- 251 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. NELSON

Cite as 311 Neb. 251

State of Nebraska ex rel. Counsel for Discipline 

of the Nebraska Supreme Court, relator, 

v. Patrick J. Nelson, respondent.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed March 25, 2022. No. S-21-475.

1. Disciplinary Proceedings. 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.

2. ____. 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.

3. ____. Ordinarily, cumulative acts of attorney misconduct and repeated 

disregard of requests for information from the Counsel for Discipline 

will appropriately lead to disbarment.

4. ____. Responding to disciplinary complaints in an untimely manner 

and repeatedly ignoring requests for information from the Counsel for 

Discipline of the Nebraska Supreme Court indicate a disrespect for the 

Supreme Court’s disciplinary jurisdiction and a lack of concern for protecting the public, the profession, and the administration of justice.

5. ____. For purposes of determining the proper discipline of an attorney, 

the Nebraska Supreme Court considers the attorney’s acts, both underlying the events of the case and throughout the proceeding, as well as any 

aggravating or mitigating factors.

6. ____. Responding to inquiries and requests for information from the 

Counsel for Discipline is an important matter, and an attorney’s cooperation with the discipline process is fundamental to the credibility of attorney disciplinary proceedings.

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

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

04/01/2022 09:07 AM CDT
- 252 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. NELSON

Cite as 311 Neb. 251

7. ____. An attorney’s continuing to practice law contrary to a temporary 

suspension order is an independent basis for disbarment from the practice of law.

8. ____. The purpose of a disciplinary proceeding against an attorney is not 

so much to punish the attorney as it is to determine whether it is in the 

public interest that an attorney be permitted to practice, which question 

includes considerations of the protection of the public.

9. ____. Ordinarily, indefinite suspension of an attorney’s license to practice law is not consistent with the Nebraska Supreme Court’s duty to 

protect the public.

Original action. Judgment of disbarment.

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

Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.

Per Curiam.

INTRODUCTION

On June 13, 2018, attorney Patrick J. Nelson was administratively suspended from the practice of law for his failure to 

satisfy continuing education reporting requirements. He was 

reinstated on December 7. During the period of his suspension, Nelson was the counsel of record for several clients, but 

failed to inform the court and clients that he was suspended. 

As a result, on July 11, 2019, Nelson received a private reprimand as discipline. Subsequently, the Counsel for Discipline 

of the Nebraska Supreme Court brought this action, and Nelson 

did not file an answer or otherwise participate in these proceedings. We granted the Counsel for Discipline’s unopposed 

motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the facts and 

reserved the issue of the appropriate sanction. We now order 

that Nelson be disbarred.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The facts alleged in the formal charges are uncontested by 

Nelson. Nelson was admitted to the practice of law in the State 

of Nebraska on July 2, 1976. He engaged in the private practice of law in Kearney, Nebraska, and is under the jurisdiction 

of the Committee on Inquiry of the Sixth Judicial District. 
- 253 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. NELSON

Cite as 311 Neb. 251

Pursuant to Neb. Ct. R. § 3-309(H) (rev. 2011), the allegations drafted by the Counsel for Discipline were reviewed by 

the Committee on Inquiry of the Sixth Judicial District, which 

determined that there are reasonable grounds for discipline of 

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

As background within the narrative of the formal charges, 

it was stated that on June 13, 2018, pursuant to Neb. Ct. R. 

§ 3-401.11(D) (rev. 2017), we suspended Nelson from the 

practice of law because he had failed to satisfy the mandatory 

continuing legal education reporting requirements for 2017. 

Notice was sent by regular mail to Nelson’s business address. 

Later that year, on December 7, 2018, we reinstated Nelson’s 

license to practice law.

On June 10, 2021, formal charges were filed. The formal 

charges give rise to this current disciplinary proceeding and 

consist of five counts concerning cases in which Nelson was 

the counsel of record during the period of his suspension.

Count I.

The first count alleges that Nelson was responsible for 

“Trampe Bros. L.L. C. vs. Charity Field Farm, Inc.,” in the 

district court for Phelps County, Nebraska, originally filed in 

January 2016. The case involved a boundary dispute arising 

from the changing riverbed of the Platte River. The defendants 

filed an answer through counsel, and the matter was vigorously 

pursued in court. On November 16, 2017, the defendant’s 

counsel filed a motion to strike all pleadings filed by Nelson 

on the basis that he signed pleadings as “‘The Law Office of 

Patrick J. Nelson, L.L.C.,’” when, in fact, his limited liability company had been dissolved by the Secretary of State in 

June 2015. Nelson did not contest the motion to strike. On 

February 8, 2018, Nelson filed a dismissal of the case without 

prejudice. On March 7, Nelson refiled Todd Trampe’s case. 

The defendant filed its answer, but Nelson filed no further 

pleadings. When Nelson’s law license was administratively 
- 254 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. NELSON

Cite as 311 Neb. 251

suspended on July 13, he did not inform Trampe or the court 

that his license was suspended. Subsequently, Trampe’s case 

was dismissed for failure to progress the case. When Trampe 

contacted Nelson concerning the case dismissal, Nelson sent 

him a letter on September 25, stating that “‘[a]s a result of 

my miss-calendering (sic) the matter in connection with the 

court’s show cause deadline, we will re-file the case.’” Nelson 

did not inform Trampe that his license had been suspended. 

After Nelson’s license was reinstated in December, he did not 

refile Trampe’s case or inform Trampe that he was not going 

to refile the case.

Although Nelson was the attorney of record in the case, 

he failed to inform the court of his suspension and failed to 

withdraw as counsel. On August 6, 2020, Trampe filed a grievance with the Counsel for Discipline, alleging that Nelson had 

neglected his case and had not kept him informed about the 

status of his case. Nelson did not respond to numerous requests 

by the Counsel for Discipline informing him of the grievance 

and requesting his response. To date, Nelson has not responded 

to the Counsel for Discipline regarding this matter.

Count II.

When Nelson’s license was suspended on June 13, 2018, 

he was representing the personal representative for the estate 

of Betty Dorothy in the county court for Buffalo County, 

Nebraska. Although Nelson was attorney of record in the case, 

he failed to inform the court of his suspension and failed to 

withdraw in the case.

After Nelson’s license was reinstated on December 7, 2018, 

he continued his representation in the Dorothy estate case; 

however, by August 2019, Nelson failed to take any further 

actions in the case. Nelson failed to file an inventory as 

directed by the court, and he did not communicate with his 

client regarding the case. On November 7, 2019, the county 

court issued an order directing Nelson to appear in court on 

December 10. Nelson failed to appear in court. The personal 
- 255 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. NELSON

Cite as 311 Neb. 251

representative subsequently hired new counsel. As a result of 

Nelson’s neglect, the estate was assessed $7,415.81 in penalties 

and interest for the late payment of the inheritance tax.

Count III.

When Nelson’s license was suspended on June 13, 2018, he 

was representing the personal representative for the estate of 

Neal Maloley in the county court for Buffalo County. Although 

Nelson was attorney of record in the case, he failed to inform 

the court of his suspension and failed to withdraw as counsel.

After Nelson’s license was reinstated on December 7, 2018, 

he continued his representation in the Maloley estate case; 

however, by May 2020, Nelson failed to take any further 

actions in the case. As a result of Nelson’s neglect of the case, 

the personal representative hired new counsel on or about 

May 28.

Count IV.

When Nelson’s license was suspended on June 13, 2018, 

he was representing the personal representative for the estate 

of Janet Altmaier in the county court for Buffalo County. 

Although Nelson was attorney of record in the case, he failed 

to inform the court of his suspension and failed to withdraw 

as counsel.

After Nelson’s license was reinstated on December 7, 2018, 

he continued his representation in the Altmaier estate case; 

however, by February 2020, Nelson failed to take any further 

actions in the case. As a result of Nelson’s neglect of the case, 

the personal representative hired new counsel on or about 

February 20. As a result of Nelson’s neglect, the estate was 

assessed $11,409.18 in penalties and interest for the late payment of the inheritance tax.

Count V.

Prior to the suspension of Nelson’s license on June 13, 2018, 

on November 21, 2017, Nelson had filed an “Application for 

Informal Probate of Will” in the estate of Emma Kring in 
- 256 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. NELSON

Cite as 311 Neb. 251

the county court for Kearney County, Nebraska. Nelson was 

representing the personal representative for the estate of Kring. 

Despite a May 11, 2018, letter to Nelson from the clerk magistrate of the Kearney County Court informing him that an 

inventory needed to be filed in the Kring estate by June 11, no 

inventory was timely filed. On July 13, the county court issued 

an order to show cause, because the inventory had not been 

filed. Nelson prepared the inventory and filed it on August 2. 

