- 948 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

300 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. CULLAN

Cite as 300 Neb. 948

State of Nebraska ex rel. Counsel for Discipline

of the Nebraska Supreme Court, relator, 

v. Joseph P. Cullan, respondent.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed August 31, 2018. No. S-18-441.

Original action. Judgment of public reprimand.

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

Papik, JJ.

Per Curiam.

INTRODUCTION

On May 2, 2018, the Iowa Supreme Court filed an order 

of public reprimand of the respondent, Joseph P. Cullan. The 

Counsel for Discipline of the Nebraska Supreme Court, the 

relator, filed a motion for reciprocal discipline against the 

respondent. We grant the motion for reciprocal discipline and 

impose the same discipline as the Iowa Supreme Court.

FACTS

The respondent was admitted to the practice of law in the 

State of Nebraska on July 1, 2001. The respondent is also a 

member of the state bars of California and Arizona.

On May 2, 2018, the Iowa Supreme Court, through the Iowa 

Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board, issued an order of 

public reprimand of the respondent in case No. 18-0434. The 

respondent’s case before the Iowa attorney disciplinary board 

generally involved representing in an application for admission 

pro hac vice that he had not been sanctioned in the past. In 

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

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

10/19/2018 08:13 AM CDT
- 949 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

300 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. CULLAN

Cite as 300 Neb. 948

fact, the respondent had recently been sanctioned in two cases 

in the district court for Douglas County, Nebraska.

On May 4, 2018, the relator filed a motion for reciprocal 

discipline pursuant to Neb. Ct. R. § 3-321 of the disciplinary rules.

ANALYSIS

The basic issues in a disciplinary proceeding against an 

attorney are whether discipline should be imposed and, if so, 

the type of discipline appropriate under the circumstances. 

State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Murphy, 283 Neb. 982, 814 

N.W.2d 107 (2012). In a reciprocal discipline proceeding, a 

judicial determination of attorney misconduct in one jurisdiction is generally conclusive proof of guilt and is not subject to 

relitigation in the second jurisdiction. 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.

Section 3-321 of the disciplinary rules provides in part:

(A) Upon being disciplined in another jurisdiction, a 

member shall promptly inform the Counsel for Discipline 

of the discipline imposed. Upon receipt by the Court of 

appropriate notice that a member has been disciplined in 

another jurisdiction, the Court may enter an order imposing the identical discipline, or greater or lesser discipline 

as the Court deems appropriate, or, in its discretion, 
- 950 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

300 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. CULLAN

Cite as 300 Neb. 948

suspend the member pending the imposition of final discipline in such other jurisdiction.

In imposing attorney discipline, we evaluate each case in light 

of its particular facts and circumstances. State ex rel. Counsel 

for Dis. v. Murphy, supra.

Upon due consideration of the record, and the facts as determined by the Iowa attorney disciplinary board, we determine 

that public reprimand is appropriate. Our record includes a 

notice of the findings of the Iowa attorney disciplinary board 

which found that the respondent’s “lack of care . . . went 

beyond mere negligence.” We take the determination of misconduct as found in the Iowa public reprimand to be established herein. Accordingly, we grant the motion for reciprocal 

discipline and enter an order of public reprimand.

CONCLUSION

The motion for reciprocal discipline is granted. The respondent is publicly reprimanded. The respondent is directed to pay 

costs and expenses in accordance with Neb. Ct. R. §§ 3-310(P) 

(rev. 2014) and 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 public reprimand.