Nebraska Advance Sheets

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. NIMMER 107

Cite as 286 Neb. 107

State of Nebraska ex rel. Counsel for Discipline

of the Nebraska Supreme Court, relator, 

v. John C. Nimmer, respondent.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed June 14, 2013. No. S-13-076.

Original action. Judgment of public reprimand.

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

Miller-Lerman, and Cassel, JJ.

Per Curiam.

INTRODUCTION

Respondent, John C. Nimmer, was admitted to the practice 

of law in the State of Nebraska on September 17, 1993. At all 

relevant times, he was engaged in the private practice of law 

in Omaha, Nebraska. On January 31, 2013, the Counsel for 

Discipline of the Nebraska Supreme Court filed formal charges 

consisting of one count against respondent. In the one count, 

it was alleged that by his conduct, respondent had violated his 

oath of office as an attorney, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 7-104 (Reissue 

2012), and Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. §§ 3-507.1 (communications concerning lawyer’s services) and 3-508.4(a) (misconduct), along with other rules.

On April 30, 2013, respondent filed a conditional admission pursuant to Neb. Ct. R. § 3-313 of the disciplinary rules, 

in which he conditionally admitted that he had violated his 

oath of office as an attorney and §§ 3-507.1 and 3-508.4(a) 

and knowingly chose not to challenge or contest the truth of 

the matters conditionally admitted and waived all proceedings 

against him in connection therewith in exchange for a public reprimand.

The proposed conditional admission included a declaration 

by the Counsel for Discipline, stating that respondent’s request 

for public reprimand is appropriate.

Upon due consideration, we approve the conditional admission and order that respondent be publicly reprimanded.
Nebraska Advance Sheets

108 286 NEBRASKA REPORTS

FACTS

The formal charges state that in April 2011 and thereafter, respondent maintained a Web site identified as 

“www.nimmerlawoffice.com.” The purpose of the Web site 

was to advertise the legal services of respondent to individuals and businesses seeking to raise capital through individual investors to be located and provided by respondent and his 

law firm.

Respondent also marketed his services to individuals and businesses through a Web site identified as 

“www.nimmerlawscreening.com.” On this Web site, respondent made the following statements which, according to the 

formal charges, contain false and misleading information:

“‘Properly Qualified Angel Investor — Fast’ With 

18 years of success we are the resource to get you the 

right angel investor — right now. Further, we make 

sure you are legally compliant. The angel investors we 

provide meet the required substantive-pre-existing relationship requirements of the Securities and Exchange 

Commission (SEC). To learn more and to see if you 

qualify call a representative or fill out the form below. 

We’ll provide a consultation to determine if you are 

approved. If you qualify you’ll be speaking to interested 

angel investors very soon. Our abilities and competence 

in assisting clients [to] get angel investors is impressive. We believe, you will be like so many others — 

quite pleased with our practical approach in getting 

you in touch with pre-qualified investors. This private method of financing is often much more effective 

and, faster than other methods of financing. This is an 

Advertisement For a Law Firm Specializing in Private 

Funding for Angel Investors.

“That being said, we have an unlimited number of 

wealthy investors plus new investors joining daily.

“But, The Nimmer Law Office has the solution to that 

dilemma — our third party pre-screened investors! These 

investors are screened to meet the rigid requirements of 

the pre-existing relationship. You can now confidently get 
Nebraska Advance Sheets

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. NIMMER 109

Cite as 286 Neb. 107

all the investors you want because we have what is called 

the three point test . . . investors. . . .

“Nimmer Law Office has all the requirements covered 

from initial legal structure to ongoing compliance/filing 

and the all important accredited investors with substantive, pre-existing relationships. In the final analysis, it 

is difficult to find better tools and investors than the 

Nimmer Law Office offers.

“Q: What kind of results will I get?

“A: All one can ethically do is look at the worst case 

scenario — And, it is probably not fair to either you 

or I to say you’ll be the worst ever. However, we have 

thousands of investors liquid at any given time in virtually all industries, therefore the worst case scenario is we 

will provide you with at least one qualified investor per 

business day for the duration of [your] contract. Each 

will be interested in speaking with you about your investment offer and will have the money on hand to invest 

with you.

“Q: How much capital have you raised in the past?

“A: We as a law firm never raise money! We make sure 

our clients are scheduled and on the phone with investors 

that are interested in their type of transaction and have the 

money to invest . . . .

“Q: How long have you been operating?

“A: 18 years[.]

“Q: How many deals has Nimmer closed?

“A: Many but we explicitly ask that the only thing you 

make your decision on are things that are actually tangible and deliverable, not hopes, guess work, past successes 

or predictions. Therefore, below is the actual product you 

will be purchasing[:]

1) A highly competent attorney

2) Compliance with all regulatory bodies

3) Qualified Investors

4) A call center to screen and schedule appointments 

for your company

5) Legal trust account and clearing service[.]”
Nebraska Advance Sheets

110 286 NEBRASKA REPORTS

In April 2011, a client and his business entity contacted 

respondent based upon the Internet advertising set forth above. 

On September 22, in reliance upon the advertising and the 

promises made therein, the client entered into a letter of 

engagement with respondent stating that respondent was to 

provide legal services regarding the promotion of the client’s 

business and to locate qualified investors. The client paid 

respondent $12,500 at the time he entered into the employment 

agreement with respondent.

According to the formal charges, after entering into the 

representation of the client and his business entity, and after 

receiving the $12,500, respondent failed to provide the services 

advertised on his Web site. In particular, respondent failed 

to provide the qualified investors for which he was hired by 

the client.

The formal charges allege that respondent’s actions constitute violations of his oath of office as an attorney as provided by § 7-104 and professional conduct rules, including 

§§ 3-507.1 and 3-508.4(a).

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 
Nebraska Advance Sheets

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. NIMMER 111

Cite as 286 Neb. 107

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 respondent knowingly does not challenge or 

contest the matters conditionally admitted. We further determine that by his conduct, respondent violated conduct rules 

§§ 3-507.1 and 3-508.4(a), as well as his oath of office as 

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

Respondent has waived all additional proceedings against him 

in connection herewith. Upon due consideration, the court 

approves the conditional admission and enters the orders as 

indicated below.

CONCLUSION

Respondent is publically reprimanded. Respondent is 

directed to pay costs and expenses in accordance with Neb. 

Ct. R. §§ 3-310(P) and 3-323(B) within 60 days after the 

order imposing costs and expenses, if any, is entered by 

the court.

Judgment of public reprimand.