflects that Ms. Kirk-Hughes raised substantially the same challenges she makes here

12

to the subpoenas that eventually led to her suspension in both briefing and during an

13

adversarial hearing held over five days before the Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board

14

(ECF No. 3 at 2-4; see also ECF Nos. 1 at 7, 3-7), and then again in briefing to the NSC

15

(ECF No. 3-6 at 6-10), who rejected her arguments on the merits (ECF No. 1 at 9-12).

16

Thus, she received the process she was due under the circumstances. The Court will

17

therefore suspend Ms. Kirk-Hughes from practice before this Court as a matter of

18

reciprocal discipline.

19

That said, Ms. Kirk-Hughes is free to petition the Court for reinstatement under LR

20

IA 11-7(i) assuming she is able to eventually win full reinstatement from the NSC allowing

21

her to practice law in Nevada state court. Any petition for reinstatement should not be

22

filed until Ms. Kirk-Hughes is able to present both a certificate of good standing from the

23

NSC and evidence sufficient to establish that her practice in the Nevada state courts is

24

fully unencumbered by any probationary or other conditions stemming from her

25

suspension or any other discipline imposed on her by the NSC.

26

///

27

///

28

///
3

1
2
3
4

IV.

CONCLUSION
It is therefore ordered that Geraldine Kirk-Hughes, Bar No. 3444, is hereby

suspended from practice in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada.
DATED THIS 20th day of September 2019.

5
6
7

MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4