On November 15, the court entered an order stating that the 

Kring estate case would be closed in 60 days if nothing was 

filed in the case. Although Nelson’s license was reinstated on 

December 7, he took no further action in the Kring estate case. 

On March 1, 2019, the case was dismissed by the court.

Procedural History.

Formal charges were filed on June 10, 2021, and Nelson 

did not file an answer. On August 27, we granted the Counsel 

for Discipline’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to 

the facts, finding that Nelson violated his oath of office as an 

attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Nebraska as 

provided by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 7-104 (Reissue 2012) and several provisions of the Nebraska Rules of Professional Conduct. 

With respect to counts I through V, Nelson violated Neb. Ct. R. 

of Prof. Cond. §§ 3-501.1 (rev. 2017) (competence), 3-501.3 

(diligence), 3-501.4 (client communications), and 3-508.4(a) 

and (d) (rev. 2016) (misconduct). With respect to count I, 

Nelson violated Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. § 3-508.1 (failure to 

respond to disciplinary authority). The parties were directed to 

file briefs on the issue of discipline. The Counsel for Discipline 

seeks either disbarment or indefinite suspension. Nelson did 

not file a brief.

The only question before this court is the appropriate 

discipline.

ANALYSIS

Because Nelson did not answer the formal charges, this 

court granted the Counsel for Discipline’s motion for judgment 
- 257 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. NELSON

Cite as 311 Neb. 251

on the pleadings as to the facts. Having concluded that Nelson 

violated the Nebraska Rules of Professional Conduct and his 

oath of office as an attorney, see § 7-104, we must determine 

the appropriate sanction.

[1] Violation of a disciplinary rule concerning the practice of 

law is a ground for discipline. State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. 

Birch, 309 Neb. 79, 957 N.W.2d 923 (2021). 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 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.

See, also, Neb. Ct. R. § 3-310(N) (rev. 2019).

[2] 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 the respondent generally, and (6) the respondent’s present or future fitness to continue in the practice of law. 

State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Birch, supra.

[3,4] Ordinarily, cumulative acts of attorney misconduct 

and repeated disregard of requests for information from the 

Counsel for Discipline will appropriately lead to disbarment. 

State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Sutton, 269 Neb. 640, 694 
- 258 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. NELSON

Cite as 311 Neb. 251

N.W.2d 647 (2005). Responding to disciplinary complaints 

in an untimely manner and repeatedly ignoring requests for 

information from the Counsel for Discipline of the Nebraska 

Supreme Court indicate a disrespect for our disciplinary jurisdiction and a lack of concern for protecting the public, the 

profession, and the administration of justice. Id.

[5] With respect to the imposition of attorney discipline, 

each attorney discipline case must be evaluated in light of its 

particular facts and circumstances. See State ex rel. Counsel 

for Dis. v. Birch, supra. For purposes of determining the proper 

discipline of an attorney, we consider the attorney’s acts, both 

underlying the events of the case and throughout the proceeding, as well as any aggravating or mitigating factors. Id.

The Counsel for Discipline argues that Nelson’s acts and 

omissions set forth in the formal charges violated his oath 

of office as an attorney licensed to practice law in the State 

of Nebraska as provided by § 7-104, as well as the following Nebraska Rules of Professional Conduct: §§ 3-501.1 

(competence), 3-501.3 (diligence), 3-501.4 (client communications), 3-508.1 (failure to respond to disciplinary authority), and 3-508.4(a) and (d) (misconduct). The Counsel for 

Discipline contends that disbarment or indefinite suspension 

is the appropriate sanction because of the harm Nelson caused 

to his clients, his continued violation of the disciplinary rules 

after his prior suspension in 2018, and his failure to respond 

to inquiries from the Counsel for Discipline regarding his clients’ grievances.

As aggravating factors, the Counsel for Discipline notes that 

Nelson has previously been disciplined; in particular, he was 

suspended for nearly 6 months after he failed to satisfy the 

mandatory continuing legal education reporting requirements 

for 2017. During the period of that suspension, he failed to 

inform the courts of his suspension and failed to withdraw as 

counsel in the five cases encompassed by the formal charges.

