- 396 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

305 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. ARGYRAKIS

Cite as 305 Neb. 396

State of Nebraska ex rel. Counsel for Discipline 

of the Nebraska Supreme Court, relator, v. 

Evangelos A. Argyrakis, respondent.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed March 27, 2020. No. S-19-059.

1. Disciplinary Proceedings. Because attorney discipline cases are original proceedings before the Nebraska Supreme Court, the court reviews a 

referee’s recommendations de novo on the record, reaching a conclusion 

independent of the referee’s findings.

2. Disciplinary Proceedings: Rules of the Supreme Court. Under Neb. 

Ct. R. § 3-304, the Nebraska Supreme Court may impose one or more 

of the following disciplinary sanctions: (1) disbarment; (2) suspension; 

(3) probation, in lieu of or subsequent to suspension, on such terms 

as the court may designate; (4) censure and reprimand; or (5) temporary suspension.

3. Disciplinary Proceedings. 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.

4. ____. Each attorney discipline case must be evaluated 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.

6. ____. In attorney discipline cases, the propriety of a sanction must 

be considered with reference to the sanctions imposed in prior similar cases.

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

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

05/29/2020 09:08 AM CDT
- 397 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

305 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. ARGYRAKIS

Cite as 305 Neb. 396

Original action. Judgment of disbarment.

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

Evangelos A. Argyrakis, pro se.

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

Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.

Per Curiam.

NATURE OF CASE

The issue in this attorney discipline proceeding is what 

discipline should be imposed on Evangelos A. Argyrakis for 

violating the Nebraska Rules of Professional Conduct.

Argyrakis pleaded no contest to knowing and intentional 

abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult or senior 

adult, a Class IIIA felony. At the plea hearing, when asked for 

a factual basis for the plea, the prosecutor said that if the matter proceeded to trial, the State would show that Argyrakis, 

in the course of a verbal argument, repeatedly punched his 

83-year-old father in the face, resulting in observable injuries. Neither Argyrakis nor his counsel objected to the factual basis.

The referee recommended disbarment, and after our review, 

we conclude that disbarment is the proper sanction.

BACKGROUND

Procedural History.

Argyrakis was admitted to the practice of law in Nebraska 

on September 14, 1992. At all times relevant to these proceedings, he was licensed to practice law in the State of 

Nebraska.

Argyrakis was initially charged in the district court for 

Douglas County with strangulation, a Class IIIA felony. The 

information, filed May 10, 2018, identified the victim as 

Argyrakis’ father and alleged that the crime took place on 

April 8.
- 398 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

305 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. ARGYRAKIS

Cite as 305 Neb. 396

On June 25, 2018, the relator hand-delivered to Argyrakis a 

letter notifying him that he was under investigation in connection with the pending criminal case and asking him to provide 

a written response within 15 working days. A few days later, 

Argyrakis sent an email to the relator in which he stated that 

“[t]his matter was a domestic dispute where I was not the 

aggressor.” He requested that the relator await the conclusion 

of the criminal proceedings before continuing the investigation. The relator notified Argyrakis that any further action 

would be withheld until the criminal case was resolved, but 

also asked that Argyrakis advise the relator as to the status of 

the case.

On September 24, 2018, Argyrakis pleaded no contest to an 

amended information charging him with knowing and intentional abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult or 

senior adult, a Class IIIA felony. The amended information 

again identified the victim as Argyrakis’ father and alleged 

that the crime was committed on April 8. He was sentenced to 

3 years’ probation, with terms that included chemical testing 

and a mental health evaluation. Argyrakis failed to report the 

plea and sentencing to the relator.

After the Committee on Inquiry of the Second Judicial 

District concluded that there were reasonable grounds for 

discipline of Argyrakis and that the public interest would 

be served by the filing of formal charges, formal charges 

were filed against Argyrakis on January 23, 2019. The formal charges alleged that Argyrakis had violated the Nebraska 

Rules of Professional Conduct by committing a criminal act 

that reflected adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects. Argyrakis filed an answer 

to the formal charges in which he admitted allegations regarding the fact of his conviction and sentence, but failed to either 

admit or deny whether he violated the Nebraska Rules of 

Professional Conduct.
- 399 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

305 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. ARGYRAKIS

Cite as 305 Neb. 396

Hearing.

