Las Vegas attorney faces suspension for telling opposing lawyer to blow his brains out

A Las Vegas attorney with a history of unsettling behavior faces a five-year suspension for telling another lawyer to blow his brains out days after a fatal Summerlin law office shooting.

James Pengilly, an attorney in Nevada since 1996, was previously suspended in 2018 for six months and a day after he displayed a gun at a deposition and asked, “Are you ready for it?” according to records.

Pengilly made the comment in the current case just nine days after attorney Joe Houston fatally shot attorney Dennis Prince and his wife, Ashley Prince, at an April 8, 2024 deposition, then killed himself. The incident was referred to the State Bar of Nevada by a federal judge.

During an April 17, 2024 phone meeting, Pengilly told Miles Clark, an opposing attorney in a federal contract dispute, to “Go blow your brains out!” according to a filing by the bar.

The bar alleged Pengilly also referred to the murder of Prince and said, “Don’t be sorry for Dennis. He was an a———.”

‘It’s an idiom’

Pengilly does not contest the general claims, but denied making a threat.

“I said, ‘Miles, file whatever you want. Blow your brains out. Have fun,’ ” Pengilly told the Las Vegas Review-Journal. “The reason for ‘blow your brains out’ is … do whatever you think is the best you can do, and it’s not going to be good for you. It’s nothing. It’s an idiom.”

Asked about the comment insulting Prince, Pengilly said, “I don’t know that I actually said that, but Dennis was an a———.” Still, what happened on the call was “completely unrelated” to the shooting, he said.

U.S. District Judge Jennifer Dorsey disagreed.

When she referred Pengilly to the bar on April 23, 2024, she wrote that she was concerned about the “frightening” comment in the context of the shooting at Prince’s office and Pengilly’s previous suspension “for, among other things, bringing a gun to a deposition and asking the deponent if he was ‘ready for it.’”

Pengilly questions who was injured by what he said. “For Judge Dorsey to say that’s frightening is preposterous,” he said. “It’s a telephone call.”

He had also engaged in other questionable behavior, according to the bar, including referring to discovery requests as “horse s—-,” yelling at Clark’s client in a deposition and telling Clark “(y)ou are not The Queen of Sheba” and that his “Monty Python-esque Spanish Inquisition is not going to work with me.”

The bar noted: Pengilly “appears to make a habit of name calling to dehumanize others by alluding to literary references and historical characters.”

Pengilly denied yelling at the deposition, but not the other remarks.

Supreme Court must approve

According to a June 6 case summary, a disciplinary panel heard testimony and deliberated on the case this April, then recommended the Nevada Supreme Court suspend Pengilly for five years and a day.

The Nevada Supreme Court will review the recommendation and make the determination as to how Pengilly should be disciplined, according to Daniel Hooge, the chief bar counsel. Documents in the case were filed with the Supreme Court Friday.

Pengilly told a bar investigator Dorsey had a “clear bias” and claimed Clark has said he clerked for Dorsey “and can pick up the phone at any time and call her to get what he wants.” When Dorsey worked for an attorney with whom Pengilly was co-counsel on a case, “she did not enjoy taking direction from me,” Pengilly said.

He thinks the judge filed the bar complaint because of their previous case together.

Dorsey and Clark did not respond to requests for comment.

Pengilly also complained about attorney disciplinary staff.

“I am tired of being harassed by the bar,” he said. “You get these little punks that had failing criminal careers.”

He said he was referring to assistant bar counsel Brian Vasek, who prosecuted his case.

In an email, Vasek said, “Mr. Pengilly’s comments are unfortunate and demonstrate a pattern of misconduct that led a disciplinary panel to unanimously recommend the Nevada Supreme Court suspend his privilege to practice law.”

He added: “My qualifications are not on trial.”

Hooge defended Vasek, saying he is “an excellent attorney” and “did a great job” with Pengilly’s case.

‘Context was important’

Pengilly’s most recent incident was the “straw that broke the camel’s back” after a history of making threats, Hooge said.

After the prior deposition, Pengilly denied pulling out the gun or making a threat.

Pengilly said he had shown his weapon to the man he was deposing in the previous incident to deescalate the situation. That man, Mark Stuhmer, had repeatedly threatened him, he said. Stuhmer did not respond to requests for comment.

The Review-Journal previously reported that Stuhmer claimed he was afraid for his life and felt Pengilly “orchestrated a premeditated ambush.”

“I think context was important in this case,” Hooge said. “Not only his history, but the Prince shooting was very fresh in everyone’s minds.”

Attorney Peter Heins, who was part of the April 17 call, on the opposite side of the case from Pengilly, said he found Pengilly’s comment unprofessional and “really strange,” but did not feel unsafe or take it literally.

Still, Heins said, he believes Pengilly is “a threat to the community,” because he would have scared the average attorney.

“Miles said, ‘Knowing your history, I’m going to give you a chance to restate that’ and he doubled down,” said Heins.

Pengilly said he has retired but intends to contest the five-year suspension recommendation. He said he has no regret or remorse.

“What regret would I have for saying, ‘blow your brains out’?” he asked.

Contact Noble Brigham at nbrigham@reviewjournal.com. Follow @BrighamNoble on X.