- 754 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

298 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. MOTTA

Cite as 298 Neb. 754

State of Nebraska ex rel. Counsel for Discipline

of the Nebraska Supreme Court, relator, 

v. Alison H. Motta, respondent.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed January 19, 2018. No. S-17-602.

Original action. Judgment of public reprimand.

Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Kelch, and

Funke, JJ.

Per Curiam.

INTRODUCTION

This case is before the court on the conditional admission 

filed by Alison H. Motta, respondent, on November 16, 2017. 

The court accepts respondent’s conditional admission to the 

charge contained in the amended formal charges and enters an 

order of public reprimand.

FACTS

On July 19, 2013, respondent was admitted to the practice 

of law in the State of Nebraska pro hac vice by order of the 

county court for Douglas County, Nebraska. Her admission 

was for appearing in the case of “State v. Anthony Garcia” 

(Garcia case), docketed in Douglas County Court as case No. 

CR13-17383 and in the district court for Douglas County as 

case No. CR13-2322. Anthony Garcia had been charged with 

committing four homicides. Respondent is also admitted to 

the practice of law in the State of Illinois. With respect to the 

Garcia case, at all relevant times, she was engaged in the practice of law in Omaha, Nebraska.

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

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

01/26/2018 09:13 AM CST
- 755 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

298 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. MOTTA

Cite as 298 Neb. 754

With respect to discipline, pursuant to Neb. Ct. R. § 3-302, 

respondent is under the jurisdiction of the “District Two 

Committee on Inquiry.” The matters alleged in the amended 

formal charges were reviewed by said committee pursuant to 

Neb. Ct. R. § 3-309(H) (rev. 2011). The committee determined 

that there were reasonable grounds for discipline of respondent 

and that a public interest would be served by the filing of formal charges.

On November 16, 2017, the Counsel for Discipline of the 

Nebraska Supreme Court filed amended formal charges against 

respondent. The amended formal charges consist of one count 

against respondent arising from her extrajudicial statements to 

the media regarding the Garcia case.

The amended formal charges state that during the Garcia 

case, on June 26, 2015, the trial court issued a protective order under seal regarding an unrelated 2007 homicide known as the Blanchard homicide. The protective order 

stated, “‘[N]o information or knowledge obtained [by the 

State or Garcia] from the review [of the Blanchard homicide 

evidence] may be used, disclosed, or referenced during preparation for trial, during trial, or for any other matter in this 

[Garcia] prosecution.’”

Shortly before trial of the Garcia case was scheduled to 

commence on April 4, 2016, a suspect was arrested in the 

Blanchard homicide. After the arrest of the suspect in the 

Blanchard homicide and prior to the Garcia trial, respondent 

made numerous statements to news media related to the suspect in the Blanchard homicide indicating that it was the belief 

of Garcia’s defense team that such suspect was involved in two 

of the homicides for which Garcia stood charged. Omaha television news station WOWT quoted respondent as saying, “‘By 

cross-comparing the DNA evidence that they discovered at the 

. . . Blanchard scene, DNA [of the suspect in the Blanchard 

homicide] was at both scenes. I don’t see how they’re going 

to explain the cross-over in the DNA and the existence of 

both people at both crime scenes.’” Omaha television news 
- 756 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

298 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. MOTTA

Cite as 298 Neb. 754

station KMTV quoted respondent as saying, “‘This evidence 

conclusively exonerates . . . Garcia and shows that it cannot be a coincidence the two manners of killing being signature like and the crossover between the two scenes of the 

same two suspects.’” Respondent also made statements to the 

Omaha World-Herald newspaper that the defense team hoped 

that “‘we’ll get a call from the County Attorney’s office that 

they’re dismissing those charges.’”

Following respondent’s statements to the media, on March 

30, 2016, the State moved for sanctions against her. On March 

31, respondent and her out-of-state cocounsel jointly renewed 

their motion for admission pro hac vice due to the withdrawal 

of prior local Nebraska counsel. Following an April 4 hearing, the trial court issued an order nunc pro tunc finding 

that respondent violated the protective order regarding the 

Blanchard homicide with her public dissemination of the DNA 

results in the Blanchard homicide. The trial court further found 

that respondent’s statements to news media violated Neb. 

Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. § 3-503.6. The trial court disqualified 

respondent from continued admission to practice and participate in the Garcia case pro hac vice.

The amended formal charges allege that by her actions, 

respondent violated her oath of office as an attorney licensed to 

practice law pro hac vice in the State of Nebraska, as provided 

by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 7-104 (Reissue 2012), as well as § 3-503.6 

(trial publicity) and Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. § 3-508.4(a) 

and (d) (misconduct).

On November 16, 2017, respondent filed a conditional 

admission pursuant to Neb. Ct. R. § 3-313(B) of the disciplinary rules, in which she conditionally admitted that she violated the oath of office of her pro hac vice admission as 

an attorney and professional conduct rules §§ 3-503.6 and 

3-508.4(a) and (d). In the conditional admission, respondent 

states she did not knowingly or intentionally violate these rules 

of professional conduct, but acknowledges and admits that her 

conduct violated the identified rules of professional conduct. 
- 757 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

298 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. MOTTA

Cite as 298 Neb. 754

Respondent knowingly does not challenge or contest the truth 

of the matters conditionally admitted and waived all proceedings against her in exchange for a public reprimand.

The proposed conditional admission included a declaration 

by the Counsel for Discipline stating that respondent’s proposed discipline is appropriate and consistent with sanctions 

imposed in other disciplinary cases with similar acts of misconduct and will protect the public.

ANALYSIS

Section 3-313, which is a component of our rules governing 

procedures regarding attorney discipline, provides in pertinent part:

(B) At any time after the Clerk has entered a Formal 

Charge against a Respondent on the docket of the Court, 

the Respondent may file with the Clerk a conditional 

admission of the Formal Charge in exchange for a stated 

form of consent judgment of discipline as to all or 

part of the Formal Charge pending against him or her 

as determined to be appropriate by the Counsel for 

Discipline or any member appointed to prosecute on 

behalf of the Counsel for Discipline; such conditional 

admission is subject to approval by the Court. The conditional admission shall include a written statement that 

the Respondent knowingly admits or knowingly does 

not challenge or contest the truth of the matter or matters conditionally admitted and waives all proceedings 

against him or her in connection therewith. If a tendered 

conditional admission is not finally approved as above 

provided, it may not be used as evidence against the 

Respondent in any way.

Pursuant to § 3-313, and given the conditional admission, 

we find that respondent knowingly does not challenge or 

contest the matters conditionally admitted. We further determine that by her conduct, respondent violated conduct rules 

§§ 3-503.6 and 3-508.4(a) and (d) and the oath of office of 
- 758 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

298 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. MOTTA

Cite as 298 Neb. 754

her pro hac vice admission as an attorney in the State of 

Nebraska. Respondent has waived all additional proceedings 

against her in connection herewith. Upon due consideration, 

the court approves the conditional admission and enters the 

orders as indicated below.

CONCLUSION

Respondent is publicly reprimanded. If respondent applies 

to appear pro hac vice in a case pending in the state courts 

of the State of Nebraska, she must disclose this discipline in 

any such application. Respondent is directed to pay costs and 

expenses in accordance with Neb. Ct. R. §§ 3-310(P) (rev. 

2014) and 3-323 of the disciplinary rules within 60 days after 

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

the court.

Judgment of public reprimand.

Wright, J., not participating.