On May 3, 2019, a hearing on the formal charges was commenced. Argyrakis represented himself at the hearing.

The relator offered certified copies of documents reflecting the charges, plea agreement, and sentence in the criminal 

case. The relator also called Argyrakis to testify. In his testimony, Argyrakis admitted that he pleaded no contest to and 

was found guilty of vulnerable adult abuse against his father. 

Argyrakis denied that he was convicted of a crime of violence, 

because, in his words, he “was not the aggressor.” Argyrakis 

also acknowledged that since 2010, he had seen five different 

doctors for mental health therapy and medication management; that he had undergone two mental health evaluations, 

one prior to the April 2018 incident and one after; and that 

he was currently taking three different medications for mental 

health issues.

After being questioned by counsel for the relator, Argyrakis 

made a statement under oath. He stated that during his childhood, his father physically and emotionally abused him and 

that he witnessed his father physically abusing his mother. He 

testified to his belief that he had always represented clients diligently and effectively and that no clients had ever complained 

about his services. He also testified that he did not intend to 

harm his father, that he had attempted to get help for the circumstances that led to the incident, and that he did not believe 

a similar incident would happen again.

Argyrakis also called Regina Schulze to testify. Schulze, 

a licensed independent mental health professional, testified 

that she began providing weekly mental health counseling to 

Argyrakis in December 2018. Schulze diagnosed Argyrakis 

with depressive disorder, panic disorder, and post-traumatic 

stress disorder. She testified to her opinion that these issues 

contributed to the incident between Argyrakis and his father 

and that she did not expect any physical altercations in the 

future. On cross-examination, she admitted that she based these 
- 400 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

305 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. ARGYRAKIS

Cite as 305 Neb. 396

conclusions solely upon information provided by Argyrakis 

and that she had not reviewed any of his prior medical records, 

mental health evaluations, or other documentation concerning 

his condition.

Following the close of evidence, the referee directed the 

parties to file briefs addressing whether Argyrakis was convicted of a crime of violence. The referee expressed hesitation 

as to whether the crime of abuse of a vulnerable adult would 

always constitute a crime of violence. In particular, the referee 

observed that the crime could be committed through neglect 

or exploitation, and he noted that it was not clear that would 

amount to a crime of violence.

On May 9, 2019, the relator filed a motion to reopen the 

record. The relator sought to supplement the record with the 

transcript of the plea proceedings in Argyrakis’ criminal case. 

The relator contended it was relevant to the issue of whether 

Argyrakis committed a crime of violence. The referee took the 

motion under advisement, but allowed the relator to conditionally proceed with the evidence.

When allowed to proceed with evidence, the relator introduced the transcript of the proceeding in which Argyrakis 

entered his plea in the criminal case. At that proceeding, the 

prosecutor said that the State was pursuing the charge against 

Argyrakis on the ground that he physically injured his father. 

Further, when asked for the factual basis for the plea, the prosecutor stated that if the matter proceeded to trial, the evidence 

would show that during an argument between Argyrakis and 

his 83-year-old father, Argyrakis repeatedly punched his father 

in the face, causing observable injuries. Neither Argyrakis 

nor his counsel objected to the factual basis for the plea, and 

Argyrakis stated on the record that he was satisfied with the 

representation provided by his counsel.

The referee later granted the motion to reopen the record.

Referee’s Report.

The referee filed a report and recommendation. The referee found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Argyrakis 
- 401 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

305 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. ARGYRAKIS

Cite as 305 Neb. 396

violated Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. § 3-508.4(b) (rev. 2016) 

and his oath of office as an attorney.

The referee specifically analyzed whether Argyrakis was 

convicted of a crime of violence. The referee concluded such 

analysis was necessary based on his understanding that this 

court ruled in State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Walz 1 that disbarment is the appropriate sanction for conviction of a felony crime of violence “absent extraordinary mitigation.” The 

referee concluded that Argyrakis was convicted of a crime 

of violence.

