- 855 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

298 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. JORGENSON

Cite as 298 Neb. 855

State of Nebraska ex rel. Counsel for Discipline

of the Nebraska Supreme Court, relator, 

v. Jeremy C. Jorgenson, respondent.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed February 2, 2018. No. S-17-487.

1. Disciplinary Proceedings. Violation of a disciplinary rule concerning 

the practice of law is a ground for discipline.

2. ____. The basic issues in a disciplinary proceeding against an attorney 

are whether discipline should be imposed and, if so, the appropriate 

discipline under the circumstances.

3. ____. With respect to the imposition of attorney discipline, each attorney discipline case must be evaluated in light of its particular facts and 

circumstances.

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

the sanctions imposed in prior similar cases.

6. ____. 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.

7. 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.

8. Disciplinary Proceedings. Cumulative acts of attorney misconduct are 

distinguishable from isolated incidents, therefore justifying more serious sanctions.

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

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

03/09/2018 08:15 AM CST
- 856 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

298 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. JORGENSON

Cite as 298 Neb. 855

9. ____. An attorney’s cooperation with the discipline process is fundamental to the credibility of attorney disciplinary proceedings.

Original action. Judgment of suspension.

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

No appearance for respondent.

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

Funke, JJ.

Per Curiam.

INTRODUCTION

On May 11, 2017, formal charges containing two counts 

were filed by the office of the Counsel for Discipline of the 

Nebraska Supreme Court, relator, against Jeremy C. Jorgenson, 

respondent. Jorgenson filed no answer to the formal charges. 

We granted the Counsel for Discipline’s motion for judgment 

on the pleadings under Neb. Ct. R. § 3-310(I) (rev. 2014), 

limited to the facts set forth in the formal charges, and ordered 

the parties to brief the issue of the appropriate discipline to 

impose. In its brief, relator suggested the discipline of suspension. Jorgenson did not file a brief. We now order that 

Jorgenson be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in 

the State of Nebraska, with a minimum suspension of 2 years, 

effective immediately.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Jorgenson was admitted to the practice of law in the State 

of Nebraska on April 15, 2008. At all relevant times, he was 

engaged in private practice in Omaha, Nebraska.

The formal charges filed by relator consist of two counts 

and allege that Jorgenson (1) failed to provide competent and 

diligent representation to his client when he failed to appear 

at oral arguments on the client’s appeal, (2) knowingly disobeyed his obligation to the court by failing to appear at oral 

arguments, (3) failed to adequately supervise support staff, 

and (4) failed to timely respond to a demand for information 
- 857 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

298 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. JORGENSON

Cite as 298 Neb. 855

from the Counsel for Discipline. Below, we set forth the factual basis for each count and the procedural history of the 

present action.

Count I

The first count arises out of Jorgenson’s failure to appear 

for oral arguments in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Eighth Circuit.

On October 19, 2016, Jorgenson, who had been appointed 

to represent the appellant, returned the court’s “Oral Argument 

Response Form” to the Eighth Circuit. In the form, Jorgenson 

acknowledged receipt of the court’s calendar scheduling oral 

arguments in Lincoln, Nebraska, on October 25, 2016; however, Jorgenson failed to appear on that date.

On October 26, 2016, the Eighth Circuit issued a show cause 

order, directing Jorgenson to show why he should not be personally disciplined for failing to appear and present oral arguments. Jorgenson failed to file a timely response.

On December 2, 2016, Jorgenson filed an untimely response 

to the show cause order. In his response, Jorgenson reported, 

inter alia, that he was unable to attend the oral arguments 

due to a multiweek capital murder trial followed by a death 

penalty aggravation hearing throughout the month of October 

2016. Because of the demands of the trial, Jorgenson stated 

that in his absence, he relied on staff and other attorneys to 

meet his obligations to other clients. Jorgenson stated that 

he had various brief conversations with a paralegal regarding rescheduling the oral arguments and/or having another 

attorney substitute as counsel. Ultimately, the oral arguments 

were not rescheduled and Jorgenson alleged that he was not 

informed until the end of October that he had missed the oral 

arguments. After discussing the case with the assistant U.S. 

