Nebraska Advance Sheets

IN RE APPLICATION OF COLLINS 519

Cite as 288 Neb. 519

NPPD’s subordination agreements did not affect NPPD’s right 

to demand the water from other users.

The majority opinion rejects the junior appropriators’ argument that permitting NPPD to demand the water from them 

constituted a recovery of both money and water for loss of the 

same appropriation right. It reasons that if a “junior appropriator is allowed to use water because of a subordination agreement, the senior appropriator is not receiving that to which it 

is otherwise entitled.” I disagree. This reasoning is contrary to 

the election of remedies doctrine. An appropriator can enforce 

an appropriation right or a contract to compensate it for the use 

of its water, but it is not entitled to a double recovery for the 

same loss.11

Clearly, a senior appropriator cannot demand water from 

a junior appropriator which has paid compensation for the 

water’s use.12 But application of the election of remedies doctrine may require other considerations in the context of water 

law. Because the director did not decide this issue, I would 

remand the cause for further consideration of the evidence 

to determine the effect of the subordination agreements on 

NPPD’s right to demand water from the junior appropriators.

11 See Genetti v. Caterpillar, Inc., 261 Neb. 98, 621 N.W.2d 529 (2001).

12 See Clear Springs Foods, Inc. v. Spackman, 150 Idaho 790, 252 P.3d 71 

(2011).

In re Application of Loretta D. Collins for

Admission to the Nebraska State Bar.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed July 11, 2014. No. S-13-1020.

1. Rules of the Supreme Court: Attorneys at Law: Appeal and Error. Under 

Neb. Ct. R. § 3-126 (rev. 2013), the Nebraska Supreme Court considers the 

appeal of an applicant from a final ruling of the Nebraska State Bar Commission 

de novo on the record made at the hearing before the commission.

2. Rules of the Supreme Court: Attorneys at Law. The Nebraska Supreme Court 

is vested with the sole power to admit persons to the practice of law in this state 

and to fix qualifications for admission to the Nebraska bar.
Nebraska Advance Sheets

520 288 NEBRASKA REPORTS

3. ____: ____. The Nebraska Supreme Court has delegated administrative responsibility for bar admissions solely to the Nebraska State Bar Commission.

4. Attorneys at Law: Proof. The applicant for admission to the Nebraska State Bar 

bears the burden of proving good character by producing documentation, reports, 

and witnesses in support of the application.

5. Attorneys at Law. Where the record of an applicant for admission to the 

Nebraska State Bar demonstrates a significant lack of honesty, trustworthiness, 

diligence, or reliability, a basis may exist for denying his or her application.

6. Attorneys at Law: Disciplinary Proceedings. Standing alone, a disciplinary 

reprimand is not a determination that a lawyer lacks the requisite character and 

fitness to continue practicing law.

7. Courts: Jurisdiction: Attorneys at Law. While the Nebraska Supreme Court is 

not bound by character and fitness determinations of other jurisdictions, it may 

consider them in assessing the qualifications of an applicant for admission to the 

Nebraska State Bar.

Original action. Application granted.

Robert B. Creager, of Anderson, Creager & Wittstruck, P.C., 

L.L.O., for applicant.

Loretta D. Collins, pro se.

Jon Bruning, Attorney General, Stephanie Caldwell, and 

Christopher J. Preston, Senior Certified Law Student, for 

Nebraska State Bar Association.

Heavican, C.J., Wright, Connolly, Stephan, McCormack, 

Miller-Lerman, and Cassel, JJ.

Per Curiam.