The referee also considered potential mitigating circumstances. He found that Argyrakis’ lack of a prior disciplinary 

record in over 25 years of practice was a mitigating circumstance. He found that Argyrakis had not accepted responsibility for his misconduct and that thus, that was not available as a 

mitigating circumstance. He also found that Argyrakis’ mental 

health diagnosis should not be considered in mitigation. The 

referee explained that under State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. 

Thompson,

 2 in order for mental health to be considered in mitigation, Argyrakis was required to show (1) medical evidence 

that he is affected by a mental health condition, (2) that the 

condition was a direct and substantial contributing cause to the 

misconduct, and (3) that treatment of the condition will substantially reduce the risk of further misconduct. The referee 

concluded that Argyrakis had not made the required showing 

under Thompson, explaining little weight could be afforded 

to Schulze’s opinions that a mental health issue caused his 

misconduct and that treatment of the condition would substantially reduce the risk of further misconduct, because those 

opinions were formed solely on the basis of self-reporting 

by Argyrakis.

The referee recommended disbarment.

1 State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Walz, 291 Neb. 566, 869 N.W.2d 71 

(2015).

2 State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Thompson, 264 Neb. 831, 652 N.W.2d 593 

(2002).
- 402 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

305 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. ARGYRAKIS

Cite as 305 Neb. 396

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

Neither party has taken exception to the report of the referee. Therefore, the only issue is the appropriate sanction under 

the circumstances. Argyrakis opposes the referee’s recommendation and the relator’s request for disbarment.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1] Because attorney discipline cases are original proceedings before this court, we review a referee’s recommendations 

de novo on the record, reaching a conclusion independent of 

the referee’s findings. 3

ANALYSIS

Neither party filed exceptions to the referee’s report and 

recommendation. In those circumstances, the court may, at its 

discretion, adopt the findings of the referee as final and conclusive. 4 We therefore adopt the referee’s findings that clear 

and convincing evidence establishes that Argyrakis violated 

§ 3-508.4(b) and his oath of office as an attorney. The only 

issue remaining for this court’s consideration is the appropriate sanction.

[2-6] Under Neb. Ct. R. § 3-304, this court may impose one 

or more of the following disciplinary sanctions: (1) disbarment; 

(2) suspension; (3) probation, in lieu of or subsequent to suspension, on such terms as the court may designate; (4) censure 

and reprimand; or (5) temporary suspension. 5 To determine 

whether and to what extent discipline should be imposed in 

an attorney discipline proceeding, we 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 

3 State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Gast, 296 Neb. 687, 896 N.W.2d 583 

(2017).

4 Neb. Ct. R. § 3-310(L) (rev. 2014).

5 State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Nimmer, 300 Neb. 906, 916 N.W.2d 732 

(2018).
- 403 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

305 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. ARGYRAKIS

Cite as 305 Neb. 396

the respondent generally, and (6) the respondent’s present or 

future fitness to continue in the practice of law. 6 Each attorney 

discipline case must be evaluated in light of its particular facts 

and circumstances. 7 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. 8

Furthermore, the propriety of a sanction must be considered 

with reference to the sanctions imposed in prior similar cases. 9

We will proceed to consider each of these issues in turn.

Consideration of Traditional 

Sanction Factors.

In Walz, we discussed how the factors we regularly consider 

in formulating an appropriate sanction for attorney misconduct 

apply when an attorney is convicted of a crime of violence. 10

In the course of discussing the nature of the offense and the 

need for deterrence, we observed that offenses involving violence require discipline and that the sanction must be tailored 

to maintain public confidence in the bar. 11 We also noted that 

the factor requiring consideration of protection of the public is 

not merely concern for a physical danger to the public, but also 

requires consideration of whether it is in the public interest to 

allow an attorney who has committed a crime of violence to 

keep practicing law. Finally, we emphasized that even if no 

clients are harmed, “an attorney’s conviction of a felony for a 

crime of violence requires a severe sanction.” 12

6 State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Jorgenson, 302 Neb. 188, 922 N.W.2d 753 

(2019).

7 Nimmer, supra note 5.

8 Id.

9 Id.

10 Walz, supra note 1.

11 Id. (citing § 3-508.4, comment 2).

12 Id. at 576, 869 N.W.2d at 77.
- 404 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

305 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. ARGYRAKIS

Cite as 305 Neb. 396

The foregoing discussion from Walz regarding the appropriate sanction when an attorney is convicted of a crime of 

violence is applicable in this case. We classified the conviction 

at issue in Walz as a crime of violence when it did not involve 

actual physical violence, but the threat to commit such violence. Here, the factual basis offered for Argyrakis’ no contest 

plea, to which Argyrakis did not object, was that Argyrakis 

committed an act of actual physical violence by repeatedly 

punching his 83-year-old father in the face.

This case is similar to Walz with respect to another traditional factor bearing on the appropriate sanction—the attitude 

of the respondent. In Walz, the attorney insisted on her innocence despite entering a no contest plea to making terroristic 

threats. We stated that it was not our task to review a criminal conviction in attorney disciplinary proceedings and that 

because the respondent insisted on her innocence, she had not 

accepted responsibility for her actions. For similar reasons, we 

cannot say that Argyrakis has accepted responsibility in this 

case. Although Argyrakis seems to concede that he did, in fact, 

inflict physical violence on his elderly father, throughout the 

proceedings, he has attempted to minimize his culpability by 

insisting that he was not the aggressor in the encounter and that 

his actions were in self-defense. As in Walz, it is not our task to 

review the conviction. And rather than accepting responsibility 

for that conviction, Argyrakis is attempting to assign at least 

partial responsibility for it to others.

Consideration of Mitigating Factors.

Also relevant to the appropriate sanction in an attorney discipline case is the existence of any mitigating factors. Here, 

the referee found one mitigating factor: the absence of any 

prior disciplinary issues in Argyrakis’ over 25 years of practice. 

We agree with the referee that this is a factor to be considered 

in mitigation.

We also do not disagree with the referee’s conclusion that 

Argyrakis’ mental health issues were entitled to little weight in 
- 405 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

305 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. ARGYRAKIS

Cite as 305 Neb. 396

mitigation. In Thompson, we held that in order for depression 

to be considered as a mitigating circumstance, the respondent 

must show (1) medical evidence that he or she is affected by 

depression, (2) that the depression was a direct and substantial 

contributing cause to the misconduct, and (3) that treatment of 

the depression will substantially reduce the risk of further misconduct. 13 We see no reason not to require the same showing in 

order to consider other mental health conditions as a mitigating circumstance.

Argyrakis attempted to introduce evidence of his mental 

health issues through Schulze. And though Schulze testified 

that she had diagnosed Argyrakis with mental health conditions, that she believed those conditions caused his misconduct, 

and that treatment of those conditions would reduce the risk 

of further misconduct, we agree with the referee that there 

are compelling reasons that this testimony should be accorded 

little weight. Schulze did not begin seeing Argyrakis until after 

the incident underlying his criminal conviction. And despite 

Argyrakis’ acknowledgment that he had been treated by multiple doctors for mental health issues several years before the 

incident and that he had undergone mental health evaluations 

before and after the incident, Schulze did not consider any of 

this information in forming her opinions. Rather, she admitted 

that her opinions were based solely on information reported by 

Argyrakis. Because Schulze’s opinions were formed without 

considering what would seem to be highly relevant information and mindful of the fact that the referee heard and observed 

Schulze during her testimony and determined that it should be 

given little weight, 14 we find that Argyrakis has not made the 

required showing to allow his mental health issues to be considered in mitigation.

13 Thompson, supra note 2.

14 See State ex rel. NSBA v. McArthur, 257 Neb. 618, 599 N.W.2d 592 (1999) 

(while attorney discipline proceeding is trial de novo on record, court may 

give weight to referee’s findings on matters of disputed fact).
- 406 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

305 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. ARGYRAKIS

Cite as 305 Neb. 396

In his brief before us and at oral argument, Argyrakis contended that other factors should be considered in mitigation. 

