- 188 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

302 Nebraska Report

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. JORGENSON

Cite as 302 Neb. 188

State of Nebraska ex rel. Counsel for Disci

of the Nebraska Supreme Court, relator,

v. Jeremy C. Jorgenson, respond

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed February 8, 2019. No. S-17-1028.

1. Disciplinary Proceedings: Appeal and Error. Because attorney discipline cases are original proceedings before the Nebraska Supreme Court, 

the court reviews a referee’s recommendations de novo on the record, 

reaching a conclusion independent of the referee’s findings.

2. Disciplinary Proceedings. The basic issues in a disciplinary proceeding against an attorney are whether discipline should be imposed and, 

if so, the appropriate discipline evaluated under the particular facts and 

circumstances of the case.

3. ____. To determine whether and to what extent discipline should be 

imposed in an attorney discipline proceeding, the Nebraska Supreme 

Court considers the following factors: (1) the nature of the offense, (2) 

the need for deterring others, (3) the maintenance of the reputation of 

the bar as a whole, (4) the protection of the public, (5) the attitude of the 

respondent generally, and (6) the respondent’s present or future fitness 

to continue in the practice of law.

4. ____. For purposes of determining the proper discipline of an attorney, the Nebraska Supreme Court considers the attorney’s actions both 

underlying the events of the case and throughout the proceeding, as well 

as any aggravating or mitigating factors.

5. Judgments: Records: Judicial Notice. A court has the right to examine 

its own records and take judicial notice of its own proceedings and judgments in a former action.

6. Disciplinary Proceedings. The Nebraska Supreme Court has generally, 

but not always, disbarred attorneys who continue to practice law despite 

their suspensions.

7. ____. Repeatedly ignoring requests for information from the Counsel 

for Discipline indicates a disrespect for the Nebraska Supreme Court’s 

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

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

03/29/2019 01:07 AM CDT
- 189 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

302 Nebraska Report

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. JORGENSON

Cite as 302 Neb. 188

disciplinary jurisdiction and a lack of concern for the protection of the 

public, the profession, and the administration of justice.

8. ____. The Nebraska Supreme Court considers an attorney’s failure to 

respond to inquiries and requests for information from the Counsel for 

Discipline as an important matter and as a threat to the credibility of 

attorney disciplinary proceedings.

9. ____. A history of violating disciplinary rules and a history of failing to 

communicate with clients, courts, and the Counsel for Discipline represent a pattern of noncompliance with disciplinary rules, and cumulative 

acts of attorney misconduct are distinguishable from isolated incidents, 

therefore justifying more serious sanctions.

10. ____. Cumulative acts of attorney misconduct can, and often do, lead 

to disbarment.

11. ____. Remorse is a mitigating factor when considering the appropriate 

sanction in an attorney disciplinary proceeding.

12. Disciplinary Proceedings: Proof. To establish depression as a mitigating factor in a proceeding to discipline an attorney, the attorney is 

required to show (1) medical evidence that he or she is affected by 

depression, (2) that depression was a direct and substantial contributing 

cause to the misconduct, and (3) that treatment of the depression will 

substantially reduce the risk of further misconduct.

13. ____: ____. The Nebraska Supreme Court will apply the issue of substance abuse as a mitigating factor in an attorney disciplinary proceeding only after the attorney presents evidence that he or she acknowledges the condition, voluntarily seeks treatment, and terminates use of 

the substance.

14. Disciplinary Proceedings. The purpose of a disciplinary proceeding 

against an attorney is not so much to punish the attorney as it is to 

determine whether it is in the public interest that an attorney be permitted to practice, which question includes considerations of the protection 

of the public.

15. ____. The propriety of a sanction must be considered with reference to 

the sanctions imposed in prior similar cases.

Original action. Judgment of disbarment.

Julie L. Agena, Assistant Counsel for Discipline, for relator.

No appearance for respondent.

Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stac

Papik, and Freudenberg, 
- 190 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

302 Nebraska Report

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. JORGENSON

Cite as 302 Neb. 188

Per Curiam

This is an attorney discipline case against Jeremy C. 

Jorgenson stemming from violations occurring after Jorgenson 

was administratively suspended from the practice of law in 

Nebraska for failing to satisfy mandatory continuing legal education (MCLE) reporting requirements. Formal charges were 

filed against Jorgenson, claiming violations of Neb. Ct. R. 

