In Re: Discipline Of Brent Harsh, 503 P.3d 1128

This is an automatic review by the Nevada Supreme Court of a Northern Nevada Disciplinary Board hearing panel recommendation to publicly reprimand attorney Brent Harsh for violating RPC 4.2 (communicating with a person known to be represented by counsel).
The State Bar proved by clear and convincing evidence that another attorney sent Harsh letters stating that he represented the adverse party; Harsh thereafter sent a letter directly to that adverse party.
Both letters were admitted into evidence and the opposing attorney testified about additional communications with Harsh regarding the case.
The panel found Harsh negligently violated duties owed to the legal system and that his conduct had the potential to interfere with the outcome of the underlying legal proceeding.
The panel identified one aggravating factor (substantial experience in the practice of law) and one mitigating factor (lack of prior discipline), recommended a public reprimand, and the Supreme Court adopted that sanction and ordered payment of disciplinary costs (including $1,500 under SCR 120(3)).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Harsh violate RPC 4.2 by communicating with a person known to be represented by counsel?	State Bar: Clear and convincing evidence (letters and testimony) shows Harsh communicated with a represented party.	Harsh: (implicitly) disputed the characterization/contended communication was permissible or not proven.	Court upheld panel findings: Harsh violated RPC 4.2.
What is the proper standard of review for the panel's findings and sanction?	State Bar: Panel factual findings supported by substantial evidence and entitled to deference; sanction reviewed de novo.	Harsh: (implicitly) challenged sufficiency of evidence and/or sanction.	Court deferred to panel's factual findings (substantial evidence) and reviewed the sanction de novo.
Appropriate discipline for the misconduct	State Bar/panel: Baseline sanction is public reprimand given negligent interference and potential injury.	Harsh: (implicitly) sought mitigation based on lack of prior discipline.	Court imposed public reprimand, found aggravating and mitigating factors balanced, and ordered payment of costs including $1,500.

In re Drakulich, 111 Nev. 1556 (1995) (standard that State Bar must prove misconduct by clear and convincing evidence; deference to panel factual findings supported by substantial evidence)
In re Colin, 135 Nev. 325 (2019) (applying substantial-evidence deference to disciplinary panel factual findings)
In re Schaefer, 117 Nev. 496 (2001) (courts exercise independent judgment on sanctions but give persuasive weight to panel recommendations)
In re Lerner, 124 Nev. 1232 (2008) (factors to weigh in discipline include duty violated, mental state, injury, and aggravating/mitigating circumstances)
State Bar of Nev. v. Claiborne, 104 Nev. 115 (1988) (purpose of attorney discipline is to protect the public, courts, and profession, not to punish the attorney)