The Nevada Supreme Court has imposed a six-month suspension on attorney David Edward Walters, effective retroactively to November 24, 2025. This decision comes after the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit suspended Walters for similar reasons. The ruling affects Walters, who primarily practices immigration law, and underscores the importance of reciprocal attorney discipline across jurisdictions.

The court's decision to make the suspension retroactive means that Walters will not face any additional time beyond what he has already served under the Ninth Circuit's ruling. This case highlights the court's approach to ensuring that disciplinary actions are consistent and fair across state lines.

Background

David Edward Walters is a Nevada-licensed attorney who specializes in immigration law. His legal troubles began when the Ninth Circuit suspended him for six months due to deficient performance in three immigration appeals. The suspension was effective from November 24, 2025, and required Walters to withdraw from six pending cases.

After the Ninth Circuit's suspension, the State Bar of Nevada (SBN) received notice of the disciplinary action by December 10, 2025. Walters communicated with the SBN regarding the Ninth Circuit's decision, providing necessary documentation and updates on the situation. Following the Ninth Circuit's ruling, the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) also initiated their own disciplinary proceedings against Walters, ultimately imposing a similar six-month suspension effective March 19, 2026.

The Ruling

The Nevada Supreme Court ruled in favor of the SBN's petition for reciprocal discipline, agreeing that Walters should face a six-month suspension in Nevada, identical to the one imposed by the Ninth Circuit. The court noted that while both parties agreed on the length of the suspension, they disagreed on its starting date.

The court stated, "We conclude that two considerations guide this court’s discretion in deciding when a reciprocal suspension commences: prompt notice to the SBN as required by SCR 114(1) and cessation of practice in Nevada during the foreign suspension."

Ultimately, the court decided that both considerations supported making the suspension retroactive to the date of the Ninth Circuit's suspension. The justices emphasized that Walters had ceased practicing immigration law during the period of suspension, which was crucial in their decision.

Impact

This ruling sets a significant precedent for how reciprocal discipline is handled in Nevada. By allowing the suspension to be retroactive, the court reinforces the idea that attorneys should not suffer additional penalties due to delays in disciplinary proceedings. This decision aims to protect the public by ensuring that attorneys who are suspended in one jurisdiction do not continue to practice law in another jurisdiction during their suspension.

The ruling also emphasizes the importance of timely communication between attorneys and their respective state bars. It highlights that attorneys must promptly notify their licensing authorities of any disciplinary actions taken against them in other jurisdictions. This case serves as a reminder that attorneys are responsible for maintaining their professional conduct across state lines.

What's Next

Walters' suspension is effective immediately, and he will need to comply with the terms set forth by the SBN. While the ruling can be appealed, details on any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. As of now, there are no related cases pending that would directly impact this ruling.