United States v. 2021-12-16 | 21-15387 | DAVID PHILLIPS V. | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: DAVID LEE PHILLIPS, Attorney at
Law, Bar No. 538,
______________________________
DAVID LEE PHILLIPS,
Appellant.
No. 21-15387
D.C. No. 2:20-cv-02213-MMD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2021**
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
David Lee Phillips, an attorney, appeals pro se from the district court’s order
imposing reciprocal discipline following his four-year suspension by the Nevada
Supreme Court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an
abuse of discretion. In re Corrinet, 645 F.3d 1141, 1145 (9th Cir. 2011). We
affirm.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
DEC 16 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-15387
The district court did not abuse its discretion in suspending Phillips from the
practice of law in the District of Nevada because Phillips did not meet his burden
to show that he was deprived of due process, that proof of misconduct was
insufficient, or that grave injustice would result from the imposition of reciprocal
discipline. See In re Kramer, 282 F.3d 721, 724-25 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining the
limited circumstances in which an attorney can avoid a federal court’s imposition
of reciprocal discipline and setting forth attorney’s burden of proof).
We reject as without merit Phillips’s contention that the Nevada Supreme
Court’s requirement that Phillips protect his clients’ interests when withdrawing
from representation violates the Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition against
involuntary servitude.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --