- 560 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. CASTREJON

Cite as 311 Neb. 560

State of Nebraska ex rel. Counsel for Discipline 

of the Nebraska Supreme Court, relator, 

v. Dazmi H. Castrejon, respondent.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed May 13, 2022. No. S-20-825.

Judgment of suspension.

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

Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.

Per Curiam.

INTRODUCTION

On November 23, 2020, formal charges containing two 

counts were filed by the office of the Counsel for Discipline 

of the Nebraska Supreme Court, the relator, against Dazmi H. 

Castrejon, the respondent. The respondent filed an answer to 

the formal charges on January 6, 2021. This court appointed 

a referee who conducted a hearing. At the hearing, the parties 

offered a joint statement of facts and agreed on the record that 

the violations alleged in the formal charges were not disputed 

and that the only contested issue was appropriate discipline.

The referee filed a report on January 31, 2022. With respect 

to the allegations contained in the formal charges, the referee 

concluded that the respondent’s conduct breached the following provisions of the Nebraska Rules of Professional Conduct: 

Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. §§ 3-501.5(a) (fees and accounting), 3-501.15 (safekeeping funds), 3-508.1(b) (unresponsiveness in disciplinary matters), and 3-508.4(a) to (c) (rev. 2016) 

(misconduct). The referee further found that the respondent 

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

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

07/29/2022 08:07 AM CDT
- 561 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. CASTREJON

Cite as 311 Neb. 560

had violated her oath of office as an attorney licensed to 

practice law in the State of Nebraska. See Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 7-104 (Reissue 2012). With respect to the discipline to be 

imposed, the referee recommended suspension of the respond

ent’s license to practice law for a period of 2 years, followed 

by a period of probation or supervision. The relator moved 

for judgment on the pleadings under Neb. Ct. R. § 3-310(L) 

(rev. 2019) of the disciplinary rules. We grant the motion 

for judgment on the pleadings and impose discipline as indicated below.

FACTS

Background.

The respondent was admitted to the practice of law in 

the State of Nebraska on January 24, 2011. The respond

ent worked for another attorney for approximately 2 years 

after her admission to practice, and thereafter, she maintained 

her own law practice as a solo practitioner under the name 

“Castrejon Law Office.” Beginning in 2018, the respondent 

practiced with another attorney, Erika Buenrostro, as a firm 

entitled “Castrejon & Buenrostro, LLC.” At all times relevant 

to these proceedings, she had engaged in the practice of law in 

Omaha, Nebraska.

Grounds for Attorney Discipline.

The violations arise from the respondent’s improprieties in 

managing her Interest on Lawyers Trust Account (IOLTA), her 

failure to provide an adequate accounting for fees to a former 

client, and her delays in responding to inquiries from the relator relating to these matters.

Procedural History.

Between January 2017 and September 2019, the relator 

received four separate overdraft notifications regarding the 

respondent’s IOLTA. With each overdraft, the relator asked 

the respondent for an explanation, and in September 2019, 

the relator subpoenaed the respondent’s bank record for her 
- 562 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. CASTREJON

Cite as 311 Neb. 560

Castrejon Law Office IOLTA. After the respondent failed to 

adequately respond to the relator’s requests for explanations 

regarding the transfers of money from her business and personal checking accounts into her Castrejon Law Office IOLTA, 

the relator upgraded the matter to a formal grievance. The 

respondent submitted a written response to the formal grievance as follows:

•I will clarify that the IOLTA account was only intend

to hold client money that is used to pay immigration filing fees until they are needed.

•Our office charges flat fees, and per our understanding of the ethics and rules of conduct, flat fees can 

deposited into the regular business operating account 

upon receipt.

•I began falling behind on filing my personal feder

tax returns with the IRS and as a result of this, started 

receiving letters and notices from them, including 

notices of possible levies.

•I did not know how to handle the situation appropriately and instead of seeking help or taking appropria

measures to resolve the situation, I instead panicked and 

withdrew into myself by trying to avoid the situation.

•However, I still wanted to ensure that I would be ab

to have some cash flow for the business and for paying staff payroll in the event that levies would be 

implemented.

•So, I would make the regular deposits into my busine

checking account, but not knowing when those accounts 

would be levied upon, I started transferring money from 

my business checking account into my IOLTA account 

as “safekeeping” knowing that if it was there it would 

not be subject to any levies.

