The lawsuit was the result of a Nov. 13, 2003 raid in northeast Reno. In the course of the raid, which involved several local law enforcement agencies, armed suspected drug dealers ran into a barber shop. Police officers armed with assault rifles entered the barbershop and ordered everyone to lie down. Three of the suspects, — local boxer Kelvin Davis, Ruby Jean May and Robert Spears — filed a lawsuit claiming police officers used excessive force during the incident, violating their constitutional rights. The cities of Sparks and Reno, Sparks Police Chief John Dotson and several individual police officers were defendants in the suit.
The Nevada district judge in the original case found the police officers had probable cause to arrest Spears for rock cocaine and acted reasonably when they ordered the patrons to the floor in light of the potentially dangerous situation. The judge also found there was no medical evidence to support Davis' claims that his hand injuries were caused by his handcuffing, rather than by his boxing career. The plaintiffs appealed the case to federal court.
Monday’s federal ruling dismissed all excessive force claims and sent just one issue back to the lower court for review: a possible unlawful search that led to Spears’ arrest.
Sparks City Attorney Chet Adams praised the efforts of Tom Riley, senior assistant Sparks city attorney who defended the case, saying his efforts savedtaxpayers more than $500,000 in claimed damages.
"We have constantly supported the professional men and women of the Sparks Police Department in their ongoing efforts to protect our community from the crime associated with drug use and sales,” Adams said. “This should send a clear message that we do not settle these types of cases because our primary duty is to Sparks' citizens."
Sparks City Attorney Reacts to Investigation into Alleged Misconduct
Posted: 12:47 AM Jun 13, 2007
Last Updated: 2:48 PM Jun 13, 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A | A | A "This is a political personal vendetta brought about as, ah, as a result of the, originally, the Lazy Eight lawsuit," Sparks City Attorney Chet Adams said in a phone interview Tuesday.
Adams reportedly pressed the city to settle that lawsuit last year, then clearing the way for the controversial casino on the Pyramid Highway.
He says it all started with the Lazy Eight decision, and now businesses and some politicians are behind an investigation into alleged misconduct.
The report says Adams had city personnel do work related to a state bar complaint filed against him.
It also says during work hours, information on an effort to recall Adams was recorded by a city employee.
"I certainly did use... staff to, to ah, do what we do in, in the office and that's defend all officers, employees of the City of Sparks for acts taken in their official capacity," Adams said.
A Sparks spokesman couldn't immediately say whether Adams had done anything wrong.
"The report is in the public domain now and certainly you as a member of the press and the citizens can come to their own conclusions," Spokesman Adam Mayberry said.
An investigator also looked into claims Adams had a personal relationship with a co-worker.
And the report says Adams lied during an investigation.
"He was paid 35-thousand dollars to dig up some dirt and, ah, irrespective of the fact that recollections differ..." Adams said.
Adams says he never harassed or engaged in inappropriate behavior with other employees.
He says it's unfortunate citizens had to pay for the report, estimated to have cost about 35-thousand dollars.
The investigation also examined lawsuit settlements paid out by Sparks involving Adams.
Adams says one suit mentioned in the report was settled for about 25-thousand dollars because it was considered a nuisance.
And he says this about any others:
"Those settlement amounts, ah, had nothing to do, ah, with any allege or any findings that I ever engaged in any inappropriate conduct."
Efforts to reach several other Sparks city officials were unsuccessful Tuesday evening.
Kudos for winning a major lawsuit folks and thanks for protecting our victims of domestic violence without asking me to pay more taxes.
"NORTHERN NEVADA DISCIPLINARY BOARD
In Re: Douglas W. Nicholson, Esq.
Bar No.: 3654
Case Nos.: N06-18-361, N06-22-361
Issued: April 9, 2008
Public reprimand and costs ($484.05) warranted where attorney failed to communicate with his clients, expedite litigation and was dilatory in responding to the state bar.
PUBLIC REPRIMAND:
TO: DOUGLAS W. NICHOLSON, ESQ.
You represented grievant Ronald Davis (“Davis”) in a divorce proceeding. As part of the divorce settlement, Davis was to execute, within 30 days of the decree, quitclaim deeds pertaining to three time-shares awarded to his ex-wife. Davis stated that he attempted to effectuate his deeds, but his ex-wife refused to sign them, stating they were faulty.
Over the next year and a half, you received several letters from Davis’ ex-wife, through her attorneys, requesting assistance in completing the quitclaim deeds; nonetheless, you failed to complete the task. Left with no alternative, opposing counsel filed an Ex-Parte Application of Court to Execute Deeds and Related Documents and served a copy on you on or about September 16, 2004. You did not provide a response to the Ex-Parte Application.
Opposing counsel then filed a Motion and Order to Show Cause and Request Costs, which was granted as you again did not file a response. A hearing on the motion was held, but you were not in attendance; nor was your client, who was unaware of the proceeding.
On November 3, 2005, the court entered its order finding Davis in contempt of court and issued a bench warrant for Davis’ arrest. According to Davis, you never notified him of the warrant. The condition set for bail on the warrant included payment of $860 relative to the contempt charge and a fee and cost award to his ex-wife’s attorneys in the amount of $2,000.67.
