Misconduct of Morgan E. Pietz - Partner with Pietz & Shahriari LLP.

Morgan E. Pietz was brought in by the law firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck (BHFS) as a strategic "fixer" in my California and Nevada litigation. Despite BHFS having at least 18 in-house attorneys in its Los Angeles office, they involved Pietz—whose name first appeared on a Nevada filing on April 17, listed as “pro hac vice forthcoming.” His inclusion, even before being admitted, suggests he was preemptively assigned to take over in the event the case could not be dismissed immediately, serving as a fallback specialist in suppressing opposition.

Under Rule 42, attorneys from out of state must file a motion for admission pro hac vice and obtain court approval before engaging in any substantive activity. The rule also ensures that opposing parties, such as myself, are given the opportunity to object to such a motion.

See cases related to Pietz's serious violation:

Russell v. Thompson, 96 Nev. 830, 618 P.2d 1359 (1980). Holding: Unauthorized practice of law by non-Nevada attorney before compliance with SCR 42 was improper.

In re Discipline of Schaefer, 117 Nev. 496, 25 P.3d 191 (2001). Holding: Attorney disciplined for practicing law in Nevada without being admitted or properly filing for pro hac vice.

Ryan’s Express v. Amador Stage Lines, 128 Nev. 289, 279 P.3d 166 (2012). Clarified that procedural defects, including unauthorized filings, may affect proceedings and court discretion.

On April 21, I filed a motion seeking sanctions and accountability when Shein filed a frivolous and malicious opposition to have my case dismissed.

I also created several protest websites against Shein's attorneys and law firm and shared them with BHFS staff.

On April 22, I was notified by Name.com that complaints were submitted resulting in the coordinated takedown of of three of the protest websites as well as my own site unrelated to the litigation. This occurred shortly before their opposition to my motion was due, on May 5.

Despite not being authorized to practice in Nevada, on May 5, Pietz submitted a Declaration as part of an opposition to my motion for sanctions against Shein, attempting to prejudice the court by referencing a completely unrelated website I had previously created against a different judge. His intent was clear: turn the court against me by characterizing me as a threat, rather than addressing the legal substance of the case. At that time, Pietz had not applied for pro hac vice admission, nor had he received any formal authorization from either the Nevada Bar or the court.

His application to the Nevada Bar was not submitted until May 6, and his actual motion to appear pro hac vice in court was not filed until May 13—after I formally objected to his unauthorized participation. As of this filing, Pietz remains unauthorized in Nevada, yet he has already engaged in extensive communications with the judge and filed documents, effectively practicing law in violation of NRPC 5.5, NRS § 7.285, and California Rule 5.5.

When I informed Pietz that I would be filing criminal complaints and bar grievances against him for unauthorized practice of law and retaliation, he reached out seeking to settle privately and asked what I wanted to resolve the matter. I gave him a settlement offer of $10,000, solely as a way to de-escalate without further harm. He never responded—confirming that he and his co-counsel were not acting in good faith, but rather hoping to intimidate and outmaneuver me while denying my basic rights to access justice.

This pattern of retaliation, procedural abuse, and calculated manipulation of the court system shows that Pietz is not merely a participant, but a knowing co-conspirator in a broader civil RICO scheme designed to silence me and suppress evidence of misconduct by Shein, BHFS, and Name.com. His conduct has caused severe harm, including the takedown of my protest websites, obstruction of justice, and ongoing interference in my access to the courts.

Pietz has filed several motions in the Nevada while not being licensed in the state, nor having been authorized by the court in my case. The filings are listed as follows:

• Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, April 17, 2025

• Defendant SDC's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions, May 5, 2025

• SDC's Anti-Slapp Special Motion to Dismiss, or, in the Alternative, Motion to Dismiss, The First Amended Complaint, May 8, 2025

• Appendix of Exhibits to SDC's Anti-Slapp Special Motion to Dismiss, of, in the Alternative, Motion to Dismiss, The First Amended Complaint, May 8, 2025

• Notice of Withdrawal of Motion to Dismiss the Original Complaint (DOC 10) and Request to Vacate the May 20, 2025 Hearing on the Same, May 13, 2025

• Motion to Associate Counsel (Morgan E. Pietz, Esq.), May 13, 2025

• SDC's Opposition to Plaintiff's Ex parte Motion to Continue Hearing on Defendants' Anti-Slapp Motion, April 17, 2025

• SDC's Request that Hearing be Reset, May 27, 2025

These actions, taken together, reflect a pattern of improper conduct by Mr. Pietz, including:

• Unauthorized practice of law;

• Retaliatory suppression of speech;

• Misuse of legal threats to remove critical online content;

• Collusion with judicial officers to evade procedural safeguards.