For
Immediate Release:
Steve Sanson President Veterans In Politics
International 702 283 8088
Karen Steelmon Auxiliary Director Veterans In
Politics International 702 238 5134
Former Prosecutor
violated Nevada Supreme Court Rule of Professional Conduct
Clark
County Nevada
Former Clark County District Attorney David
Roger was negotiating for a job as General Counsel with the Police Protective
Association (PPA) while he served in an elected capacity as the Clark County
District Attorney.
On November 1, 2011 in an article written by the Las
Vegas Review Journal reported (see article) http://www.lvrj.com/news/roger-makes-retirement-official-133008463.html David
Roger while the top prosecutor for Clark County indicated that he “will resign
his post as CCDA and take a job as the legal staff with the Las Vegas Police
Union but also exploring opportunities with other law firms”.
Roger made his retirement
official on January 3, 2012 and the Las Vegas Review Journal reported (see
article) http://www.lvrj.com/news/roger-to-start-police-union-job-next-week-136780373.html on
January 5, 2012 that Roger would be working for the PPA.
Roger was also the CCDA for 22
days after Gulf War Veteran Stanley Gibson was shot and killed by LVMP Officer
Jesus Arevalo. Roger office has been investigating police
shootings while Roger was an elected as District Attorney with the
Clark County District Attorney Office.
Roger violated Rule 1.11, 1.7,
and 1.9 the Rules of Professional Conduct that is adopted by the Nevada Supreme
Court. Roger also hangs
onto $300,000 from his reelection campaign after he served 1 out of 4 years of
the term he was reelected for as the Clark County District Attorney (see
article by the Las Vegas Review Journal). http://www.lvrj.com/news/roger-leaves-office-early-but-hangs-onto-300-000-just-in-case-133288958.html.
Once you read these rules you would also agree that
Roger had a major conflict of interest he violated these rules while he was the
prosecutor for Clark County and he continues to violate these rules by
providing advice to the officers who are involved in the Stanley Gibson
shooting and every officer involved shootings and use of force proceedings
under his tanner as the Clark County District Attorney to police officer he
once investigated.
Rule 1.11. Special Conflicts of Interest for Former and Current Government
Officers and Employees.
(a) Except as law may otherwise expressly permit, a lawyer
who has formerly served as a public officer or employee of the government:
(1) Is subject to Rule 1.9(c); and
(2) Shall not
otherwise represent a client in connection with a matter in which the lawyer
participated personally and substantially as a public officer or employee,
unless the appropriate government agency gives its informed consent, confirmed
in writing, to the representation.
(b) When a lawyer is disqualified from representation under
paragraph (a), no lawyer in a firm with which that lawyer is associated may
knowingly undertake or continue representation in such a matter unless:
(1) The disqualified lawyer is timely screened from any
participation in the matter and is apportioned no part of the fee therefrom;
and
(2) Written notice is promptly given to the appropriate
government agency to enable it to ascertain compliance with the provisions of
this Rule.
(c) Except as law may otherwise expressly permit, a
lawyer having information that the lawyer knows is confidential government
information about a person acquired when the lawyer was a public officer or
employee, may not represent a private client whose interests are adverse to
that person in a matter in which the information could be used to the material
disadvantage of that person. As used in this Rule, the term “confidential
government information” means information that has been obtained under
governmental authority and which, at the time this Rule is applied, the
government is prohibited by law from disclosing to the public or has a legal
privilege not to disclose and which is not otherwise available to the public. A
firm with which that lawyer is associated may undertake or continue
representation in the matter only if the disqualified lawyer is timely screened
from any participation in the matter and is apportioned no part of the fee
therefrom.
(d) Except as law may otherwise expressly permit, a lawyer
currently serving as a public officer or employee:
(1) Is subject to Rules 1.7 and 1.9; and
(2) Shall not:
(i) Participate in a
matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially while in
private practice or nongovernmental employment, unless the appropriate
government agency gives its informed consent, confirmed in writing; or
(ii) Negotiate for
private employment with any person who is involved as a party or as lawyer for
a party in a matter in which the lawyer is participating personally and
substantially, except that a lawyer serving as a law clerk to a judge, other
adjudicative officer or arbitrator may negotiate for private employment as
permitted by, and subject to the conditions stated in, Rule 1.12(b).
(e) As used in this Rule, the term “matter” includes:
(1) Any judicial or
other proceeding, application, request for a ruling or other determination,
contract, claim, controversy, investigation, charge, accusation, arrest or
other particular matter involving a specific party or parties, and
(2) Any other matter covered by the conflict of interest
rules of the appropriate government agency.
[Added; effective May 1, 2006.]
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a lawyer shall not represent a
client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent
conflict of interest exists if:
(1) The representation of one client
will be directly adverse to another client; or
(2) There is a significant risk that
the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the
lawyer’s responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person
or by a personal interest of the lawyer.
(b) Notwithstanding the existence of
a concurrent conflict of interest under paragraph (a), a lawyer may represent a
client if:
(1) The lawyer reasonably believes
that the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent representation
to each affected client;
(2) The representation is not
prohibited by law;
(3) The representation does not
involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client
represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or other proceeding before a
tribunal; and
(4) Each affected client gives
informed consent, confirmed in writing.
Rule 1.9. Duties to Former Clients.
(a) A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not
thereafter represent another person in the same or a substantially related
matter in which that person’s interests are materially adverse to the interests
of the former client unless the former client gives informed consent, confirmed
in writing.
(b) A lawyer shall not knowingly
represent a person in the same or a substantially related matter in which a
firm with which the lawyer formerly was associated had previously represented a
client:
(1) Whose interests are materially
adverse to that person; and
(2) About whom the lawyer had
acquired information protected by Rules 1.6 and 1.9(c) that is material to the
matter;
(3) Unless the former client gives
informed consent, confirmed in writing.
(c) A lawyer who has formerly
represented a client in a matter or whose present or former firm has formerly
represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter:
(1) Use information relating to the
representation to the disadvantage of the former client except as these Rules
would permit or require with respect to a client, or when the information has
become generally known; or
(2) Reveal information relating to
the representation except as these Rules would permit or require with respect
to a client.
In Closing
We have contacted the Nevada State Bar and the Nevada
Judicial Committee on Ethics both of these government agencies turned a blind
eye and a deaf ear to the corruption of David
Roger.
After an extensive
research with several judges we are now providing the Nevada Rules of
Professional Conduct in hopes that this would have some type of urgency into an
immediate investigation into David Roger
transitions.
##