Davis claimed that he signed the time-share documents for the second time, with some hesitance, in mid-to-late October 2005, at your request. Davis also noted that the first set of documents, which he signed in July 2004 and subsequently gave to you, were found in his file after it was turned over to his new attorney, Egan Walker (“Walker”), in March 2006.
Davis retained Walker on or about January 2006, then contacted your office and advised you that he no longer required your services. He asked that his file be sent to Walker; however, you did not relinquish the file until March 4, 2006.
In mid-January 2006, Walker spoke telephonically with opposing counsel and was informed of the warrant as well as the unanswered pleadings that had been served upon you. Walker then contacted Davis and asked him if he was aware of the warrant, filings or the missed hearing dates. Davis was not. Following this conversation with Walker, Davis called you and left a voice mail message regarding his conversation with Walker. According to Davis, you left him a voice message admitting fault on or about January 20, 2006.
Judge Elliot lifted the bench warrant for Davis on January 27, 2006, when you paid the $2,860.67 in fees that had been awarded at the August 18, 2005, hearing.
Davis filed a grievance with the State Bar of Nevada on February 23, 2006, after which a grievance file was opened. You did not respond to the four pieces of correspondence sent to you via certified mail from the state bar despite being informed that failure to do so would be considered a violation of SCR 200(2) (bar admission and disciplinary matters).
On June 21, 2006, the Office of Bar Counsel received a facsimile letter from you apologizing for the delay and stating that a response would be in the office within the next two (2) weeks. No response was received by the state bar within this time period.
On September 22, 2006, the bar received a letter from you indicating that you had sent a response to the state bar on or about August 27, 2006, but the letter was returned, although you were not sure as to why, and that you had been out of the office from August 28 to September 19, 2006. Attached to the September 22 correspondence was a letter to the state bar dated August 18, 2006, responding to Davis’ grievance.
The August 18 letter apologized for the delay in getting your response to the bar. You stated that your life had been in utter chaos since September 2005 due to the breast cancer diagnoses of both your sister-in-law and a close friend.
You further stated that you did not notify Davis of the show-cause hearing because, until the morning of the hearing, you believed that the issue had been resolved and the hearing would be vacated. You further stated that you had paid the attorney’s fees imposed in the August 2005 order because it was not Davis’ fault you had misunderstood the arrangement with opposing counsel.
You also stated that you believed that you had left Davis a message after learning of the warrant. However, you did not indicate that you took any steps to quash the bench warrant after learning of its issuance.
You ended your response acknowledging that you certainly could have been more diligent in your follow-up calls to Davis, and apologized to Davis for the anguish he experienced.
In a second matter, Shari Johnson (“Johnson”) retained you in February 2005 with regard to her divorce proceeding. After her divorce was finalized in July 2005, she asked you to withdraw from the matter, which you failed to do.
In April 2006, Johnson’s ex-husband filed a Motion to Modify Child Support and served a copy upon you, as you were still listed as Johnson’s attorney-of-record. You failed to file a response to the Motion to Modify Child Support. As a result, an Order Modifying Support in favor of the ex-husband was entered on July 6, 2006.
On August 1, 2006, Johnson filed a grievance with the State Bar of Nevada and a file was opened. You did not respond to the three pieces of correspondence sent to you via certified mail from the state bar despite being informed that failure to do so would be considered a violation of SCR 200(2) (bar admission and disciplinary matters). You were further advised that failure to respond would result in the matter being presented to a screening panel of the Northern Nevada Disciplinary Board with the assumption that Johnson’s allegations were true.
On September 22, 2006, the bar received a letter from you indicating that you had sent a response to the state bar on or about August 27, 2006, but the letter was returned, although you were not sure as to why, and that you had been out of the office from August 28 to September 19,2006.
Attached to the September 22, 2006, correspondence was a letter to the state bar dated August 27, 2006, requesting an extension of 30 days in which to respond to Johnson’s grievance. It was not until a January 10, 2008 meeting with bar counsel that you provided a response to Johnson’s grievance.
In light of the foregoing, your conduct violated SCR 153 (diligence), SCR 154 (communication) and SCR 200(2)/RPC 8.1(b) (bar admissions and disciplinary matters) with respect to the Ronald Davis grievance and SCR 153 (diligence) and SCR 154 (communication) with respect to the Shari Johnson grievance. You are hereby PUBLICLY REPRIMANDED."
Public means public. In order to get to this stage you had to have had a private reprimand previously.
Between Riley and Nicholson, it makes you wonder just who you're going to hire next.
OK FriendsOfSparks aka CHET ADAMS,
Since one of your incompetents drafted the ordinance that was unconstitutional from the beginning, an HONEST LAWYER would have admitted his mistake to his client and MINIMIZED THE TAXPAYER LIABILITY!!! But, that is an honest lawyer, not you. Reno did it, why not you? And, as you like to point out, if you are the ELECTED CITY ATTORNEY, your job was to say, we cannot win this and we need to cut out losses. But you only do that on pretend cases like Lazy 8. Where you, Carlos Vasquez, Harvey Whitemore and Mike Carrigan and Martini are all tied in to. Are you on the take? With your conviction record and all of the lies you tell, no one would be surprised.