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.

When I met Patrick, I found very personable and knowledgeable. He told me what to expect and what not to expect. He said what she could have and could not get. His initial fees were very reasonable with the standard warning that they could change if it became more complicated. I warned him that my... wife could be would make things complicated just for the sake of making them complicated. That proved to hold very true. Things went fairly smooth until my wife started ‘lawyer hopping’. This proved tedious for us as we had to repeat work and restart negotiations. My wife was not turning in all her documents, hiding information, keeping many secrets. About 6 months into the process, I started noticing Patrick getting distracted easily, forgetting details and not being prepared for court sessions. Responses to my communication were rare and incomplete. I had considered retaining a new lawyer but felt that would just add more complications and add more costs. I came to regret that decision. At the beginning he stated many things my wife wanted were not supported by Nevada laws. During the final months I kept finding Patrick giving into my wife’s lawyers demands, even though he had earlier stated to me that she was not entitled to them. At the final hearing, he gave in quickly and did not put up much of a fight. He was unprepared and distracted. While I understand his desire to get this over with, it ended up costing me tens of thousands of dollars in settlement costs and his additional fees. The explanations for his lack of actions were weak. All said, I feel Patrick is a good lawyer. However, his lack of organization and his ego prevent him from being a great lawyer.