•Thus, while I continued to use the IOLTA account 

it was intended for, making appropriate deposits and 

withdrawals for client filing fees, I did start also using 
- 563 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. CASTREJON

Cite as 311 Neb. 560

it to keep regular business income in it and then transferring it back as needed.

•I knew that my actions were wrong and inappropria

•When I jointly opened Castrejon & Buensotro, LLC 

2008, it was with the intention of phasing out Castrejon 

Law Office.

•My partner Erika Buenrostro manages all accoun

for Castrejon & Buenrostro LLC[,] and I manage the 

Castrejon Law Office accounts. We do not have joint 

access to these accounts.

•The Castrejon Law Office IOLTA has now been phas

out in its entirety, meaning, there is no more client 

money that needs to be drawn from it, and no more 

money will be deposited into it.

•All client filing fees from this point forward are bei

processed through the Castrejon & Buenrostro IOLTA 

account which I do not have access to.

On March 18, 2020, we temporarily suspended the respond

ent’s license to practice law. The respondent’s IOLTA was also 

closed in March 2020.

On April 1, 2020, the relator received a written grievance from a former client of the respondent, alleging that the 

respondent had charged $3,500 for assistance with an “I-130” 

immigration-related application, that the former client had 

requested an accounting of services and a refund of any unused 

funds, and that the client received a refund of $636 without 

an accounting of work done. The respondent failed to respond 

to the former client, to the grievance letter, and to a formal 

complaint to the respondent’s last known address. The respond

ent had not reported to the relator or “Attorney Services” 

of a change in her mailing address or contact information. 

After several attempts to contact the respondent, the relator 

amended the formal complaint and sent the new complaint to 

the respondent’s updated address.

Formal charges were filed on November 23, 2020, and 

on January 6, 2021, the respondent filed an answer. She 
- 564 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. CASTREJON

Cite as 311 Neb. 560

admitted that she used her IOLTA to shield money from the 

Internal Revenue Service’s levy attempts, placing client money 

at risk for seizure; that she deposited funds into the Castrejon 

Law Office IOLTA greater than necessary to pay bank service 

charges on that account; that she deposited funds that were not 

connected with the representation of a client; and that she commingled her funds with client funds. With respect to the former 

client, she admitted that she failed to provide a full accounting 

of services she had provided. She admitted that she failed to 

cooperate with the formal investigation and did not provide 

any of the requested information to the relator.

Referee’s Report.

The referee held a hearing at which the respondent testified and evidence was adduced. The parties stipulated to a 

joint statement of facts, in which the respondent admitted the 

formal charges and allegations of her actions and misconduct 

as proved. The only contested issue at the hearing was the 

question of appropriate discipline. In the January 31, 2022, 

report, the referee found that by clear and convincing evidence, 

through the respondent’s conduct, the respondent had breached 

provisions of the Nebraska Rules of Professional Conduct 

as follows: §§ 3-501.5(a) (fees and accounting), 3-501.15 

(safekeeping funds), 3-508.1(b) (unresponsiveness in discipli

nary matters), and 3-508.4(a) to (c) (misconduct). The referee 

further found that with regard to each of the counts enumerated above, the respondent had violated her oath of office as 

an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Nebraska. 

See § 7-104.

The record upon which the referee found violations was 

based on extensive exhibits and testimony from the respond

ent and her therapist. Morgan Keen Hecht, a licensed independent mental health practitioner and licensed certified social 

worker, offered expert testimony concerning domestic abuse, 

domestic violence, and coercive control, and she described 

her treatment of the respondent from December 2020 to the 
- 565 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. CASTREJON

Cite as 311 Neb. 560

time of the hearing. Hecht and the respondent had met on 

average twice per month. Hecht testified to the “Power and 

Control Wheel of Violence,” which addresses both physical 

and sexual violence and is divided into eight criteria and is 

applicable regardless of the gender of the person exercising 

power and control. Hecht testified that all of the following 

indicia were present with the respondent’s relationship with 

her ex-husband: (1) using intimidation; (2) using emotional 

abuse; (3) using isolation; (4) minimizing, denying, or blaming; (5) using children; (6) using male privilege; (7) using 

economic abuse; and (8) using coercion and threats. Hecht 

related a series of traumas the respondent had experienced 

over the course of her life starting in her childhood, which 

traumas included sexual assault and her marriage to her 

abusive husband at age 16. The respondent gave birth to her 

older daughter when the respondent was 17 years old. The 

respondent’s ex-husband became increasingly abusive, and the 

escalating demands began to overwhelm the respondent “to 

the point of being actually immobilized at some point and not 

able to use what we know are the intellectual and emotional 

capacity that she actually has.” This was exacerbated when 

the ex-husband became physically violent toward the couple’s 

older daughter, and the respondent was alerted that he might 

be sexually inappropriate toward the older daughter.

