- 724 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

317 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. V. MARTI

Cite as 317 Neb. 724

State of Nebraska ex rel. Counsel for Discipline, 

relator, v. Craig M. Martin, respondent.

___ N.W.3d ___

Filed September 20, 2024. No. S-23-982.

1. Disciplinary Proceedings: Appeal and Error. 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. Violation of a disciplinary rule concerning 

the practice of law is a ground for discipline.

3. ____. 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.

4. ____. 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.

5. ____. 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.

6. ____. When an attorney fails to respond to disciplinary complaints and 

ignores requests for information from the office of the Counsel for 

Discipline of the Nebraska Supreme Court, it indicates 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.

Original action. Judgment of disbarment.

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

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

09/20/2024 09:09 AM CDT
- 725 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

317 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. V. MARTI

Cite as 317 Neb. 724

Kent L. Frobish, Assistant Counsel for Discipline, for relator.

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

Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.

Per Curiam.

INTRODUCTION

This is an attorney discipline case in which the only question before this court is the appropriate discipline. The Counsel 

for Discipline of the Nebraska Supreme Court, the relator, 

brought formal charges against Craig M. Martin, the respond

ent, because the respondent had misappropriated $137,248.67 

in funds belonging to a client. We granted judgment on the 

pleadings as to the facts and reserved the issue of the appropriate discipline. We now order that the respondent be disbarred.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The facts alleged in the formal charges are uncontested. The 

respondent was admitted to the practice of law in Nebraska 

on April 11, 2011. The respondent’s license to practice law 

has been administratively suspended since June 18, 2024, 

because he failed to satisfy mandatory continuing legal education reporting requirements, see Neb. Ct. R. §§ 3-401.10 

(rev. 2018) and 3-401.11 (rev. 2021), and failed to pay the 

annual licensing assessment for 2024 pursuant to Neb. Ct. R. 

§ 3-803 (rev. 2022). At all times relevant to these proceedings, the respondent was engaged in the practice of law in 

Papillion, Nebraska.

The present charges arise from the respondent’s misappropriation of client funds. In August 2022, a client hired the 

respondent to represent him in a divorce proceeding in the 

district court for Sarpy County, Nebraska, case No. CI 22-842. 

In November 2022, pursuant to a stipulation with the other 

party in his case, the respondent’s client agreed to sell certain 

real estate. The net proceeds of the sale would be held in the 

respondent’s trust account until the division and ownership of 

those proceeds was determined. As agreed, $137,248.67 was 
- 726 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

317 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. V. MARTI

Cite as 317 Neb. 724

deposited into the client trust account of the law firm where the 

respondent was employed.

On or about March 1, 2023, the respondent left the law 

firm and opened his own law practice. The client elected to go 

with the respondent to his solo practice, and consequently, the 

client’s files and trust account funds were transferred to the 

respondent. A trust account check for $137,248.67 was issued 

and deposited into the respondent’s trust account.

From March 14 to May 17, 2023, the respondent misappropriated all of the client’s funds without the client’s knowledge 

or consent.

On November 29, 2023, the respondent was formally 

charged with violations of the Nebraska Rules of Professional 

Conduct and his oath of office as an attorney, Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 7-104 (Reissue 2022). After unsuccessful attempts to serve 

the respondent, he was served by publication. He failed to 

file an answer to the formal charges, so on March 25, 2024, 

the relator filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The 

respondent did not file any response.

On May 29, 2024, we granted the relator’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the facts and reserved the issue of 

the disciplinary sanction. We directed the parties to brief the 

issue of discipline. The relator contends that the respondent 

should be disbarred. The respondent failed to timely file a brief 

despite an extension by this court.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

The only question before this court is the appropriate 

discipline.

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. State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Miller, 

316 Neb. 899, 7 N.W.3d 642 (2024).
- 727 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

317 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. V. MARTI

Cite as 317 Neb. 724

ANALYSIS

Because the respondent did not answer the formal charges, 

this court granted the relator’s motion for judgment on the 

pleadings as to the facts. Based on the foregoing, we find 

that the facts establish misconduct. Having concluded that 

the respondent violated the Nebraska Rules of Professional 

Conduct and his oath of office as attorney, § 7-104, we must 

determine the appropriate sanction.

The respondent violated his oath of office as an attorney 

licensed to practice law in the State of Nebraska as provided in § 7-104 and the provisions of the Nebraska Rules 

of Professional Conduct on safekeeping property, Neb. Ct. 

R. of Prof. Cond. § 3-501.15(a), (d), and (e) and on misconduct, Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. § 3-508.4(a) through (c) 

(rev. 2016).

[2,3] Violation of a disciplinary rule concerning the practice 

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

v. Miller, supra. 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. 

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. 2023).
- 728 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

317 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. V. MARTI

Cite as 317 Neb. 724

[4,5] 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 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. Miller, supra. 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. Id.

The facts established by our order that granted judgment on 

the pleadings show that the respondent misappropriated a significant amount of client funds from his trust account, directly 

harming his client and the reputation of the bar. He continues 

to fail to comply with efforts by the office of the Counsel 

for Discipline to investigate the allegations against him and 

has not complied with licensing fees and mandatory attorney 

reporting requirements. We are unable to acknowledge mitigating factors because we lack any record on that question.

[6] We are troubled by the respondent’s failure to respond 

to the relator. Failing to participate in the disciplinary process 

is a very serious matter. State ex rel. State ex rel. Counsel for 

Dis. v. Nelson, 311 Neb. 251, 971 N.W.2d 777 (2022). When 

an attorney fails to respond to disciplinary complaints and 

ignores requests for information from the office of the Counsel 

for Discipline of the Nebraska Supreme Court, it indicates 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. See id.

In light of the particular facts and circumstances in this case 

that have been established, we determine that the appropriate 

discipline in this matter is disbarment.
- 729 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

317 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. V. MARTI

Cite as 317 Neb. 724

CONCLUSION

It is the judgment of this court that the respondent be disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Nebraska effective immediately. The respondent 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. The 

respondent is further directed to pay costs and expenses in 

accordance with Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 7-114 and 7-115 (Reissue 

2022), as well as § 3-310(P) and Neb. Ct. R. § 3-323 of the 

disciplinary rules within 60 days after an order imposing costs 

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

Judgment of disbarment.