Was Petitioner denied constitutional procedural due process

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Petitioner was disciplined in two separate proceedings which were combined into a single “Order of Suspension” by Nevada Supreme Court. App. A In the first proceeding three grievances were forwarded from a screening panel hearing, at which Petitioner could not participate, within one year after a prior disciplinary order. The merit of those grievances did not have to be proved; rather, the mere forwarding of those grievances was grounds for discipline, which resulted in a one year suspension. App. C In the second proceeding, four grievances, including the same three in the first proceeding, were heard by a hearing panel, which imposed an additional three year suspension for violations of various rules of professional conduct. The three year suspension was imposed in part because Petitioner, who is AfricanAmerican, refused to continue to represent two clients who had accused him of wrongdoing, including not communicating an offer of settlement [which was non-existent]. and theft of settlement funds [which was untrue]. Petitioner had moved for and been granted court-approved withdrawals in both instances. App. B QUESTION 1 1. Was Petitioner denied constitutional procedural due process of law by the Nevada Supreme Court in its “Order Approving Conditional Guilty Plea Agreement And Suspending Attorney” in disciplinary matter 73592 entered on February 23, 2018, which provided that any grievance forwarded from a screening panel hearing, at which hearing Petitioner could not participate, automatically allowed the imposition i of discipline upon Petitioner, including suspension of Petitioner’s right to practice law? QUESTION 2 2. Was Petitioner denied constitutional due process of law by the Nevada Supreme Court’s arbitrary and capricious application of Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5 and Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16, in that said rules as applied to Petitioner are lacking in standards to distinguish what is permissible conduct from what is not permissible, and are therefore void for vagueness? QUESTION 3 3. Whether the suspension imposed upon Petitioner by the Nevada Supreme Court pursuant to Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16 constitutes involuntary servitude in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, in that Petitioner was disciplined for refusing to continue to represent clients who accused him of wrongdoing? ii