Hecht testified that the respondent had described the sit

uation within the family as escalating to crisis proportions by 

2015. The husband’s business failed, and the family lost about 

$25,000. The respondent was unable to keep up economically, 

she was not handling her professional financial responsibilities, and the Internal Revenue Service had become involved. 

She did not share this with her husband, because she feared 

“abuse or worse.” Because of the abuse and isolation, the 

respondent had no family or close confidant in which she 

could confide.

In 2019, the respondent was teaching the older daughter 

how to drive an automobile; her ex-husband found out and 
- 566 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. CASTREJON

Cite as 311 Neb. 560

flew into a rage. The ex-husband attacked and threatened to 

kill the daughter, the respondent, and himself. The younger 

daughter, in fear, called the police, but the police took no 

further action after defusing the matter on scene. A month 

later, the husband had “another violent temper tantrum,” 

and the respondent fled from the house with the younger 

daughter, went to a park, and told her husband she was calling the police. When the respondent and younger daughter 

returned home, the husband was gone, and he never returned. 

The respondent had described her husband’s abandonment as 

“number one crisis and loss in her life.” Hecht testified that 

as of this event, the respondent was devastated and became 

nonfunctional for a period of months. She also lost her law 

license, and this was followed by extreme financial problems 

and economic privation.

Hecht diagnosed the respondent with post-traumatic stress 

disorder and “major depressive episode with severe anxious 

distress.” Based on Hecht’s testimony, the referee found that 

a person so afflicted would be incapable of functioning as a 

lawyer. Hecht opined that the respondent should continue in 

therapy for about 1 year beyond the time of the hearing. She 

testified that based on her interactions with the respondent, the 

respondent was clearly aware that the conduct which resulted 

in the formal charges was clearly wrong and a violation of the 

lawyer’s ethical code. She testified that she observed that the 

respondent is a highly intelligent and ethical human being with 

the “capacity to live out high ethics.”

The referee found that the testimony of the respondent and 

Hecht was truthful and accurate. The referee further found that 

the extreme mental and emotional distress of the respondent, 

as well as the disability resulting from it, existed throughout 

the entire period of her conduct that was the basis for the 

formal charges. After reviewing the factors for discipline, 

the referee emphasized the “extraordinary circumstances in 

this case” and found that a suspension with the possibility 

of a return to practice if and when the Supreme Court deems 
- 567 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. CASTREJON

Cite as 311 Neb. 560

appropriate was in the public interest. The referee found that 

because the respondent was a victim of domestic violence, her 

trauma and mental health were substantial mitigating factors, 

and he noted that the respondent had voluntarily and in good 

faith sought professional mental health treatment. The referee 

noted with respect to her rehabilitative potential that

the Respondent could endure a lifetime of physical and 

sexual violence beginning at the age of five (5) and 

continuing for over more than two decades, while at the 

same time completing her high school, college[,] and law 

school educations, maintaining a household and raising 

two children, is a remarkable and unique testament to her 

extraordinary qualities as a human being.

The referee recommended suspension of the respondent’s 

license to practice law for a period of 2 years, with credit 

for the time since she surrendered her license to practice 

law, followed by a period of probation or supervision. The 

referee recommended that the respondent be ordered to complete her current treatment with Hecht and that she remain in 

therapy with a licensed professional through the balance of 

her supervision.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

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. State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Trembly, 300 

Neb. 195, 912 N.W.2d 764 (2018).

ANALYSIS

A proceeding to discipline an attorney is a trial de novo 

on the record. State ex. rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Wolfe, 301 

Neb. 117, 918 N.W.2d 244 (2018). To sustain a charge in a 

disciplinary proceeding against an attorney, a charge must be 

established by clear and convincing evidence. Id. Violation of 

a disciplinary rule concerning the practice of law is a ground 

for discipline. Id.
- 568 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. CASTREJON

Cite as 311 Neb. 560

Based on the record and the undisputed findings of the referee, we find that the above-referenced facts have been established by clear and convincing evidence. Based on the foregoing evidence, we conclude that by virtue of the respondent’s 

conduct, the respondent has violated §§ 3-501.5(a), 3-501.15, 

3-508.1(b), and 3-508.4(a) to (c). We specifically conclude that 

the respondent has violated her oath of office as an attorney, 

see § 7-104. Accordingly, we grant the joint motion for judgment on the pleadings.

