- 403 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. OWEN

Cite as 311 Neb. 403

State of Nebraska ex rel. Counsel for Discipline 

of the Nebraska Supreme Court, relator, 

v. James A. Owen, respondent.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed April 15, 2022. No. S-21-538.

Original action. Judgment of suspension.

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

Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.

Per Curiam.

INTRODUCTION

This case is before the court on the conditional admission 

filed by James A. Owen, the respondent, on February 2, 2022. 

The court accepts the respondent’s conditional admission and 

enters an order suspending the respondent from the practice of 

law for a period of 6 months.

FACTS

The respondent was admitted to the practice of law in the 

State of Nebraska on September 22, 2015. At all times relevant to these proceedings, the respondent was engaged in the 

practice of law in Plattsmouth, Nebraska.

On June 25, 2021, the Counsel for Discipline of the 

Nebraska Supreme Court, the relator, filed formal charges 

against the respondent. The formal charges consisted of two 

counts. Pursuant to Neb. Ct. R. § 3-302, the respondent is 

under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Inquiry of the Fifth 

Judicial District.

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

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

07/01/2022 01:08 AM CDT
- 404 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. OWEN

Cite as 311 Neb. 403

The formal charges generally allege violations relating to 

competence, diligence, communications, fees, and misconduct, 

some of which are attributable to his lack of appellate experience. The violations arose from the respondent’s representation of J.D. pursuant to a contract for legal services in which 

the respondent agreed to represent J.D. in proceedings for 

modification of a divorce decree and contempt. The contract 

between the respondent and J.D. provided that J.D. advance 

$2,500 toward the legal services. The contract provided that the 

advanced fees would be deposited into the respondent’s trust 

account and that he would withdraw funds upon completing 

services at a rate of $150 per hour. The contract provided that 

when expenses were incurred after the advanced payment was 

depleted, the respondent would bill J.D. for expenses and/or 

services at a rate of $150 per hour. However, the respondent 

never provided itemized bills to J.D.

Count I.

The respondent appeared on behalf of J.D. in the district 

court for Johnson County, Nebraska. On June 5, 2019, an order 

of modification and parenting plan was issued in the case. On 

July 5, the respondent filed a notice of intent to appeal. After 

filing the transcript with the Nebraska Court of Appeals, the 

respondent made no further filings or appearances on behalf 

of J.D. in either the district court or the Court of Appeals. 

On July 29, the Court of Appeals issued a show cause order 

for J.D. to provide the court with a copy of the required child 

support worksheet that was used to determine the amount of 

J.D.’s child support obligation set forth in the June 5 modification order. The respondent failed to respond to the Court 

of Appeals and failed to file the child support worksheet. The 

matter was remanded to the Johnson County District Court, 

and on September 26, the Johnson County District Court 

entered a judgment on the mandate. The respondent failed to 

notify J.D. that the appeal had been remanded. On or about 

December 19, the respondent provided J.D. a draft copy of a 
- 405 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. OWEN

Cite as 311 Neb. 403

brief he wrote for the Court of Appeals and claimed it was due 

to that court on December 23.

In his response to the relator, the respondent stated that he 

believed that the appeal was still open and that a brief would 

need to be submitted. He stated he did not inform J.D. that the 

matter had been remanded because he was not aware that it 

was his fault the matter had been remanded. He stated that 

this was his first attempt at an appeal and that he was not well 

versed in appellate practice. He billed J.D. in advance for the 

appellate work.

The formal charges allege that by his actions, the respondent violated his oath of office as an attorney licensed to 

practice law in the State of Nebraska, as provided by Neb. 

Rev. Stat. § 7-104 (Reissue 2012), and violated Neb. Ct. R. 

of Prof. Cond. §§ 3-501.1 (rev. 2017) (competence), 3-501.3 

(diligence), 3-501.4(a)(3) and (4) and (b) (communications), 

3-501.5(a), (b), and (f) (fees), and 3-508.4(a) and (c) (rev. 

2016) (misconduct).

Count II.

Count II also relates to the respondent’s representation of 

J.D. After August 21, 2019, the respondent made no filings in 

the district court case. Prior to March 12, 2020, the respondent 

and J.D. discussed filing a motion with the court to change her 

child support obligations due to the arrest of her ex-husband. 