Our rules permit a lawyer to be admitted to practice in 

Nebraska without taking the bar examination if the lawyer 

has attained educational qualifications at least equal to those 

required for applicants for admission by examination, is 

licensed and in good standing in the practice of law in another 

state, and has been actively and substantially engaged in the 

practice of law in another jurisdiction for 5 of the 7 years preceding the application.1

 Persons seeking admission in this way 

are classified as “Class 1-B applicants.”2

1 Neb. Ct. R. § 3-119(B) (rev. 2013).

2 Id.
Nebraska Advance Sheets

IN RE APPLICATION OF COLLINS 521

Cite as 288 Neb. 519

Loretta Collins is a lawyer admitted to practice and in good 

standing in Alabama and Colorado. She moved for admission in Nebraska as a Class 1-B applicant, but the Nebraska 

State Bar Commission (Commission) rejected her application, 

finding she lacked the requisite character and fitness. Collins 

appeals from the Commission’s decision.

I. FACTS

Collins was honorably discharged from the U.S. Navy after 

approximately 8 years of active duty. She has been licensed 

to practice law in Alabama since September 2000 and in 

Colorado since August 2008. She is in good standing in both 

states. She applied for admission to the Nebraska bar in 2013, 

and after reviewing her application and supporting documents, 

the Commission denied admission due to a lack of acceptable character and fitness. Collins appealed that decision, and 

an evidentiary hearing was held before the Commission. The 

Commission then affirmed its decision, and Collins filed this 

timely appeal.

1. Disciplinary Record

Collins has no disciplinary record in Colorado. However, 

between September 29, 2000, and March 22, 2013, five disciplinary complaints were filed against her in Alabama.

(a) Dismissed Complaints

Three of the complaints were investigated by the Alabama 

Disciplinary Commission (Alabama Commission) and 

“screened out” with no action taken. These complaints were 

filed on February 7, 2011; September 21, 2009; and January 

16, 2004.

The February 2011 complaint arose when the Alabama 

Commission received notice from Collins’ bank that a check 

had been written against her trust account and that the account 

lacked sufficient funds to cover the check. When contacted 

by the Alabama Commission, Collins discovered there had 

been an accounting error and remedied the account. The 

Alabama Commission took no further action on the complaint. 

Collins did not disclose this complaint and investigation on 

her application to be admitted to the Nebraska bar. When 
Nebraska Advance Sheets

522 288 NEBRASKA REPORTS

questioned by the Commission, she stated she had forgotten 

about the complaint.

The September 2009 complaint was filed by a former client 

and related to the estate of the client’s mother. It was investigated and then “screened out” by the Alabama Commission 

without further action. Collins did not disclose this complaint 

and investigation on her application to be admitted to the 

Nebraska bar. When questioned by the Commission, she stated 

she had forgotten about the complaint.

The January 2004 complaint involved a client’s dissatisfaction with services provided by Collins. It was investigated by 

the Alabama Commission, and no further action was taken. 

Collins disclosed this complaint and investigation on her application to be admitted to the Nebraska bar.

(b) Complaints Resulting 

in Discipline

(i) Public Reprimand

The remaining two Alabama complaints resulted in disciplinary action against Collins. She disclosed both actions on 

her application to be admitted to the Nebraska bar.

The first resulted in a public reprimand and was based on 

facts that occurred in 2003-04. Sometime around July 2003, 

Collins agreed to represent Maria Oravec, an elderly woman, 

in an estate matter. Collins agreed to accept a $6,000 retainer 

and to bill at $150 per hour thereafter. Based on Collins’ 

hourly bills, Oravec paid Collins the $6,000 plus an additional 

$3,750. In February 2004, Oravec terminated Collins’ services. Almost immediately thereafter, Collins liquidated one 

of Oravec’s investment accounts and deducted a $50,000 fee. 

Oravec and her new counsel discovered the withdrawal and 

sued for malpractice.

Collins maintained that in January or February 2004, the 

parties had renegotiated her fee to a flat $50,000, which would 

be due once the estate was closed. It is undisputed that her 

new agreement was not in writing. Collins maintained that 

when Oravec terminated her services, Collins contacted the 

Alabama Commission, explained the situation, and was advised 

to deduct the $50,000 fee from the estate and then withdraw. 
Nebraska Advance Sheets

IN RE APPLICATION OF COLLINS 523

Cite as 288 Neb. 519

Oravec denied agreeing to the $50,000 payment, and whether 

the Alabama Commission in fact so advised Collins is unclear 

from the record.