He claimed that he was not the aggressor in the incident with 

his father and that the decision to prosecute him was politically 

motivated. We see no other mitigating factors. As noted above, 

it is not our function to review his conviction. Further, there is 

no evidence in the record supportive of his theory of a politically motivated prosecution.

Comparison to Prior Cases.

Each attorney discipline case must be evaluated individually 

in light of its particular facts and circumstances. 15 In addition, the propriety of a sanction must also be considered with 

reference to the sanctions imposed in prior similar cases. 16

Walz appears to be the only truly similar prior case for us to 

consider here. In Walz, we noted that there are few Nebraska 

cases of attorney discipline involving felony convictions of 

any kind and that Walz was the first case to involve a crime 

of violence. 17

In Walz, the respondent was first charged with second degree 

domestic assault and use of a weapon to commit a felony. 

The State alleged that she assaulted her husband with a knife. 

Pursuant to a plea agreement, the respondent pleaded no contest to one count of making terroristic threats. The respondent 

maintained her innocence. We found that her felony conviction 

for a crime of violence damaged the reputation of the bar and 

threatened public confidence in the profession. We disbarred 

the respondent from the practice of law.

This case bears a number of similarities to Walz. Like the 

respondent in Walz, Argyrakis pleaded no contest to a felony 

crime of violence. And like the respondent in Walz, Argyrakis 

did not accept responsibility for his conviction.

15 State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Riskowski, 272 Neb. 781, 724 N.W.2d 813 

(2006).

16 Id.

17 Walz, supra note 1.
- 407 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

305 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. ARGYRAKIS

Cite as 305 Neb. 396

There are, to be sure, differences between this case and 

Walz. As Argyrakis points out, the respondent in Walz also 

had no prior disciplinary history, but we pointed out that she 

had been in practice for only about 6 months before the misconduct occurred. This is obviously entitled to less weight 

than Argyrakis’ over 25 years of practice without discipli

nary issues. In addition, there was explicit testimony from 

the respondent’s psychologist in Walz that she was not, at that 

time, fit to practice law. No similar testimony was offered in 

Argyrakis’ case.

But not all of the differences between this case and Walz

tilt in Argyrakis’ favor. As we have previously noted, the 

conviction in Walz was for making threats to use violence, 

while the conviction here involves actual physical violence 

on an elderly person. Further, the conviction in this case was 

for a Class IIIA felony, more serious than the Class IV felony 

in Walz. In addition, although both the respondent in Walz

and Argyrakis did not accept responsibility for their convictions, the respondent in Walz was found to be fully cooperative with the Counsel for Discipline. The same cannot be 

said for Argyrakis. Argyrakis failed to notify the Counsel for 

Discipline that he had entered a plea and been sentenced in 

his criminal case, despite the request to keep the Counsel for 

Discipline informed.

In sum, this case is highly similar to Walz and any differences that cut in favor of a less serious sanction are counterbalanced by differences that cut in the opposite direction.

Sanction.

In Walz, we observed that while we have not stated a 

“‘bright line rule,’” 18 our cases regarding the appropriate discipline for felony convictions have generally concluded that such 

convictions reflect adversely upon a lawyer’s fitness to practice 

law and that disbarment is the appropriate sanction. As in Walz, 

we believe it is necessary to convey the serious consequences 

18 Id. at 575, 869 N.W.2d at 77.
- 408 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

305 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. ARGYRAKIS

Cite as 305 Neb. 396

that attach to a conviction for a crime of violence. Such a conviction damages the reputation of the bar and threatens public 

confidence in the profession. For these reasons, we conclude, 

after considering the appropriate factors, that disbarment is the 

appropriate sanction in this case.

CONCLUSION

Argyrakis violated § 3-508.4(b) (misconduct) and his oath 

of office as an attorney. It is the judgment of this court that 

Argyrakis is disbarred from the practice of law in the State of 

Nebraska, effective immediately. He is directed to comply with 

Neb. Ct. R. § 3-316 (rev. 2014), and upon failure to do so, he 

shall be subject to punishment for contempt.

Judgment of disbarment.