Attorney, Jorgenson alleges he was reassured that the matter 

would be considered on the briefs, which adequately apprised 

the Eighth Circuit of the issues presented. He claimed that his 

paralegal never opened the email served by the Eighth Circuit 

containing the show cause order. Jorgenson reported that he 
- 858 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

298 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. JORGENSON

Cite as 298 Neb. 855

had apologized to his client and client’s family members and 

that he accepted responsibility for failing to make the appropriate arrangements.

On December 6, 2016, the Eighth Circuit issued an order 

which determined that Jorgenson’s actions would be grounds 

for suspension of his ability to practice before the Eighth 

Circuit or for disbarment; however, Jorgenson was not a member of the Eighth Circuit bar. The order stated that should 

Jorgenson ever apply for admission to the Eighth Circuit bar, 

he would not be permitted to become a member without a 

prior review and approval of the chief judge of the Eighth 

Circuit. The order instructed the clerk not to appoint Jorgenson 

under the Criminal Justice Act in any future appeals, and 

to forward the details of the matter to the clerk of the U.S. 

District Court for the District of Nebraska and the Counsel 

for Discipline.

On January 12, 2017, a “notice of Formal Grievance” was 

sent to Jorgenson by certified mail. On January 31, Jorgenson 

responded, stating that he was unaware of the show cause 

order issued by the Eighth Circuit until December 2, 2016, and 

responded on the same day. He stated that during the capital 

murder trial, he had relied heavily on other lawyers and legal 

staff and that the paralegal tasked with checking his emails did 

not review them as instructed. Jorgenson further stated that an 

article published in an Omaha newspaper regarding the Eighth 

Circuit’s order was itself akin to a public reprimand. He 

reported that since the publication of the newspaper article, his 

firm had interfered with his ability to access client information 

and respond to matters promptly.

The formal charges for count I allege that Jorgenson (1) 

failed to provide competent and diligent representation to his 

client when he failed to appear at oral arguments for his appeal, 

(2) knowingly disobeyed his obligation to the court by failing 

to appear at oral arguments, and (3) failed to adequately supervise support staff. The charges allege that through these actions, 

Jorgenson violated his oath of office as an attorney, Neb. Rev. 

Stat. § 7-104 (Reissue 2012), and Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. 
- 859 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

298 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. JORGENSON

Cite as 298 Neb. 855

§§ 3-501.1 (competence), 3-501.3 (diligence), 3-503.4(c) (fairness to opposing party and counsel), and 3-508.4(a) and (d) 

(misconduct).

Count II

The second count generally arises out of Jorgenson’s failure 

to communicate with relator.

On August 30, 2016, relator sent Jorgenson notification that 

a preliminary inquiry had been opened pursuant to a client 

grievance from K.H. The notification asked for written explanation of the issues raised in the grievance.

After Jorgenson failed to respond to the notice, on September 

19, 2016, relator sent a second letter requesting a written 

explanation of the issues raised by K.H. The letter indicated 

that a failure to respond “‘may, in and of itself, be enough to 

elevate the matter to a more severe level of discipline.’”

Jorgenson requested additional time to respond to K.H.’s 

grievance, due to the pending capital murder trial and the 

need for additional time to review his records regarding the 

complainant’s matter. Extra time was granted. After the capital 

murder trial ended on October 28, 2016, Jorgenson failed to 

provide a written response to the preliminary inquiry.

On January 12, 2017, a notice of formal grievance was 

sent by certified mail to Jorgenson. On January 31, Jorgenson 

responded and noted that his “‘ability to respond promptly was 

frustrated in multiple ways.’” Specifically, he reported that his 

cell phone had become inoperable, that he had lost his text 

message conversations with K.H.’s family, and that his server 

account had been canceled causing the loss of thousands of 

emails and his calendar. He reported that “[b]ecause of the 

length of [the capital murder trial], and considering that the 

most important concern of [K.H.’s] was receiving the documents, I thought my time was more appropriately spent getting 

caught up in other pending matters that had been on hold during [the capital murder trial].”

The formal charges for count II allege that in failing to 

timely respond to a demand for information from relator, 
- 860 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

298 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. JORGENSON

Cite as 298 Neb. 855

Jorgenson violated his oath of office as an attorney, § 7-104, 

and Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. § 3-508.1(b) (bar admission and 

disciplinary matters) and § 3-508.4(a) and (d) (misconduct).

Procedural History

Pursuant to Neb. Ct. R. § 3-302, Jorgenson is under the 

jurisdiction of the Committee on Inquiry of the Second Judicial 

District.

On March 24, 2017, the formal complaint was sent to 

Jorgenson, providing 10 working days to submit a written 

response to the complaint. Jorgenson failed to respond. The 

matters alleged in the formal complaint were reviewed by the 

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

(rev. 2011). On May 8, the Committee on Inquiry determined 

there were reasonable grounds for discipline of respondent 

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

On May 11, 2017, formal charges were filed against 

Jorgenson. On May 31, Jorgenson signed a receipt and entry 

of appearance which he filed with this court. Jorgenson failed 

to file a timely answer to the formal charges. On July 6, 

relator filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to § 3-310(I), which we granted on August 8, limited as 

to the facts. The parties were directed to brief the issue of 

discipline.

Relator filed its brief on September 7, 2017, recommending the discipline of suspension. Jorgenson did not file a brief 

regarding discipline. The court entered a default notice against 

Jorgenson on October 17.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

The only question before this court is the appropriate 

discipline.

ANALYSIS

Because Jorgenson did not file an answer to the formal charges, this court granted the Counsel for Discipline’s 

motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the facts. Having 
- 861 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

298 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. JORGENSON

Cite as 298 Neb. 855

concluded that Jorgenson violated the Rules of Professional 

Conduct and his oath of office as an attorney, § 7-104, we 

must determine the appropriate sanction.

[1,2] Violation of a disciplinary rule concerning the practice of law is a ground for discipline. State ex rel. Counsel 

for Dis. v. Gast, 296 Neb. 687, 896 N.W.2d 583 (2017). The 

basic issues in a disciplinary proceeding against an attorney 

are whether discipline should be imposed and, if so, the appropriate discipline under the circumstances. See id. Neb. Ct. R. 

§ 3-304 of the disciplinary rules provides 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).

[3-5] We have observed that, with respect to the imposition 

of attorney discipline, each attorney discipline case must be 

evaluated in light of its particular facts and circumstances. 

State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Island, 296 Neb. 624, 894 

N.W.2d 804 (2017). 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. 

Id. The propriety of a sanction must be considered with reference to the sanctions imposed in prior similar cases. State 

ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Gast, ante p. 203, 903 N.W.2d 

259 (2017).

[6] To determine whether and to what extent discipline 

should be imposed in an attorney discipline proceeding, we 
- 862 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

298 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. JORGENSON

Cite as 298 Neb. 855

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. Id.

[7] As aggravating factors, we note that Jorgenson has previously been disciplined. See State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. 

Jorgenson, 284 Neb. 507, 822 N.W.2d 367 (2012) (imposing 

discipline of public reprimand). A court has the right to examine its own records and take judicial notice of its own proceedings and judgments in a former action. State ex rel. Counsel 

for Dis. v. Gast, supra. Thus, in addition to the current formal 

charges, we also consider the relevant facts from Jorgenson’s 

previous disciplinary proceedings. See id. (citing State ex rel. 

Counsel for Dis. v. Lopez Wilson, 283 Neb. 616, 811 N.W.2d 

673 (2012); State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Ellis, 283 Neb. 

329, 808 N.W.2d 634 (2012)). In 2012, Jorgenson received a 

public reprimand and 1 year’s probation for client incidents 

generally involving his entering into a contingency fee agreement to represent a client, when Jorgenson should have known 

the client’s claims were time barred, and by entering into contingency fee agreements not committed to writing. See State ex 

rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Jorgenson, supra.

