This is a press release submitted to the Las Vegas Sun. It has not been verified or edited by the Sun.
Veterans group says former prosecutor violated Nevada Supreme Court Rule of Professional Conduct
Published on Mon, Dec 24, 2012 (4:27 a.m.)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.]
Rule 1.7. Conflict of Interest: Current Clients.
(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.
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.