In the Matter of the Application for Disciplinary Action Against TaLisa A. Nemec, A Person Admitted to the Bar of the State of North Dakota
TaLisa A. Nemec, Respondent Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota, Petitioner
1] The Court has before it the report including the findings,
conclusions, and recommendations of a hearing panel of the
Disciplinary Board recommending that TaLisa A. Nemec be
disbarred from the practice of law in North Dakota, pay
restitution to her client, and pay the costs and expenses of
the disciplinary proceeding for violations of the North
Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct. We accept the report
and we disbar Nemec from the practice of law in North Dakota
effective immediately. We order her to pay restitution to the
client and to the client protection fund, and we order her to
pay costs and expenses of the disciplinary proceeding in the
amount of $250.
2] Nemec was admitted to practice law in North Dakota on
October 3, 2005. Nemec was placed on interim suspension
effective December 19, 2007, until further order of the
Court. Disciplinary Board v. Nemec, 2007 ND 204, 743
N.W.2d 129. Subsequently, Nemec was placed on suspension for
a period of eighteen months, retroactive to December 19,
2007. Disciplinary Board v. Nemec, 2008 ND 216, 758
N.W.2d 660. Thereafter, Nemec was placed on suspension for a
period of twenty-four months, retroactive to December 19,
2007, and to run concurrently with the eighteen-month
suspension in Disciplinary Board v. Nemec, 2008 ND
216, 758 N.W.2d 660. Disciplinary Board v. Nemec,
2009 ND 58, 764 N.W.2d 190. On January 24, 2011, Nemec was
reinstated to the practice of law in North Dakota with
conditions. Disciplinary Board v. Nemec, 2011 ND
128, ¶ 13, 799 N.W.2d 370. On January 15, 2015, the
conditions of reinstatement were lifted. Disciplinary
Board v. Nemec, 2015 ND 15, 858 N.W.2d 326. Nemec did
not pay her license fee in 2017, and she has not been
licensed since December 31, 2016.
3] The hearing panel made the following findings and
conclusions. Nemec represented a client in a divorce. The
client paid Nemec a $4, 500 retainer. Nemec was not diligent
in proceeding with the case and failed to follow up to ensure
the divorce was accomplished in a timely manner. Nemec failed
to adequately communicate with the client, who experienced
several delays obtaining information from Nemec.
4] By failing to pay the license fee for 2017, Nemec was not
licensed after December 31, 2016. She knowingly allowed her
license to expire without concluding the client's matter.
She also failed to communicate with the client for
approximately one year and did not inform him her license
expired. Her actions constituted abandonment of the client.
5] Nemec failed to perform services for the client. She
caused the client potentially serious injury because he was
not represented. His interests were not protected in the
divorce, and he was not able to obtain a divorce in a timely
manner. Nemec failed to return the client's file or
refund any portion of the client's retainer or unearned
6] Nemec was served a summons and petition for discipline.
The hearing panel considered the matter upon Disciplinary
Counsel's motion for default. Nemec failed to answer the
petition, and she is in default. The charges in the petition
for discipline are deemed admitted under N.D.R. Lawyer
Discipl. 3.1(E)(2). On July 6, 2017, the hearing panel filed
7] Nemec violated N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.3, Diligence, by
failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in
representing the client; N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.4,
Communication, by failing to make reasonable efforts to keep
the client reasonably informed about the status of his case
and failed to promptly comply with request for information;
and N.D.R. Prof. Conduct l.16(e), Declining or Terminating
Representation, by failing to reasonably protect the
client's interests upon termination of her representation
and failed to return the client's file and any unearned
fees. After considering the aggravating factors under N.D.
Stds. Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 9.22, of prior disciplinary
offenses, a pattern of misconduct and substantial experience
in the practice of law, the hearing panel recommended the
sanction of disbarment.
8] This matter was referred to the Supreme Court under N.D.R.
Lawyer Discipl. 3.1(F). No objections were filed. We
considered the matter, and, [¶ 9] ORDERED, that the
report of the hearing panel is accepted.
10] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Nemec is disbarred from the
practice of law in North Dakota, effective immediately.
11] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Nemec pay $4, 500 restitution
to the client within 60 days of entry of judgment in this
12] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that for any amounts already paid
by the North Dakota Client Protection Fund on Nemec's
behalf, she make restitution within 60 days of entry of the
judgment in this matter. For any amounts relating to this
matter paid in the future by the North Dakota Client
Protection Fund, Nemec make restitution to the Fund within 60
days of receiving notice payment was made.
13] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Nemec pay the costs and
expenses of these disciplinary proceedings in the amount of
$250 within 60 days of the entry of judgment, payable to the
Secretary of the Disciplinary Board, Judicial ...