- 677 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

305 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. NNAKA

Cite as 305 Neb. 677

State of Nebraska ex rel. Counsel for Discipline 

of the Nebraska Supreme Court, relator, 

v. Kenneth A. Nnaka, respondent.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed April 23, 2020. No. S-20-073.

Original action. Judgment of public reprimand.

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

Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.

Per Curiam.

INTRODUCTION

The State Bar of Texas entered an “Agreed Judgment of 

Public Reprimand” of the respondent, Kenneth A. Nnaka, on 

October 16, 2019. The Counsel for Discipline of the Nebraska 

Supreme Court, the relator, filed a motion for reciprocal discipline against the respondent. We grant the motion for reciprocal discipline and impose a public reprimand.

FACTS

The respondent was admitted to the practice of law in the 

State of Nebraska on May 8, 2014. He has also been admitted 

to the practice of law in Texas.

On October 16, 2019, the State Bar of Texas and the 

respondent signed an “Agreed Judgment of Public Reprimand.” 

The respondent admitted to a violation of “Rule 1.04(a)” of the 

Texas disciplinary rules, stating that a lawyer shall not enter 

into an arrangement for, charge, or collect an illegal fee or 

unconscionable fee.

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

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

04/23/2020 10:10 AM CDT
- 678 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

305 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. NNAKA

Cite as 305 Neb. 677

On January 31, 2020, the relator filed a motion for reciprocal discipline pursuant to Neb. Ct. R. § 3‐321 of the disc

plinary rules. On February 10, this court filed an order to show 

cause as to why it should not impose reciprocal discipline. 

On February 21, the relator filed a response requesting that 

this court impose a public reprimand. On February 28, the 

respondent filed a response in which he requested that this 

court grant him a private reprimand or, alternatively, take no 

disciplinary action, because he self‐reported this matter to

the relator.

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. Murphy, 283 Neb. 982, 814 

N.W.2d 107 (2012). 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. 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 
- 679 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

305 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. NNAKA

Cite as 305 Neb. 677

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 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. Murphy, supra.

Upon due consideration of the record, and the facts as determined by the State Bar of Texas, we determine that public 

reprimand is appropriate.

CONCLUSION

The respondent is publicly reprimanded. 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. 2019) and 3‐323(B) of the disciplinary rule

within 60 days after an order imposing costs and expenses, if 

any, is entered by the court.

Judgment of public reprimand.