in Re: Discipline of Colbern Cox Stuart

directed Stuart to show cause why he should not be temporarily suspended and the matter referred for discipline. Stuart failed to respond to our show cause order. SCR 111(9) provides: Upon receipt of a petition demonstrating that an attorney has been convicted of a crime which is not a serious crime, the supreme court may refer the matter to the appropriate disciplinary board for any action it may deem warranted under these or any other rules of the supreme court that pertain to the conduct of attorneys, provided, however, that the supreme court may decline to refer a conviction for a minor offense to the board. If the conviction adversely reflects on the attorney's fitness to practice law, the supreme court may issue an order to show cause, requiring the attorney to demonstrate why an immediate temporary suspension should not be imposed. Having reviewed the petition and the supporting documentation submitted by bar counsel, and in light of Stuart's failure to respond to our show cause order, we conclude that a temporary suspension is warranted. 2 Accordingly, we temporarily suspend Stuart from the

practice of law and refer this matter to the Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board for the initiation of disciplinary proceedings. 3 See SCR 111(9). It is so ORDERED. 4

cc: Jeffrey R. Albregts, Chair, Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board David A. Clark, Bar Counsel Kimberly K. Farmer, Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada Colbern Cox Stuart, III Perry Thompson, Admissions Office, Supreme Court of the United States

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 4 (0) 1947A

Footnotes

[2] See Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. Weaver, 812 N.W.2d 4 (Iowa 2012) (holding that an attorney's criminal conviction for the telephonic harassment of his wife reflected adversely on the attorney's honesty, trustworthiness, and fitness as a lawyer). SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A J. Gibbons ,J. Parraguirre Douglas

[3] We recognize that Stuart has been suspended from the practice of law in Nevada since August 2003 for failure to pay his bar dues. See SCR 98(12). Accordingly, in order to be reinstated to the practice of law in Nevada, Stuart must comply with the reinstatement requirements of SCR 98(13), in addition to the disciplinary conditions and/or reinstatement requirements, if any, imposed in the instant matter.

[4] The Honorable Nancy M. Saitta, Justice, did not participate in the resolution of this matter.