- 478 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

308 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. BRUNO

Cite as 308 Neb. 478

State of Nebraska ex rel. Counsel for Discipline 

of the Nebraska Supreme Court, relator, 

v. Jason M. Bruno, respondent.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed February 19, 2021. No. S-20-814.

Original action. Judgment of suspension.

Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, 

Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.

Per Curiam.

INTRODUCTION

The State Bar of Arizona entered a “Decision Order” regarding the respondent, Jason M. Bruno, on October 9, 2020. 

The Counsel for Discipline of the Nebraska Supreme Court, 

the relator, filed a motion for reciprocal discipline against 

the respondent. We grant the motion for reciprocal discipline 

and impose a suspension of 6 months.

FACTS

The respondent was admitted to the practice of law in 

the State of Arizona in 2004 and in the State of Nebraska 

on February 28, 2005. He has been an active member of the 

Nebraska State Bar Association and the State Bar of Arizona.

On October 9, 2020, the State Bar of Arizona’s presiding disciplinary judge issued a final judgment and order in 

which it found that the respondent violated the Arizona Rules 

of Professional Conduct. The respondent was found to have 

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/

04/16/2021 09:08 AM CDT
- 479 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

308 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. BRUNO

Cite as 308 Neb. 478

violated “Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct ER 3.3(a)(3), 

ER 3.4(a) and (d), and ER 8.4 (c) and (d).” The charges 

arose from a discovery matter. The underlying facts generally 

involved the respondent’s failure to disclose material.

The order suspended the respondent from the practice of 

law for a period of 6 months, followed by 2 years of probation 

upon reinstatement, additional CLE, and a “MAP assessment” 

with possible terms and conditions, plus costs and expenses.

On November 19, 2020, the relator filed a motion for reciprocal discipline pursuant to Neb. Ct. R. § 3-321 of the disciplinary rules. The motion stated that the above-cited Arizona 

Supreme Court rules are in sum and substance the equivalent 

to Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. §§ 3-503.3(a)(3) (rev. 2016) 

(candor toward tribunal), 3-503.4(a) and (d) (fairness to opposing party and counsel), and 3-508.4(c) and (d) (rev. 2016) 

(misconduct).

This court filed an order to show cause as to why it should 

not impose reciprocal discipline. On December 14, 2020, the 

respondent filed a response in which he requested oral argument and claimed, summarized and restated, that (1) he was 

not afforded due process in the disciplinary proceedings in 

Arizona and (2) the evidence does not support discipline. 

On January 6, 2021, the relator filed a response, arguing that 

the respondent has not overcome the presumption of regularity of the Arizona proceedings, and requested that this court 

impose a like discipline as that imposed by the Arizona 

Supreme Court.

ANALYSIS

The basic issues in a disciplinary proceeding against an 

attorney are whether discipline should be imposed and, if so, 

the type of discipline appropriate under the circumstances. 

State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Murphy, 283 Neb. 982, 

814 N.W.2d 107 (2012). In a reciprocal discipline proceeding, a judicial determination of attorney misconduct in one 

jurisdiction is generally conclusive proof of guilt and is not 
- 480 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

308 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. BRUNO

Cite as 308 Neb. 478

subject to relitigation in the second jurisdiction. Id. Neb. Ct. 

R. § 3-304 of the disciplinary rules provides that the following 

may be considered as discipline for attorney misconduct:

(A) Misconduct shall be grounds for:

(1) Disbarment by the Court; or

(2) Suspension by the Court; or

(3) Probation by the Court in lieu of or subsequent to 

suspension, on such terms as the Court may designate; or

(4) Censure and reprimand by the Court; or

(5) Temporary suspension by the Court; or

(6) Private reprimand by the Committee on Inquiry or 

Disciplinary Review Board.

(B) The Court may, in its discretion, impose one or 

more of the disciplinary sanctions set forth above.

Section 3-321 of the disciplinary rules provides in part:

(A) Upon being disciplined in another jurisdiction, a 

member shall promptly inform the Counsel for Discipline 

of the discipline imposed. Upon receipt by the Court of 

appropriate notice that a member has been disciplined in 

another jurisdiction, the Court may enter an order imposing the identical discipline, or greater or lesser discipline 

as the Court deems appropriate, or, in its discretion, suspend the member pending the imposition of final discipline in such other jurisdiction.

In imposing attorney discipline, we evaluate each case in light 

of its particular facts and circumstances. State ex rel. Counsel 

for Dis. v. Murphy, supra.

Upon due consideration of the record, and the facts as determined by the State Bar of Arizona, we determine that suspension is appropriate. The respondent has not demonstrated a lack 

of due process of law or an infirmity of proof. The respondent 

made a robust defense in Arizona. The Arizona Supreme Court 

determined that the respondent concealed the existence of 

evidence which had not been disclosed to the defense. The 

court found that this was intentional and misleading to the 
- 481 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

308 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. BRUNO

Cite as 308 Neb. 478

opposing counsel and that it caused the respondent’s opposing 

party to change its strategy.

We grant the motion for reciprocal discipline and impose a 

suspension of 6 months.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that cause has not been shown by the respondent. The respondent’s request for oral argument is denied. The 

motion for reciprocal discipline is granted. The respondent is 

suspended from the practice of law for 6 months. The respondent shall comply with all notification requirements by suspended members provided by Neb. Ct. R. § 3-316 (rev. 2014), 

and upon failure to do so, he shall be subject to punishment for 

contempt of this court. The respondent is directed to pay costs 

and expenses in accordance with Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 7-114 and 

7-115 (Reissue 2012) and Neb. Ct. R. §§ 3-310(P) (rev. 2019) 

and 3-323(B) of the disciplinary rules within 60 days after 

an order imposing costs and expenses, if any, is entered by 

the court.

Judgment of suspension.