§ 3-316 (rev. 2014) (notification requirements by disbarred or 

suspended members) and Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. §§ 3-501.4 

(communications), 3-501.16 (declining or terminating representation), 3-505.5 (rev. 2012) (unauthorized practice of law), 

3-508.1 (bar admission and disciplinary matters), and 3-508.4 

(rev. 2016) (misconduct), as well as his oath of office as an 

attorney as provided by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 7-104 (Reissue 

2012). Jorgenson admitted the charges, a judgment on the 

pleadings was entered, and a hearing on the question of appropriate sanctions was held before an appointed referee. The 

referee’s report following this hearing recommended Jorgenson 

be disbarred. Upon our de novo review and for the reasons set 

forth herein, we agree with the referee’s recommendation and 

conclude that disbarment is the proper sanction.

BA

Jorgenson was admitted to the practice of law in Nebraska 

on April 15, 2008. At all relevant times, he was engaged in 

the practice of law in Nebraska. Between December 2016 and 

July 2017, Jorgenson was also practicing law in Illinois, where 

he had moved. In July, Jorgenson apparently moved back to 

Nebraska but has failed to provide updated contact information 

to the Attorney Services Division or the Counsel for Discipline 

since that time.

Previous Disciplinary 

Jorgenson has previously been the subject of two disciplinary cases and one administrative suspension in Nebraska. In 

the first action in October 2012, Jorgenson received a public 

reprimand and was placed on probation for 1 year due to a 
- 191 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

302 Nebraska Report

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. JORGENSON

Cite as 302 Neb. 188

violation relating to contingent fee agreements.1 In the second 

action, Jorgenson was disciplined for failing to provide competent and diligent representation to a client when he failed to 

appear for oral arguments at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Eighth Circuit, failed to adequately supervise his support staff, 

and failed to timely respond to demands for information from 

the Counsel for Discipline.2 In that case, Jorgenson was indefinitely suspended in February 2018 from the practice of law in 

Nebraska, with a minimum suspension of 2 years. Finally, and 

relevant to the present violations, Jorgenson was the subject of 

an administrative suspension commencing June 14, 2017, for 

failure to fulfill his MCLE requirements for 2016. Although 

Jorgenson testified in the present case that he completed his 

MCLE for 2016, no substantive evidence regarding completion 

of those requirements was submitted.

Formal Charge

In the present action, Jorgenson admitted to all the allegations within the formal charges with the exception of one sentence, which was subsequently withdrawn. Therefore, the facts 

alleged are uncontested and may be taken as true.

The amended formal charges contain five counts. Count I 

alleges Jorgenson continued to practice law by filing pleadings 

for a client in Douglas County Court after his administrative 

suspension. These pleadings included a “Plea of Not Guilty/

Waiver of Appearance/Appearance of Counsel” on the client’s 

behalf on July 7, 2017. Jorgenson failed to notify this client 

in writing that he had been suspended, failed to assist the client with obtaining new representation, and failed to promptly 

refund all client funds and provide a full accounting. These 

failures continued after he was contacted by the client’s new 

counsel in early August.

1 State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Jorgenson, 284 Neb. 507, 822 N.W.2d 367 

(2012).

2 State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Jorgenson, 298 Neb. 855, 906 N.W.2d 43 

(2018).
- 192 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

302 Nebraska Report

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. JORGENSON

Cite as 302 Neb. 188

Count II alleges that during his administrative suspension, 

Jorgenson represented a client in a criminal matter in Merrick 

County District Court who had entered a guilty plea and was 

scheduled to be sentenced on August 7, 2017. Jorgenson failed 

to attend the sentencing hearing and notified the client by text 

message on the morning of the hearing that he was suspended. 

Jorgenson failed to notify the client in writing that his license 

had been suspended, failed to assist the client in obtaining 

new representation, and failed to file an affidavit with this 

court to attest his compliance with § 3-316 of the disciplinary rules.

Count III alleges that Jorgenson failed to cooperate with the 

formal investigation conducted by the Counsel for Discipline 

into the matters involving his representation of clients after his 

administrative suspension.