The facts established by our order granting judgment on the 

pleadings show that Nelson violated the disciplinary rules in 
- 259 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. NELSON

Cite as 311 Neb. 251

five separate incidents involving noncompliance and lack of 

communication with clients and with the courts. During these 

proceedings, Nelson has failed, and continues to fail, to comply 

with efforts by the Counsel for Discipline to investigate the 

grievances. 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. Samuelson, 280 Neb. 125, 783 N.W.2d 779 (2010) 

(disbarring attorney who abandoned legal matters of his clients 

and mismanaged their funds).

As aggravating factors, the facts show that because of 

Nelson’s neglect, each of the clients identified above was left 

without counsel and several clients suffered financial consequences as a result. Nelson’s neglect caused the estate of 

Dorothy and the estate of Altmaier to be assessed $7,415.81 

and $11,409.18, respectively, in penalties and interest. Nelson’s 

neglect of the Trampe case and the Kring estate case caused 

them to be dismissed.

[6] We are unable to acknowledge mitigating factors because 

we lack any record on the question. We are troubled by 

Nelson’s failure to respond to the Counsel for Discipline. In 

the present disciplinary process, Nelson has failed to correspond with the Counsel for Discipline, 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 

the Counsel for Discipline 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, 298 Neb. 203, 903 N.W.2d 259 

(2017); State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Tonderum, 286 Neb. 

942, 840 N.W.2d 487 (2013). By failing to file an answer to 

the formal charges, Nelson missed the opportunity to enlighten 

us about the existence of any mitigating factors, as well as his 

current or future fitness to practice law. Failing to participate 
- 260 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. NELSON

Cite as 311 Neb. 251

in the disciplinary process is a very serious matter. State ex 

rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Gast, supra. We have stated that an 

attorney’s unwillingness or inability to respond to the charges 

“indicate[s] a disrespect for the court’s disciplinary jurisdiction.” State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Samuelson, 280 Neb. at 

129, 783 N.W.2d at 783.

[7] We have disbarred attorneys who have repeatedly 

neglected clients’ matters. See, e.g., State ex rel. Counsel for 

Dis. v. Samuelson, supra (disbarring attorney who abandoned 

legal matters of his clients and mismanaged their funds); State 

ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Coe, 271 Neb. 319, 710 N.W.2d 

863 (2006) (disbarring attorney who neglected five cases and 

stopped participating in disciplinary proceedings); State ex 

rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Hart, 270 Neb. 768, 708 N.W.2d 606 

(2005) (disbarring attorney who had a pattern of neglecting 

client matters and failed to communicate with the Counsel for 

Discipline). We have also found that an attorney’s continuing 

to practice law contrary to a temporary suspension order is 

an independent basis for disbarment from the practice of law. 

State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Villarreal, 267 Neb. 353, 673 

N.W.2d 889 (2004).

[8] The purpose of a disciplinary proceeding against an 

attorney is not so much to punish the attorney as it is to determine whether it is in the public interest that an attorney be 

permitted to practice, which question includes considerations 

of the protection of the public. State v. Jorgenson, 302 Neb. 

188, 922 N.W.2d 753 (2019). Nelson’s violations negatively 

affected legal proceedings on behalf of at least five clients, 

and they undermine the public’s confidence in the bar and its 

members to be dependable and capable in the representation 

of clients.

[9] We are aware that in the past we have occasionally 

imposed an indefinite suspension on attorneys who had violated the disciplinary rules or failed to communicate with 

the Counsel for Discipline and this court. See, e.g., State

ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Tighe, 295 Neb. 30, 886 N.W.2d 
- 261 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. NELSON

Cite as 311 Neb. 251

530 (2016). Ordinarily, indefinite suspension of an attorney’s 

license to practice law is not consistent with our duty to protect 

the public.

We are without knowledge of mitigating circumstances 

which would give us an opportunity to assess Nelson’s future 

ability to practice law. In view of the facts that have been 

established—Nelson’s prior discipline and his silence in connection with the current matter—the sanction of disbarment in 

this case falls squarely within the principles we have recited 

above. We therefore determine that the appropriate discipline 

in this matter is disbarment.

CONCLUSION

It is the judgment of this court that Nelson be disbarred 

from the practice of law in the State of Nebraska effective 

immediately. Nelson 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 of this court. Nelson is further 

directed to pay costs and expenses in accordance with Neb. 

Rev. Stat. §§ 7-114 and 7-115 (Reissue 2012), § 3-310(P), and 

Neb. Ct. R. § 3-323 within 60 days after an order imposing 

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

Judgment of disbarment.