[8] In the present case, the facts established by our order 

granting judgment on the pleadings show that Jorgenson violated the disciplinary rules in two separate incidents in the 

same year involving noncompliance and a lack of communication with clients, with the courts, and with the Counsel for 

Discipline. This 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. See State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. 

Gast, supra.

As an additional aggravating factor, we note that Jorgenson’s 

client, who was the appellant in the appeal to the Eighth 

Circuit, was left without counsel when respondent failed to 
- 863 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

298 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. JORGENSON

Cite as 298 Neb. 855

appear for oral arguments before the Eighth Circuit. Rather 

than fully taking responsibility, Jorgenson blamed support 

staff which he evidently had failed to adequately supervise. 

Likewise, after receiving notification from relator that another 

client was seeking his file, Jorgenson took months to provide 

the file, blamed support staff for the delay, and minimized the 

importance of returning the client’s file.

[9] We are unable to acknowledge mitigating factors, 

because we lack any record on the question. In the present 

disciplinary process, Jorgenson has failed to correspond with 

relator at several points, failed to respond to the formal charges 

by way of an answer, and failed to brief the issue of discipline 

as directed by this court. We have stated that responding to 

inquiries and requests for information from relator is an important matter, and an attorney’s cooperation with the discipline 

process is fundamental to the credibility of attorney disciplinary proceedings. See State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Gast, 

ante p. 203, 903 N.W.2d 259 (2017); State ex rel. Counsel 

for Dis. v. Tonderum, 286 Neb. 942, 840 N.W.2d 487 (2013). 

In failing to file an answer to the formal charges, Jorgenson 

missed the opportunity to enlighten us about any additional 

mitigating factors or his current or future fitness to practice 

law. Failing to participate in the disciplinary process is a very 

serious matter. See id.

Finally, we must consider the appropriate sanction, which 

we do with reference to the sanctions imposed in prior similar cases. Prior cases, though factually unique, offer some 

insight. See, e.g., State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Ubbinga, 

295 Neb. 995, 893 N.W.2d 694 (2017) (suspending attorney 

for 2 years who failed to complete work for client, failed to 

communicate with client, failed to provide client with file, and 

failed to cooperate with relator’s investigation); State ex rel. 

Counsel for Dis. v. Tighe, 295 Neb. 30, 886 N.W.2d 530 (2016) 

(indefinite suspension after attorney failed to respond to formal 

charges regarding similar client issues, and requiring attorney 

to demonstrate that he has made behavioral changes that will 

allow him to practice law within disciplinary rules); State ex 
- 864 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

298 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. JORGENSON

Cite as 298 Neb. 855

rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Moore, 294 Neb. 283, 881 N.W.2d 923 

(2016) (suspending attorney for 2 years with 2 years’ monitored probation following conditional admission of attorney’s 

client neglect, failure to communicate or provide accounting 

and refund to client, and lack of communication with relator); 

State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Tonderum, supra (declining 

to disbar attorney and instead imposing indefinite suspension 

after attorney failed to respond to formal charges).

In view of the facts which have been established, and 

Jorgenson’s conduct in connection with the current matter, 

we determine that Jorgenson be indefinitely suspended from 

the practice of law in the State of Nebraska, with a minimum 

suspension of 2 years, effective immediately. Upon application 

for reinstatement, Jorgenson shall fully answer for the current 

charges; shall fully answer for failing to respond to his clients, 

the Counsel for Discipline, and the courts; and shall also have 

the burden to demonstrate his present and future fitness to 

practice law.

CONCLUSION

We order that Jorgenson be indefinitely suspended from the 

practice of law in the State of Nebraska, with a minimum suspension of 2 years, effective immediately. Jorgenson may apply 

for reinstatement consistent with the terms outlined above. 

Jorgenson shall comply with Neb. Ct. R. § 3-316 (rev. 2014), 

and upon failure to do so, he shall be subject to punishment 

for contempt of this court. Jorgenson is directed to pay costs 

and expenses in accordance with Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 7-114 and 

7-115 (Reissue 2012) and § 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.

Wright, J., not participating.