We have stated that the basic issues in a disciplinary proceeding against a lawyer are whether discipline should be 

imposed and, if so, the type of discipline appropriate under 

the circumstances. State ex. rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Wolfe, 

supra. 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.

See, also, § 3-310(N).

With respect to the imposition of attorney discipline in an 

individual case, we evaluate each attorney discipline case in 

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

Counsel for Dis. v. Wolfe, supra. For purposes of determining the proper discipline of an attorney, this court considers 

the attorney’s acts both underlying the events of the case and 

throughout the proceeding, as well as any aggravating or mitigating factors. Id.
- 569 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. CASTREJON

Cite as 311 Neb. 560

To determine whether and to what extent discipline should 

be imposed in an attorney discipline proceeding, this 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 offender generally, and (6) the 

offender’s present or future fitness to continue in the practice 

of law. Id.

The evidence in the present case establishes that there were 

several types of misconduct, including that the respondent 

deposited her own funds into her IOLTA to avoid levy by the 

Internal Revenue Service, failed to respond to the relator’s 

investigations and requests for information, and failed to provide an accounting to a former client.

Mishandling of trust accounts is one of the most serious violations of professional responsibility, and it must be deterred. 

Absent mitigating circumstances, the appropriate sanction is 

disbarment. State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Council, 289 Neb. 

33, 853 N.W.2d 844 (2014) (noting that we have disbarred 

numerous attorneys for the misappropriation of client funds). 

“Mitigating factors may ‘overcome the presumption of disbarment in misappropriation and commingling cases’ where they 

are ‘extraordinary’ and ‘substantially outweigh’ any aggravating circumstances.” Id. at 45, 853 N.W.2d at 853. When an 

attorney asserts domestic violence as a mitigating factor, the 

relator has an obligation to investigate and present evidence, if 

any, regarding the claim. The burden of proof of a mitigating 

factor is on the attorney.

With respect to the protection of the public, the referee noted 

that the respondent has demonstrated medical improvement, 

indicating a repeat of misconduct is extremely unlikely. We 

note Hecht’s extensive testimony regarding the respondent’s 

success in therapy, her commitment to continuing therapy, and 

the potential for ethical future conduct should the respondent 

return to the practice of law.
- 570 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. CASTREJON

Cite as 311 Neb. 560

The respondent has admitted wrongdoing and, since her 

answer to the formal charges, has cooperated with the relator 

despite her extreme mental and emotional distress. She sought 

help from professionals for both mental health support and 

accounting, and she unconditionally agreed to continue in mental health therapy.

Although the respondent’s fitness to practice law was significantly impaired, the referee found that the respondent can 

regain her fitness and capability to practice law.

With respect to mitigating factors, the parties agree that the 

respondent had no prior disciplinary complaints against her. 

Several letters of support attested to her work ethic, character, and advocacy on behalf of underrepresented and underserved populations.

We have not previously addressed the role of domestic 

violence victimization, including intimate partner violence, 

coercive control, relationship abuse, and sexual violence in 

attorney ethical breaches. Specifically, we have not considered 

the role of being a victim of domestic violence serves as a 

mitigator in attorney discipline. Compare State ex. rel. Counsel 

for Dis. v. Thompson, 264 Neb. 831, 642 N.W.2d 593 (2002) 

(establishing considerations for mitigation involving mental 

health issues). In the referee’s report, there was no mention of 

the nascent Nebraska Lawyers Assistance Program’s undertaking that assists and supports lawyers, judges, and law students 

who experience intimate partner violence. Acknowledging 

the “alarming trend within the legal profession” in reported 

domestic violence and sexual assaults, the Nebraska Lawyers 

Assistance Program now provides resources to legal professionals experiencing intimate partner violence. See Chris 

Aupperle, Acknowledging Relationship Violence Within the 

Legal Profession, Neb. Lawyer, Jan.-Feb. 2022, at 47. Further, 

in a related area, we note the recent creation of Lancaster 

County’s Safe and Healthy Families Court, a postadjudication 

court program for families where one of the adjudication issues 

involved domestic violence.
- 571 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. CASTREJON