Oravec’s new attorney testified before the Alabama 

Commission that Collins had performed very little work on the 

estate, that it was not a difficult estate, and that he would have 

charged Oravec approximately $2,000 total for the necessary 

legal work. The Alabama Commission found the fees Collins 

charged Oravec were clearly excessive and publicly reprimanded her. In its report and order entered after the disciplinary hearing, the Alabama Commission found that Collins 

acted with a “[d]ishonest or selfish motive” and that she 

refused to “acknowledge [the] wrongful nature of [her] conduct.” Oravec also filed a separate action against Collins for 

malpractice. The malpractice action was settled when Collins 

agreed to pay $25,000 to Oravec.

(ii) Private Reprimand

On January 24, 2008, Collins’ client entered into a lien 

assignment with a chiropractor related to treatment received 

by the client. The lien was for approximately $9,000. Collins 

settled her client’s case for $3,500 and then attempted to get 

the chiropractor to agree to accept a lesser amount in satisfaction of the lien, but the chiropractor refused. Nevertheless, 

Collins paid the full $3,500 to the client. The chiropractor filed 

a complaint with the Alabama Commission, and Collins admitted she failed to honor the lien and eventually paid the chiropractor $2,500 from her own pocket. On February 14, 2013, 

the Alabama Commission accepted her conditional guilty plea 

and issued a private reprimand.

2. Credit and Criminal Record

Collins listed three “DEBTS: Defaults; Past Due; 

Revocations” on her Nebraska bar application. But when the 

Commission reviewed her credit history, it found 14 accounts 

with negative history, including six delinquent filings, seven 

collection actions, and one “charge off.” Collins was asked by 

letter to “explain the omission of this information and explain 

the circumstances surrounding each of the negative credit 
Nebraska Advance Sheets

524 288 NEBRASKA REPORTS

history” occurrences. She responded by letter with documentation explaining each of the accounts and that they either 

had been discharged or were current, but did not explain why 

the information was omitted from her application. During her 

hearing before the Commission, she stated that her failure 

to address the omissions “must have been an oversight” and 

explained that she filled out her application by utilizing a 

credit report and that the additional negative accounts were 

not on that report. Collins’ credit history demonstrates she has 

had a credit card or charge account revoked and that she has 

defaulted on a student loan.

Her criminal history shows she was fined for not paying 

an occupational license in 2005 and was acquitted of criminal 

harassment charges brought against her by a former client in 

2006. She did not disclose the fine to the Commission. When 

questioned about it, she stated she was unaware the fine qualified as a crime.

3. Bar Commission Findings

After reviewing Collins’ application, the Commission had 

Collins appear before it for an interview. On September 10, 

2013, the Commission voted to deny her application based on 

a lack of acceptable character and fitness. Collins appealed, 

and a hearing on her appeal was held on October 18. The 

Commission affirmed its decision to deny admission, and 

Collins filed this timely appeal.

II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

Collins assigns, restated and summarized, that the 

Commission erred when it determined she did not have the 

present requisite character and fitness for admission to the 

Nebraska Bar.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1] Under Neb. Ct. R. § 3-126 (rev. 2013), the Nebraska 

Supreme Court considers the appeal of an applicant from a 

final ruling of the Commission de novo on the record made at 

the hearing before the Commission.3

3 See In re Application of Hartmann, 276 Neb. 775, 757 N.W.2d 355 (2008).
Nebraska Advance Sheets

IN RE APPLICATION OF COLLINS 525

Cite as 288 Neb. 519

IV. ANALYSIS

[2,3] This court is vested with the sole power to admit persons to the practice of law in this state and to fix qualifications 

for admission to the Nebraska bar.4 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 7-102(1) 

(Reissue 2012) provides: “No person shall be admitted . . . 

unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the Supreme Court that 

such person is of good moral character.” This court has delegated administrative responsibility for bar admissions solely 

to the Commission.5

The standards for conduct and fitness against which all 

applicants are measured are set out in Neb. Ct. R. § 3-112 (rev. 

