- 627 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. PANICK

Cite as 311 Neb. 627

State of Nebraska ex rel. Counsel for Discipline 

of the Nebraska Supreme Court, relator, 

v. Heather C. Panick, respondent.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed May 20, 2022. No. S-21-709.

1. Disciplinary Proceedings. 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.

2. Disciplinary Proceedings: States: Proof. 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.

3. Disciplinary Proceedings: States. Although a judicial determination 

of attorney misconduct in another state is generally given conclusive 

effect, the Nebraska Supreme Court is entitled, in a reciprocal discipline 

action, to independently assess the facts and independently determine 

the appropriate disciplinary action to be taken against the attorney in 

this state.

4. Disciplinary Proceedings. In imposing attorney discipline, the Nebraska 

Supreme Court evaluates each case in light of its particular facts 

and circumstances.

5. ____. 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.

Judgment of suspension.

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

Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

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

08/05/2022 01:08 AM CDT
- 628 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. PANICK

Cite as 311 Neb. 627

Per Curiam.

INTRODUCTION

The issue in this attorney reciprocal discipline case is the 

appropriate sanction to be imposed. The State Bar of Texas 

suspended the respondent, Heather C. Panick, from the practice of law for 2 years. The relator, the Counsel for Discipline 

of the Nebraska Supreme Court, moved for reciprocal discipline. We grant the motion for reciprocal discipline and 

impose a 2-year suspension, retroactive to commencement of 

the Texas suspension.

BACKGROUND

The record in this case is limited. It is composed of the 

motion for reciprocal discipline, this court’s order to show 

cause, and the parties’ responses to that order.

The respondent was admitted to the practice of law in the 

State of Texas. Later, on August 21, 2017, she was admitted to 

the practice of law in the State of Nebraska.

On July 14, 2021, the State Bar of Texas issued an “Agreed 

Judgment of Active Suspension.” The discipline arose out of 

the respondent’s “engag[ing] in conduct involving dishonesty, 

fraud, deceit or misrepresentation” while serving as voluntary treasurer for a youth sports club. The State Bar of Texas 

found that the respondent violated Texas Disciplinary Rule of 

Professional Conduct 8.04(a)(3), which is the equivalent of 

Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. § 3-508.4(c) (rev. 2016). It suspended the respondent from the practice of law in Texas for 2 

years beginning on September 1, 2021, and ending on August 

31, 2023. The State Bar of Texas further ordered the respond

ent to complete an additional 10 hours of continuing legal 

education in the area of trust accounts (3 hours), fiduciary 

duties (3 hours), handling client funds (3 hours), and ethics 

(1 hour).

The respondent provided a self-report of her suspension to 

the relator. The relator then filed a motion for reciprocal discipline against the respondent.
- 629 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. PANICK

Cite as 311 Neb. 627

This court issued an order to show cause as to why we 

should not impose reciprocal discipline. In response, the relator 

requested “a disciplinary sanction warranted by the facts” but 

made no particular recommendation.

The respondent labeled her response to the show cause 

order as confidential. She requested discipline less severe than 

the Texas discipline. The respondent suggested probation in 

lieu of suspension, reprimand by the court, reprimand by the 

Disciplinary Review Board, or suspension for a period less 

than 1 year. Her unsworn response indicates that she had personal issues at the time of her misconduct, which we do not 

detail here.

After the parties were notified that the case was scheduled for oral argument on March 31, the respondent arranged 

to appear for argument via videoconferencing. The day prior 

to oral argument, the respondent filed a “Motion for Leave to 

File Supplemental Statement in Lieu of Testimony.” The next 

day, following argument, we overruled the motion. Neither 

the respondent nor anyone acting on her behalf appeared 

for argument.

ANALYSIS

[1-3] 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 circum

stances. 1 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. 2 Although a judicial determination of attorney misconduct in another state is generally 

given conclusive effect, this court is entitled, in a reciprocal discipline action, to independently assess the facts and 

1 State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Beauvais, 308 Neb. 704, 956 N.W.2d 298 

(2021).

2 Id.
- 630 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. PANICK

Cite as 311 Neb. 627

independently determine the appropriate disciplinary action to 

be taken against the attorney in this state. 3

Our disciplinary rules set forth the discipline that may 

be considered for attorney misconduct. The disciplinary 

options are:

(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. 4

Another disciplinary rule 5 provides in part that upon receipt 

of appropriate notice that a member of Nebraska’s bar has 

been disciplined in another jurisdiction, this court may enter 

an order imposing the identical discipline, or greater or lesser 

discipline as the court deems appropriate.

[4,5] In imposing attorney discipline, we evaluate each case 

in light of its particular facts and circumstances. 6 In response 

to our order to show cause, the respondent requests less severe 

discipline. 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. 7 The relator’s brief points out that the respondent’s misconduct was 

3 State ex rel. NSBA v. Gallner, 263 Neb. 135, 638 N.W.2d 819 (2002).

4 Neb. Ct. R. § 3-304(A).

5 Neb. Ct. R. § 3-321(A).

6 State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Beauvais, supra note 1.

7 State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Barfield, 305 Neb. 79, 938 N.W.2d 863 

(2020).
- 631 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. PANICK

Cite as 311 Neb. 627

unrelated to her law practice, did not implicate any breach in 

her duty to her clients, and did not involve a failure to respond 

to disciplinary inquiries. It appears she had no prior discipline. 

We take into consideration the respondent’s explanation of the 

situation she was in at the time of her misconduct. But we also 

observe that the respondent had an opportunity to contest the 

charge and offer mitigating circumstances during the investigatory hearing in the Texas proceeding, that she does not challenge the discipline ordered by the State Bar of Texas, and that 

she did not request a hearing in Nebraska.

Upon due consideration of our record and the fact that the 

State Bar of Texas held an investigatory hearing in the matter, 

we determine that suspension is appropriate. During oral argument, the relator suggested that reciprocal discipline retroactive 

to September 1, 2021, would be appropriate. We agree. We 

grant the motion for reciprocal discipline and impose a suspension of 2 years, retroactive to the commencement of the Texas 

suspension and ending on August 31, 2023.

CONCLUSION

It is the judgment of this court that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law in the State of Nebraska for 2 

years, retroactive to the September 1, 2021, suspension in Texas 

and ending on August 31, 2023. The respondent shall comply 

with all notification requirements by suspended members provided by 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) and Neb. Ct. R. §§ 3-310(P) (rev. 2022) and 3-323(B) of 

the disciplinary rules within 60 days after an order imposing 

costs and expenses, if any, is entered by the court.

Judgment of suspension.