Nebraska Advance Sheets

120 289 NEBRASKA REPORTS

State of Nebraska ex rel. Counsel for Discipline

of the Nebraska Supreme Court, relator, v. 

Keith A. Prettyman, respondent.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed September 19, 2014. No. S-14-462.

Original action. Judgment of suspension.

Heavican, C.J., Wright, Connolly, McCormack, MillerLerman, and Cassel, JJ.

Per Curiam.

INTRODUCTION

Keith A. Prettyman, respondent, was admitted to the practice of law in the State of Nebraska on July 2, 1976. At all 

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

in Lincoln, Nebraska. On May 22, 2014, the Counsel for 

Discipline of the Nebraska Supreme Court filed formal charges 

against respondent consisting of one count. 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. §§ 3-501.1 (competence), 3-501.3 (diligence), 3-501.4(a)(1) through (5) and (b) 

(communications), and 3-508.4(a) and (c) (misconduct).

On June 30, 2014, respondent filed a conditional admission 

pursuant to Neb. Ct. R. § 3-313 of the disciplinary rules, in 

which he conditionally admitted that he violated his oath of 

office as an attorney and conduct rules §§ 3-501.1, 3-501.3, 

3-501.4(a)(1) through (5) and (b), and 3-508.4(a) and (c). In 

the conditional admission, respondent 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 2-year suspension.

The proposed conditional admission included a declaration 

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

for a 2-year suspension is appropriate.

Upon due consideration, we approve the conditional admission and order that respondent be suspended from the practice 

of law for a period of 2 years.
Nebraska Advance Sheets

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. PRETTYMAN 121

Cite as 289 Neb. 120

FACTS

The formal charges state that at all times relevant to these 

proceedings, respondent served as outside counsel for Swanson 

Russell Associates (Swanson Russell). The one count contained 

in the formal charges stem from respondent’s representation of 

Swanson Russell.

In November 2009, an I-129 “Petition for Nonimmigrant 

Worker” status was filed with the U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services by someone other than respondent on 

behalf of an individual who was a citizen and national of 

Indonesia (individual). The purpose of filing the I-129 petition 

was to classify the individual as a nonimmigrant worker in a 

specialty occupation. The petition was approved on January 

13, 2010, and it provided a change of the individual’s status 

to H-1B status so that the individual could work for a certain 

employer in Lincoln. The individual’s H-1B status was good 

until November 14, 2012. However, the individual’s initial 

employer went out of business later in 2010.

In 2010, Swanson Russell wished to hire the individual. 

Swanson Russell contacted respondent, who agreed to represent Swanson Russell to ensure that the individual could 

legally work for Swanson Russell and maintain his correct 

status as a nonimmigrant worker. Respondent had not previously handled this type of immigration matter. The formal 

charges state that respondent failed to educate himself so that 

he could competently handle Swanson Russell’s legal matter, 

and respondent failed to consult with a lawyer of established 

competence in the field.

In order for the individual to be legally employed by 

Swanson Russell, a new I-129 petition needed to be filed. 

Beginning in late 2010, respondent falsely informed Swanson 

Russell that he had filed the I-129 petition on behalf of the 

individual. Respondent’s untruthfulness regarding the filing of 

the I-129 petition continued through July 2013.

In August 2013, Swanson Russell hired an immigration 

attorney to determine what could be done to complete the 

processing of the individual’s I-129 petition. The immigration attorney discovered that respondent had not timely 

filed the I-129 petition and had repeatedly lied to Swanson 
Nebraska Advance Sheets

122 289 NEBRASKA REPORTS

Russell about the matter. As a result of respondent’s failure 

to competently handle the matter, it was necessary that the 

individual return to Indonesia in order to avoid additional 

legal difficulties.

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 §§ 3-501.1, 3-501.3, 

3-501.4(a)(1) through (5) and (b), and 3-508.4(a) and (c).

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 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 §§ 3-501.1, 3-501.3, 3-501.4(a)(1) through (5) and 

(b), and 3-508.4(a) and (c), and his oath of office as an 

attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Nebraska. 

Respondent has waived all additional proceedings against him 
Nebraska Advance Sheets

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. PRETTYMAN 123

Cite as 289 Neb. 120

in connection herewith. Upon due consideration, the court 

approves the conditional admission and enters the orders as 

indicated below.

CONCLUSION

Respondent is suspended from the practice of law for a 

period of 2 years, effective immediately. Respondent shall 

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. Respondent is also 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) and 3-323(B) of the disciplinary rules within 60 days after the order imposing costs and 

expenses, if any, is entered by the court.

Judgment of suspension.

Stephan, J., not participating.