Cite as 311 Neb. 560

As it relates to attorneys, the impact of intimate partner 

violence has been recognized nationwide, and courts have specifically considered such circumstances to be a mitigating factor in attorney discipline. The Supreme Court of Washington 

stated in In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Dornay, 160 

Wash. 2d 671, 687, 161 P.3d 333, 341 (2007), that intimate 

partner violence did not excuse the attorney’s actions, but was 

“a mitigating factor that merits substantial weight.” Oklahoma 

has addressed similar mitigation issues in several discipli

nary matters where the attorney’s misconduct correlated with 

the years of domestic violence and threats of violence by the 

attorney’s abuser or where intimate partner violence contributed to the attorney’s extreme emotional distress. See, State 

ex. rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Levisay, 2020 OK 86, 

474 P.3d 875 (2020); State ex. rel. Oklahoma Bar Association 

v. Black, 2018 OK 85, 432 P.3d 227 (2018); State ex. rel. 

Oklahoma Bar Association v. Hastings, 2017 OK 43, 395 P.3d 

552 (2017). In a Georgia disciplinary case, an attorney who 

admitted that she converted client funds for her own personal 

use to recover from the financial challenges brought on by her 

former abusive relationship was found to have done so due to 

extreme emotional distress stemming from domestic violence. 

Matter of Saunders, 304 Ga. 824, 822 S.E.2d 235 (2018). In 

such cases, the impact of the intimate partner violence caused 

mental distress and emotional problems for the attorney and 

could be considered as a mitigating factor in determining the 

appropriate discipline.

The record shows that Castrejon’s medical evidence established that she was affected by numerous mental and emotional 

traumas related to sexual assault and domestic partner violence. 

The testimonial evidence connected her mental and emotional 

state as a contributing cause of her misconduct. The testimony 

of Hecht and the respondent demonstrated that the treatment 

has been successful, that Castrejon is committed to continuing to work on her treatment, and that future misconduct is 

highly unlikely.
- 572 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. CASTREJON

Cite as 311 Neb. 560

With respect to the discipline to be imposed, the referee 

recommended suspension of the respondent’s license to practice law for a period of 2 years, with credit for her present 

temporary suspension. We have considered the record, the 

findings of which have been established by clear and convincing evidence, and the applicable law. Upon due consideration, 

the court finds extraordinary mitigating factors and finds 

that a 30-month suspension, retroactive to March 18, 2020, 

is appropriate.

The respondent shall comply with Neb. Ct. R. § 3-316 (rev. 

2014), and upon failure to do so, she 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), § 3-310(P) and Neb. Ct. 

R. § 3-323(B) within 60 days after an order imposing costs and 

expenses, if any, is entered by this court.

At the end of the 30-month suspension, the respondent may 

apply to be reinstated to the practice of law, provided that she 

has demonstrated her compliance with § 3-316 and further 

provided that the relator has not notified this court that the 

respondent has violated any disciplinary rule during her suspension. Upon reinstatement, the respondent shall complete 

2 years of monitored probation. During the period of probation, the respondent will be monitored by an attorney licensed 

to practice law in the State of Nebraska and approved by the 

relator. The 2-year monitoring plan shall include, but not be 

limited to, the following:

(1) The respondent shall continue her current regime of 

therapy with Hecht, and the respondent will remain in therapy 

with Hecht or another licensed professional for the balance of 

her supervision or until such time as her therapist or supervising attorney (see below) jointly agree that ongoing therapy is 

no longer needed.

(2) The respondent shall be subject to supervision by an 

appropriate licensed Nebraska attorney for a 2-year period.
- 573 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. CASTREJON

Cite as 311 Neb. 560

(3) The respondent shall not engage in a solo law practice, 

but, rather, she shall work in a setting with other attorneys.

(4) The respondent shall not have primary responsibility 

for managing any law firm operating or trust accounts. Any 

law firm operating or trust account transactions made by the 

respondent shall be reviewed and approved by her supervising attorney.

(5) The respondent shall complete additional coursework in 

accounting as directed by her supervising attorney, to ensure 

the respondent’s future compliance with IOLTA requirements.

CONCLUSION

We find that the respondent violated §§ 3-501.5(a), 3-501.15, 

3-508.1(b), and 3-508.4(a) to (c), as well as her oath of office 

as an attorney, see § 7-104. It is the judgment of this court 

that the respondent is suspended from the practice of law for 

a period of 30 months, commencing on the date of temporary 

suspension, March 18, 2020. Upon completion of the period of 

suspension and reinstatement to the bar, the respondent shall be 

placed on monitored probation for 2 years, subject to the terms 

set forth above.

Judgment of suspension.