Opinion No. 99-17

(Request for Reconsideration)

BEFORE THE NEVADA COMMISSION ON ETHICS

In the Matter of the Opinion Request Regarding Susan Brager

This matter came before the Commission for rehearing on November 19, 1999, on a Petition for Rehearing filed on August 3, 1999, by Dr. E. Louis Overstreet. Dr. Overstreet and Ms. Brager's attorney, William Hoffman, both appeared by telephone. The Commission heard from both Dr. Overstreet and Mr. Hoffman and considered the evidence presented in this matter.

Dr. Overstreet's petition sought reconsideration of findings of fact and the opinion of the Commission dated July 10, 1999. The Commission rendered Opinion No. 99-17 dated July 10, 1999, after a closed hearing on May 21, 1999, where it found no just and sufficient cause to proceed in this matter.

Opinion No. 99-17 dated July 10, 1999, held that the information submitted by Dr. Overstreet in his request for opinion in this matter violated NRS 281.525 and 281.551(2) and imposed a "monetary assessment" against Dr. Overstreet in the amount of $1,500.00 for reimbursement of attorney's fees incurred by the Clark County School District in defending Ms. Brager in this matter.

Based upon all of the information and evidence before it, the Commission denies the petition for reconsideration except as to the sole issue of the extent of the attorney's fees assessed against Dr. Overstreet in Opinion No. 99-17 dated July 10, 1999.

NRS 281.55 1, Subsection 2, authorizes the Commission to assess "an amount equal to the amount of attorney's fees and costs actually and reasonably incurred by the person about whom an opinion was requested." The attorney's fees assessed against Dr. Overstreet in Opinion No. 99-17 dated July 10, 1999, in the amount $1,500.00 are, therefore, adjusted to reflect an amount equal to the attorney's fees actually and reasonably incurred by the Clark County School District in defending Ms. Brager in this matter based upon Mr. Hoffman's salary.

NOTE: THE FOREGOING OPINION APPLIES ONLY TO THE SPECIFIC FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES DEFINED HEREIN. FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WHICH DIFFER FROM THOSE IN THIS OPINION, MAY RESULT IN AN OPINION CONTRARY TO THIS OPINION. NO INFERENCES REGARDING THE PROVISIONS OF NEVADA REVISED STATUTES QUOTED AND DISCUSSED IN THIS OPINION MAY BE DRAWN TO APPLY GENERALLY TO ANY OTHER FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES.

Dated:  March 31, 2000

NEVADA COMMISSION ON ETHICS

By:  Peter C. Bernhard, Chairman