Count IV alleges that Jorgenson was hired in November 

2016 to represent an individual in a legal matter for which 

Jorgenson was paid $1,500. Jorgenson failed to notify his client about his administrative suspension and failed to appear for 

a scheduled court appearance on July 11, 2017. Additionally, 

Jorgenson failed to notify his client in writing that he was 

suspended, failed to assist his client in obtaining new representation, failed to promptly refund all client funds and provide 

a full accounting, failed to file an affidavit with this court to 

attest his compliance with § 3-316, and failed to cooperate 

with the formal investigation conducted by the Counsel for 

Discipline and provide any of the requested information.

Count V alleges that after Jorgenson’s administrative suspension, he continued to email attorneys and other individuals 

using a signature block on emails which purported he was a 

part of a law partnership in Omaha, Nebraska.

Discipline Hearing Before 

At the hearing before the referee, three exhibits were submitted and testimony was taken. Exhibit 1 was a copy of the 

June 14, 2017, letter from this court advising Jorgenson that he 

was suspended from the practice of law for failure to satisfy 
- 193 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

302 Nebraska Report

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. JORGENSON

Cite as 302 Neb. 188

the MCLE reporting requirements for 2016. Exhibit 2 was a 

copy of the 2012 disciplinary opinion.3 Exhibit 3 was a copy 

of the 2018 disciplinary opinion.4 Jorgenson was the only witness called to testify, and he was called to do so by the Counsel 

for Discipline.

During his testimony, Jorgenson addressed various aspects 

of the admitted allegations from the amended formal charges. 

First, Jorgenson testified about when he received notice that 

he was administratively suspended and stated that “there was a 

gap between my suspension [on June 14, 2017,] and me having 

knowledge of it, and, yes, during that gap, there were things 

that I was filing.” On this subject, Jorgenson also responded to 

questioning from the Counsel for Discipline that he had learned 

his license was administratively suspended “[s]hortly before” 

he talked to the Counsel for Discipline on the telephone, which 

occurred “somewhere right around the 4th of July weekend, 

maybe after the 4th or 6th of July [in 2017].”

Jorgenson also testified to his remorse and embarrassment 

for the violations. Jorgenson testified that his life was in disarray both personally and professionally after being involved in 

a highly publicized murder trial and his decision to thereafter move to Illinois. Additionally, Jorgenson was undergoing 

marital discord when his wife moved to another state with their 

children, precipitating an ensuing custody battle. Jorgenson 

testified that he was severely depressed and drinking “a lot,” 

which attributed to the acts and omissions leading to the violations. When asked about how he is addressing the depression 

and alcohol issues, Jorgenson responded:

A. Yeah, I . . . have not been drinking since [my son] 

broke his arm, which is — I’m not really afraid to talk 

about it at all, to be honest with you, I — you know, 

what happened was an accident. You know, the Juvenile 

Court system, the social workers, the visitation workers, 

3 See Jorgenson, supra note 1.

4 See Jorgenson, supra note 2.
- 194 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

302 Nebraska Report

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. JORGENSON

Cite as 302 Neb. 188

the caseworkers, every — everyone believes that this is a 

substance abuse case, alcohol, primarily, for me . . . not 

a child abuse case. But since that happened, I’ve been 

sober. Since that happened, I’ve been attending AA, not 

— you know, hit-and-miss a little bit. I think it’s just sort 

of my personality, it’s hard, AA is tough for me because 

I just can decide to do or not do something. . . . I have a 

diagnostic assessment for both chemical dependency and 

mental health, which recommended outpatient, so group 

meetings, and then individual therapy. I’m doing some 

individual therapy. . . .

Q. So, for the alcohol problem that you’ve admitted 

that you have, you’ve stopped drinking, you’re going to 

some AA meetings. Have you gotten any treatment, or is 

it — that’s the therapy for mental health, or is it for both?

A. So the, the — there is a group meeting component, 

which deals with the substance abuse.

Q. So it’s more dual diagnosis then?

A. Yeah, yeah, I mean . . . when I went to the evaluation, I was as honest as I’m being here, that, you know, 

I don’t think I had ever admitted — I didn’t think I had 

a drinking problem, you know? I mean, I — I’ve been, 

like, a daily drinker for a very long time, but never a lot, 

you know, I mean, until [these issues with my wife], and, 

and I didn’t even really recognize it myself, but I started 

progressing — or drinking more and more, and, at some 

point, you know, I’m waking up and drinking and, and it 

still didn’t occur to me that, I thought, like, well, this is 

how you can make the anxiety go away and — looking 

back, it’s kind of a blur, it was obviously a problem. So, 

yeah, the group meetings address that.

