From: Elvis Nuno
To: Office of Disciplinary Counsel
RE: ODC File No. 25-14
Date: October 4, 2025
Mr. Tipp's response fundamentally mischaracterizes the nature and scope of the grievance while confirming the very misconduct that forms the basis of the complaint. His assertion that "the crux of Mr. Nuno's Grievance against Mr. Tipp is that Mr. Tipp failed to pursue civil claims" reveals either a deliberate misrepresentation or a concerning lack of comprehension of his ethical obligations as criminal defense counsel.
The core issue is not that Mr. Tipp was retained for civil representation—it is that he actively suppressed my understanding of urgent civil deadlines while serving as my criminal defense attorney, resulting in the expiration of all viable civil rights claims worth millions in potential recovery.
Mr. Tipp's dismissive characterization of my grievance as "founded upon lies, misrepresentations and falsifications, and is the product of Mr. Nuno's attempted extortion, harassment and intimidation" represents a desperate attempt to deflect from his well-documented professional failures through character assassination—a tactic that further demonstrates his unfitness to practice law.
Mr. Tipp repeatedly states that the grievance alleges he "failed to pursue civil claims on behalf of Mr. Nuno for alleged civil rights violations." This is a fundamental mischaracterization. The actual grievance clearly states:
Professional Duty Breach: As criminal defense counsel, Mr. Tipp had ethical obligations under Montana Rules of Professional Conduct to ensure his client understood critical legal deadlines that could affect his ability to seek redress for the very violations underlying the criminal charges.
Mr. Tipp contradicts himself by simultaneously claiming: