Patrick R. Driscoll

Prospective clients should understand exactly how certain litigation strategies can expose them to risk. In a contested Las Vegas family law matter, multiple non-parties reported being contacted directly by Mr. Driscoll seeking information outside formal discovery channels. When they declined to p...articipate, follow-up communications referenced potential “criminal prosecution,” and at least one significant other was contacted after an initial refusal. Threatening or pressuring third parties — particularly unrepresented individuals — is not aggressive advocacy. It is a tactic that risks ethical scrutiny. Such conduct raises serious concerns under Nevada’s procedural and professional standards, including: NRCP 11 – improper purpose RPC 4.3 – overreaching with unrepresented persons RPC 4.4(a) – burdening third parties RPC 3.4 – influencing witnesses RPC 8.4(d) – conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice Family court judges expect disciplined advocacy grounded in the rules. Strategies that invite sanctions, fee awards, or bar complaints ultimately harm the client — not the opposing party. Due diligence matters. Clients should carefully evaluate whether intimidation-based tactics align with their long-term legal interests.