On March 12, the respondent texted J.D. stating, “‘It’s signed. 

It’ll be uploaded to the court system overnight and I’ll be 

able to access it tomorrow.’” Later in the text conversation, 

the respondent, when asked whether it would suspend child 

support, stated, “‘Yes. But that will only be good for 30 days 

under an ex parte order.’”

On March 16, 2020, the respondent drafted an ex parte order 

regarding J.D. Less than an hour later, the respondent met 

with J.D. and her father. Subsequently, J.D. received a document that purported to be a copy of an ex parte order signed 

by a judge with an e-filed stamp on the top right corner with a 
- 406 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. OWEN

Cite as 311 Neb. 403

filing date of March 13, 2020, that was identical to the draft ex 

parte order created by the respondent on March 16. On April 

2, J.D. contacted the clerk of the court in Johnson County and 

was told that there was not an ex parte order filed or signed 

by that judge. The transaction number on the falsified ex parte 

order actually belonged to a different document filed earlier in 

the same matter.

In April 2020, the respondent told J.D. that he had filed a 

motion to transfer her case to another county. The respondent 

told J.D. that a phone hearing was scheduled on the motion for 

July 6. No motion to transfer was filed by the respondent, and 

no hearing was noticed.

As set forth above, the respondent lied to J.D., claiming he drafted and filed documents, and then the respondent 

falsified a signature and filing information on a document 

before providing it to her. Formal charges were drafted by the 

Counsel for Discipline and were reviewed by the Committee 

on Inquiry pursuant to Neb. Ct. R. § 3-309(H) (rev. 2011). 

The Committee on Inquiry determined that there were reasonable grounds for discipline of the respondent and that a public 

interest would be served by the filing of formal charges. The 

formal charges allege that by his actions, the respondent violated his oath of office as an attorney licensed to practice law 

in the State of Nebraska as provided by § 7-104 and violated 

§ 3-508.4 (misconduct).

On February 2, 2022, the respondent filed a conditional 

admission pursuant to Neb. Ct. R. § 3-313(B) of the disciplinary rules, in which he conditionally admitted that he violated 

his oath of office as an attorney and §§ 3-501.1 (competence), 

3-501.3 (diligence), 3-501.4(a)(3) and (4) and (b) (communications), 3-501.5(a), (b), and (f) (fees), and 3-508.4(a) and 

(c) (misconduct) of the professional conduct rules. In the 

conditional admission, the respondent admitted that his conduct violated the identified rules of professional conduct. The 

respondent knowingly does not challenge or contest the truth 
- 407 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. OWEN

Cite as 311 Neb. 403

of the matters conditionally asserted and waived all proceedings against him in exchange for a suspension of 6 months.

The proposed conditional admission included a declaration 

by the Counsel for Discipline, stating that the respondent’s proposed discipline is appropriate under the facts of this case and 

consistent with sanctions imposed in other disciplinary cases 

with similar acts of misconduct.

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 the respondent knowingly does not challenge or 

contest the matters conditionally admitted and has waived 

proceedings against him in connection therewith. We further determine that by his conduct, the respondent violated 

§§ 3-501.1 (competence), 3-501.3 (diligence), 3-501.4(a)(3) 

and (4) and (b) (communications), 3-501.5(a), (b), and (f) 
- 408 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. OWEN

Cite as 311 Neb. 403

(fees), and 3-508.4(a) and (c) (misconduct) of the professional 

conduct rules and his oath of office as an attorney licensed in 

the State of Nebraska. Despite the seriousness of the conduct, 

we note that the respondent was relatively new to the practice 

of law and cooperated fully with the Counsel for Discipline. 

We further note that under Neb. Ct. R. § 3-310(S) (rev. 2022) 

of the disciplinary rules, the respondent is subject to a character and fitness evaluation before he is readmitted. Upon due 

consideration, the court approves the conditional admission 

and enters the orders as indicated below.

CONCLUSION

The respondent is suspended from the practice of law for a 

period of 6 months. The respondent shall comply with Neb. Ct. 

R. § 3-316 (rev. 2014), and upon failure to do so, the respondent shall be subject to punishment for contempt of this court. 

The respondent is also directed to pay costs and expenses in 

accordance with § 3-310(P) and Neb. Ct. R. § 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 suspension.