2013). As applicable to this case, § 3-112 provides:

In addition to the admission requirements otherwise established by these rules, the essential eligibility 

requirements for admission to the practice of law in 

Nebraska are:

(A) the ability to conduct oneself with a high degree 

of honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness in all professional relationships and with respect to all legal 

obligations;

. . . .

(C) the ability to conduct oneself with respect for and 

in accordance with the law and the Nebraska Rules of 

Professional Conduct;

. . . .

(F) the ability to exercise good judgment in conducting 

one’s professional business;

. . . .

(H) the ability to use honesty and good judgment in 

financial dealings on behalf of oneself, clients, and others; [and]

. . . .

(J) the ability to conduct oneself professionally and 

in a manner that engenders respect for the law and the 

profession.

4 Id.

5 Id.
Nebraska Advance Sheets

526 288 NEBRASKA REPORTS

Neb. Ct. R. § 3-116(A) (rev. 2013) further clarifies the character and fitness standards and states in part:

The purpose of character and fitness screening before 

admission to the practice of law in Nebraska is to ensure 

the protection of the public and to safeguard the justice 

system. The attorney licensing practice is incomplete if 

only testing for minimal competence is undertaken. The 

public is adequately protected only by a system that evaluates character and fitness as those elements relate to the 

practice of law. The public interest requires that the public 

be secure in its expectation that those who are admitted to 

the practice of law are worthy of the trust and confidence 

clients may reasonably place in their attorneys.

[4,5] The applicant for admission to the Nebraska State 

Bar bears the burden of proving good character by producing 

documentation, reports, and witnesses in support of the application.6

 Where the record of an applicant for admission to the 

bar demonstrates a significant lack of honesty, trustworthiness, 

diligence, or reliability, a basis may exist for denying his or 

her application.7 Our character and fitness standards list the relevant conduct that may be treated as cause for further inquiry 

before the Commission decides whether an applicant possesses 

the character and fitness to practice law.8 As relevant here, that 

conduct includes:

(1) misconduct in employment;

(2) acts involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 

misrepresentation;

. . . .

(4) neglect of financial responsibilities;

(5) neglect of professional obligations;

. . . .

(10) disciplinary action by an attorney disciplinary 

agency or other professional disciplinary agency of any 

jurisdiction . . . ; or

6 Id.

7 Id.

8 § 3-116(F).
Nebraska Advance Sheets

IN RE APPLICATION OF COLLINS 527

Cite as 288 Neb. 519

(11) citation, arrest, charge, or conviction for any criminal offense.9

When there is evidence that an applicant has engaged in any 

such conduct, the Commission decides whether present character and fitness to practice law in Nebraska exists.10 In doing 

so, it weighs the significance of the prior conduct against the 

following factors:

(1) the applicant’s age at the time of the conduct;

(2) the recency of the conduct;

(3) the reliability of the information concerning the 

conduct;

(4) the factors underlying the conduct;

(5) the seriousness of the conduct;

(6) the cumulative effect of the conduct or information;

(7) the evidence of rehabilitation;

(8) the applicant’s positive social contributions since 

the conduct;

(9) the applicant’s candor in the admissions process; 

and

(10) the materiality of any omissions or representations.11

Our task in this case is to review de novo the Commission’s 

finding that Collins lacks the requisite character and fitness 

to be admitted to the Nebraska bar. Collins asserts that she is 

a Navy veteran and that she is licensed in good standing in 

both Alabama and Colorado. She further asserts that all of the 

conduct underlying her disciplinary actions occurred at least 2 

years ago and that the omissions regarding her prior disciplinary record and her credit history were completely inadvertent 

and largely immaterial to the issue of her character and fitness. 