Jorgenson also addressed his failure to repay client funds and 

indicated he intends to do so.

Referee’s Report and Recomme

After the hearing, the referee issued a report and recommendation. The report first noted that any delay in Jorgenson’s 
- 195 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

302 Nebraska Report

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. JORGENSON

Cite as 302 Neb. 188

finding out about his administrative suspension was likely 

due, in part, to having failed in his obligation under Neb. Ct. 

R. § 3-803(C) (rev. 2019) to notify the court of any change 

in address, telephone number, or email. The report also noted 

Jorgenson’s testimony that he had knowledge of the suspension 

prior to a call with the Counsel for Discipline which occurred 

before July 6, 2017, meant such knowledge would have predated his filing of pleadings under count I, the sentencing 

hearing scheduled in count II, and the hearing scheduled in 

count IV.

The referee’s report analyzed the seriousness of Jorgenson’s 

offenses, the history of his previous violations, the needs of 

his clients, and the effect on the reputation of the bar. The 

report found the sole mitigating factor which can be recognized 

was Jorgenson’s remorse during the hearing. While the report 

discussed Jorgenson’s experience with depression and abuse 

of alcohol, it determined that there was insufficient evidence 

in the record to support the use of such issues for mitigation purposes.

In consideration of such analysis and after comparing these 

facts to previous, similar disciplinary cases, the report recommended disbarment.

The only question before this court is the appropriate 

discipline.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1] Because attorney discipline cases are original proceedings before this court, we review a referee’s recommendations 

de novo on the record, reaching a conclusion independent of 

the referee’s findings.5

ANALYSIS

[2] The basic issues in a disciplinary proceeding against an 

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

5 State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Trembly, 300 Neb. 195, 912 N.W.2d 764 

(2018).
- 196 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

302 Nebraska Report

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. JORGENSON

Cite as 302 Neb. 188

the appropriate discipline evaluated under the particular facts 

and circumstances of the case.6 Because Jorgenson admitted the allegations contained within the formal charges and 

because violations of the disciplinary rules concerning the 

practice of law are grounds for discipline,7 we find discipline 

should be imposed and now turn to the question of the appropriate sanction.

[3,4] Under Neb. Ct. R. § 3-304, this court may impose one 

or more of the following disciplinary sanctions: disbarment; 

suspension; probation in lieu of or subsequent to suspension, 

on such terms as the court may designate; censure and reprimand; or temporary suspension. To determine whether and 

to what extent discipline should be imposed in an attorney 

discipline proceeding, we consider the following factors: (1) 

the nature of the offense, (2) the need for deterring others, (3) 

the maintenance of the reputation of the bar as a whole, (4) 

the protection of the public, (5) the attitude of the respondent 

generally, and (6) the respondent’s present or future fitness to 

continue in the practice of law.8 For purposes of determining 

the proper discipline of an attorney, we consider the attorney’s 

actions both underlying the events of the case and throughout the proceeding, as well as any aggravating or mitigating factors.9

[5] This matter represents the third disciplinary case in 

Nebraska to which Jorgenson has been a party. A court has 

the right to examine its own records and take judicial notice 

of its own proceedings and judgments in a former action.10

Thus, in addition to the current formal charges, in our de 

novo review, we consider the relevant facts from Jorgenson’s 

6 Id.

7 See id.

8 Id.

9 Id.

10 State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Gast, 298 Neb. 203, 903 N.W.2d 259 

(2017).
- 197 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

302 Nebraska Report

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. JORGENSON

Cite as 302 Neb. 188

previous disciplinary proceedings as well as the aggravating 

nature of his previous disciplinary offenses.11

[6] The facts alleged in the formal charges of this case 

and admitted to by Jorgenson display an ongoing neglect 

of Jorgenson’s duties to his clients and the judiciary. After 

admitting he received notice that he was administratively 

suspended, Jorgenson continued to practice law in violation 

of the suspension, failed to adequately notify clients that he 

could no longer represent them, failed to assist clients in 

obtaining new representation, failed to return client funds and 

provide an accounting thereof, held himself out as a member 

of a law firm in emails, and made filings on behalf of clients 

in court. On two specific occasions, under counts II and IV, 

Jorgenson failed to attend hearings which had been scheduled 

in his clients’ cases. Under count III, he notified his client of 

the suspension through a simple text message the day of the 

client’s sentencing hearing, with inadequate time to obtain 

new representation, and under count IV, he completely failed 

to inform his client of the suspension. Such lack of communication and his continuance to act as a licensed attorney 

