Nebraska Advance She

78 287 NEBRASKA REPORTS

State of Nebraska ex rel. Counsel for Discipl

the Nebraska Supreme Court, relator, 

Lennox J. Simon, res

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed December 20, 2013. No. S-13-726.

Original action. Judgment of disbarment.

Heavican, C.J., Wright, Connolly, Stephan,

Miller‐Lerman, and Cassel

Per Curiam

INTRODUCTION

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals disbarred 

respondent, Lennox J. Simon. The Counsel for Discipline of 

the Nebraska Supreme Court, relator, filed a motion for reciprocal discipline against respondent. We grant the motion for 

reciprocal discipline and impose the same discipline as the 

District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

FACTS

Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in the State 

of Nebraska on May 17, 1985. Respondent was also admitted 

to the practice of law in the District of Columbia. On June 

28, 2013, respondent was suspended from the practice of 

law in the State of Nebraska for nonpayment of his Nebraska 

State Bar Association dues. Respondent had been an inactive member of the Nebraska bar for many years prior to 

his suspension.

On August 1, 2013, the District of Columbia Court of 

Appeals issued an order which disbarred respondent. See In 

re Simon, 73 A.3d 107 (D.C. 2013). Respondent’s case before 

the District of Columbia Court of Appeals generally involved 

his misappropriation of funds from the estate of an incapacitated person.

On August 22, 2013, relator filed a motion for reciprocal 

discipline pursuant to Neb. Ct. R. § 3-321 of the disciplinary 

rules. On August 28, we filed an order to show cause as to 

why we should not impose reciprocal discipline. Respondent 

did not respond to the order to show cause. On September 23, 
Nebraska Advance She

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS v. SIMON 79

Cite as 287 Neb. 78

relator filed a response to the order to show cause, in which 

relator requested that we impose the same discipline as the 

District of Columbia Court of Appeals and enter an order 

disbarring respondent from the practice of law in the State of 

Nebraska. Relator also noted that respondent failed to respond 

to the order to show cause and to make a showing as to why he 

should not be disbarred.

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. Kleinsmith, 285 Neb. 312, 

826 N.W.2d 860 (2013). In a reciprocal discipline proceeding, a judicial determination of attorney misconduct in one 

jurisdiction is generally conclusive proof of guilt and is not 

subject to relitigation in the second jurisdiction. Id. Based 

on the record before us, we find that respondent has engaged 

in misconduct.

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 
Nebraska Advance She

80 287 NEBRASKA REPORTS

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. Walocha, 283 Neb. 474, 811 N.W.2d 174 

(2012). Respondent did not respond to the order to show cause 

filed on August 28, 2013, as to why we should or should not 

enter an order imposing the identical or greater or lesser discipline as imposed by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 

as we deem appropriate.

The order of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals 

disbarred respondent. Our record includes a “Report and 

Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility,” 

which found that respondent’s misappropriation of funds was 

“reckless.” The foregoing report was supported by an additional 42-page report entitled “Report and Recommendation of 

the Ad Hoc Hearing Committee,” which described respondent’s 

misconduct in detail. We take the determination of misconduct 

as found in In re Simon, 73 A.3d 107 (D.C. 2013), to be established herein. Accordingly, we grant the motion for reciprocal 

discipline and enter a judgment of disbarment.

CONCLUSION

The motion for reciprocal discipline is granted. It is the 

judgment of this court that respondent should be and is disbarred. Respondent shall forthwith comply with all terms of 

Neb. Ct. R. § 3-316 of the disciplinary rules, and upon failure 

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

this court. 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) and 3-323(B) of the disciplinary rules within 60 days after an order imposing costs and 

expenses, if any, is entered by this court.

Judgment of disbarmen