She contends that she simply forgot about the prior disciplinary complaints. She also relies on letters of recommendation 

from former clients and character references that were submitted with her application.

9 Id.

10 § 3-116(G).

11 Id.
Nebraska Advance Sheets

528 288 NEBRASKA REPORTS

The Commission, on the other hand, argues the record 

does not demonstrate present character and fitness to practice law. It relies particularly on Collins’ failure to disclose 

the two prior disciplinary complaints and the 11 additional 

instances of negative credit history. It also argues that the factual circumstances underlying Collins’ public reprimand for 

taking the $50,000 excessive fee and her private reprimand 

for refusing to honor the lien indicate she is of questionable 

professional character. The Commission further argues that 

her significant financial issues and the evidence of rather substantial debt negatively reflects on her character and fitness to 

practice law.

[6,7] Standing alone, a disciplinary reprimand is not a determination that a lawyer lacks the requisite character and fitness 

to continue practicing law. It is the least severe of the sanctions which may be assessed for an attorney’s misconduct.12

And, unlike suspension and disbarment, a reprimand does 

not curtail or extinguish a lawyer’s right to practice. Multiple 

reprimands are, of course, cause for greater concern. But the 

fact that Collins remains licensed to practice in Alabama, the 

jurisdiction which issued the reprimands, is indicative of that 

State’s assessment of her character and fitness to practice law. 

Likewise, her admission and good standing in Colorado indicate that the licensing authority of that State has deemed her 

character and fitness to be sufficient. While we are not bound 

by character and fitness determinations of other jurisdictions, 

we may consider them in assessing the qualifications of an 

applicant for admission to the Nebraska State Bar. Based upon 

our review of the record with respect to the Alabama reprimands received by Collins, we determine that they are insufficient to establish that Collins lacks the requisite character and 

fitness to practice law in Nebraska.

The Commission primarily argues that Collins’ lack of 

candor on her application about her disciplinary history in 

Alabama and her financial and criminal history should preclude her admission in Nebraska. In this regard, we have 

held that an applicant who recklessly fills out an application, 

12 See Neb. Ct. R. § 3-304.
Nebraska Advance Sheets

IN RE APPLICATION OF COLLINS 529

Cite as 288 Neb. 519

as the consequence of which the application contains false 

answers, is just as culpable of lacking in candor in the application process as is the applicant who intends to deceive the 

Commission.13 Collins acknowledges that there were mistakes 

on her application, but contends they were honest mistakes. 

We note that she did disclose four disciplinary complaints 

in Alabama, but that two of these were duplicative. Two 

of the five complaints in Alabama were not disclosed. The 

undisclosed complaints did not result in discipline. Collins 

explained that she relied on a credit report in disclosing 

her negative credit history and that she did not disclose her 

fine for failure to pay an occupation tax because she did not 

understand that it was a criminal infraction. While we do not 

condone these inaccuracies in Collins’ application, we are 

willing to accept Collins’ explanations and conclude that they 

are not indicative of reckless behavior which would preclude 

her admission in Nebraska.

In sum, we determine on the basis of our de novo review that 

Collins possesses sufficient character and fitness for admission 

to the Nebraska bar. But we note that Collins’ disciplinary 

record in Alabama will become a part of her disciplinary record 

in Nebraska, which may be considered by this court in any 

future disciplinary proceeding.

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed, we grant Collins’ Class 1-B application for admission to the Nebraska bar. She may be admitted 

to practice in Nebraska upon payment of the mandatory membership assessment and administration of the oath.14

Application granted.

13 In re Appeal of Lane, 249 Neb. 499, 544 N.W.2d 367 (1996).

14 See Neb. Ct. R. §§ 3-128 (rev. 2013) and 3-803(D) (rev. 2014).