put his clients at a disadvantage in their cases and prevented 

them from obtaining alternative representation or making other 

arrangements to address their legal needs. We have generally, 

but not always, disbarred attorneys who continue to practice 

law despite their suspensions.12

[7,8] In addition, Jorgenson has repeatedly failed to cooperate with the Counsel for Discipline. Repeatedly ignoring 

requests for information from the Counsel for Discipline indicates a disrespect for our disciplinary jurisdiction and a lack 

of concern for the protection of the public, the profession, and 

11 See id.

12 See, e.g., State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Walocha, 283 Neb. 474, 811 

N.W.2d 174 (2012); State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Carbullido, 278 Neb. 

721, 773 N.W.2d 141 (2009). But see State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. 

Frye, 278 Neb. 527, 771 N.W.2d 571 (2009).
- 198 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

302 Nebraska Report

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. JORGENSON

Cite as 302 Neb. 188

the administration of justice.13 We consider an attorney’s failure to respond to inquiries and requests for information from 

the Counsel for Discipline as an important matter and as a 

threat to the credibility of attorney disciplinary proceedings.14

[9,10] As demonstrated by the admitted facts and the two 

previous disciplinary cases and administrative suspension, 

Jorgenson has a history of violating disciplinary rules and a 

history of failing to communicate with clients, courts, and 

the Counsel for Discipline. As we explained in Jorgenson’s 

2018 disciplinary case, this history represents a pattern of 

noncompliance with our disciplinary rules, and cumulative 

acts of attorney misconduct are distinguishable from isolated incidents, therefore justifying more serious sanctions.15

Cumulative acts of attorney misconduct can, and often do, lead 

to disbarment.16

[11] We note Jorgenson appeared remorseful during the 

hearing before the referee and displayed a hope to improve his 

condition. Such remorse is a mitigating factor when considering the appropriate sanction.17 However, Jorgenson also admits 

that at present, he is unfit for the practice of law.

[12,13] We also note Jorgenson testified to depression and 

alcohol abuse issues arising from his participation in a large 

criminal trial, his move to Illinois, and marital discord. To 

establish depression as a mitigating factor, Jorgenson was 

required to show (1) medical evidence that he is affected by 

depression, (2) that depression was a direct and substantial 

contributing cause to the misconduct, and (3) that treatment 

of the depression will substantially reduce the risk of further 

13 See Gast, supra note 10.

14 See State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Wickenkamp, 277 Neb. 16, 759 

N.W.2d 492 (2009).

15 See Jorgenson, supra note 2.

16 State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Switzer, 280 Neb. 815, 790 N.W.2d 433 

(2010).

17 Id.
- 199 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

302 Nebraska Report

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. JORGENSON

Cite as 302 Neb. 188

misconduct.18 We have previously applied the issue of substance abuse as a mitigating factor only after the attorney 

presented evidence that he or she has acknowledged the condition, voluntarily sought treatment, and terminated use of the 

substance.19 Specifically, in State ex rel. NSBA v. Pullen,

20 we 

considered the attorney’s substance abuse as a mitigating factor after the attorney presented evidence that he had entered 

into a contract with the monitoring program of the Nebraska 

Lawyers Assistance Program whereby he agreed to that program’s monitoring of his recovery from alcohol addiction.

Jorgenson did not present any evidence beyond his own 

testimony that he had depression and alcohol abuse issues and 

that he participated in group meetings. There was no medical 

evidence presented that Jorgenson suffered from depression, 

and there was no evidence presented that the depression was a 

direct and substantial contributing cause of his misconduct and 

that its treatment would substantially reduce the risk of further 

misconduct. Similarly, Jorgenson did not present any supporting evidence to establish that his use of alcohol was a direct 

and substantial contributing cause of his misconduct and that 

he is participating in treatment and ceased abusing alcohol so 

as not to make it an issue going forward.

[14] The purpose of a disciplinary proceeding against an 

attorney is not so much to punish the attorney as it is to determine whether it is in the public interest that an attorney be 

permitted to practice, which question includes considerations 

of the protection of the public.21 Because Jorgenson did not 

provide adequate evidence of his depression and substance 

abuse issues and offered no evidence that the treatment of his 

alleged conditions is sufficient to protect the public, we do not 

18 State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Thompson, 264 Neb. 831, 652 N.W.2d 593 

(2002).

19 See State ex rel. NSBA v. Pullen, 260 Neb. 125, 615 N.W.2d 474 (2000).

20 Id.

21 See, Switzer, supra note 16; Pullen, supra note 19.
- 200 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

302 Nebraska Report

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. JORGENSON

Cite as 302 Neb. 188

consider these conditions as mitigating factors in deciding the 

appropriate sanction.

[15] The propriety of a sanction must be considered with 

reference to the sanctions imposed in prior similar cases.22

The present action is similar to our opinions in State ex rel. 

Counsel for Dis. v. Carbullido23 and State ex rel. Counsel for 

Dis. v. Switzer.

24

In Carbullido, the attorney had been a party to previous 

disciplinary actions, engaged in the unauthorized practice of 

law after her license was suspended, and was convicted of several driving under the influence and driving with a suspended 

license offenses. The attorney failed to respond to requests for 

information from the Counsel for Discipline, failed to respond 

to the formal charges, and failed to file a brief with this court. 

Noting the cumulative nature of her offenses, her disregard for 

previous suspensions, and her nonparticipation with the disciplinary proceedings, we disbarred the attorney.25

Similarly, in Switzer, the attorney continued to practice law 

after being suspended for an earlier violation. The attorney had 

been a party to previous disciplinary actions. During his hearing, the attorney appeared remorseful and explained that part of 

the cause of his misconduct extended from issues with depression. Although we accepted, “for the sake of argument,” the 

attorney’s depression as having satisfied the test for establishing depression as a mitigating factor, we nonetheless disbarred 

him.26 In doing so, we stated:

We previously suspended [the attorney], but he continued to practice, flouting our previous ruling. A suspension order is a command, not a suggestion. The offenses 

22 See id.

23 Carbullido, supra note 12.

24 Switzer, supra note 16.

25 Carbullido, supra note 12.

26 See Switzer, supra note 16, 280 Neb. at 824, 790 N.W.2d at 441, citing 

Thompson, supra note 18.
- 201 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

302 Nebraska Report

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. JORGENSON

Cite as 302 Neb. 188

admitted are serious, and the need to deter others from 

this type of conduct weighs heavily. If attorneys ignore 

our suspension orders without consequence, it undermines 

the authority of this court.27

The reasoning used in these cases is applicable here. 

Jorgenson’s violations undermine the public’s confidence in 

the bar and its members to be dependable and capable in the 

representation of clients, to provide competent legal advice, 

and to participate in a judicial system reliant upon respect for 

the law. Moreover, these violations harm clients by failing 

to provide adequate representation and advice, leaving those 

clients without the opportunity to obtain competent representation, failing to use funds for the purposes for which the clients 

provided them, and failing to account for those funds. These 

issues are compounded when considering them in conjunction 

with Jorgenson’s previous violations. We determine that the 

only appropriate discipline is disbarment.

CONCLUSION

We adopt the referee’s recommendation. We find that 

Jorgenson violated his oath of office as an attorney and § 3-316 

of the disciplinary rules and §§ 3-501.4, 3-501.16, 3-505.5, 

3-508.1, and 3-508.4 of the rules of professional conduct. It 

is the judgment of this court that Jorgenson be disbarred from 

the practice of law in the State of Nebraska effective immediately. Jorgenson is directed to comply with § 3-316, and upon 

failure to do so, he shall be subject to punishment for contempt 

of this court. Jorgenson is further 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. 2014) 

and 3-323 within 60 days after an order imposing costs and 

expenses, if any, is entered by the court.

Judgment of disbarmen

27 Id. at 825, 790 N.W.2d at 441.