- 538 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

309 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. PRIMMER

Cite as 309 Neb. 538

State of Nebraska ex rel. Counsel for Discipline 

of the Nebraska Supreme Court, relator, 

v. Chad D. Primmer, respondent.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed June 18, 2021. No. S-21-087.

Original action. Judgment of suspension.

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

Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.

Per Curiam.

INTRODUCTION

The Supreme Court of Iowa entered an order regarding the respondent, Chad D. Primmer, on January 11, 2021. 

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 a suspension for a period of 60 days.

FACTS

The respondent was admitted to the practice of law in the 

State of Nebraska on April 10, 2003. He has been an active 

member of the Nebraska State Bar Association and the Iowa 

State Bar Association.

On January 11, 2021, the Supreme Court of Iowa issued an 

order and final judgment in which it found that the respond

ent violated the Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct. The 

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

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

08/13/2021 08:11 AM CDT
- 539 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

309 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. PRIMMER

Cite as 309 Neb. 538

respondent was found to have violated “Iowa Rules of Pro

fessional Conduct 32:1.15(a),(c),(d),(f), and 32:8.4(c) and Iowa 

Court Rules 45.2(2), (3)(a), and 45.7(3),(4).” The Supreme 

Court of Iowa found that the respondent failed to perform 

monthly reconciliations of the client trust account, failed to 

maintain a check register, failed to keep client ledger balance 

sheets/cards, failed to always give written notice and accounting of withdrawal to clients, and falsely certified in his annual 

reporting that the monthly reconciliations were completed.

The order suspended the respondent from the practice of law 

for a period of 60 days, plus costs. Attached to the order is an 

affidavit filed by the respondent in which he voluntarily consented to temporary suspension of his practice of law.

On February 3, 2021, the relator filed a motion for reciprocal 

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

rules. The motion stated that the above-cited Iowa Supreme 

Court rules are in sum and substance the equivalent to Neb. Ct. 

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

R. of Prof. Cond. § 3-508.4(c) (rev. 2016).

This court filed an order to show cause as to why it 

should not impose reciprocal discipline. The respondent filed 

a response to the order to show cause in which he agrees to 

“identical discipline to that entered in the State of Iowa.”

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:
- 540 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

309 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. PRIMMER

Cite as 309 Neb. 538

(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, 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 State Bar of Iowa, we determine that suspension 

is appropriate.

We grant the motion for reciprocal discipline and impose 

a suspension of 60 days. In doing so, we do not necessarily endorse the measure of discipline had the case originated 

in Nebraska.

CONCLUSION

The motion for reciprocal discipline is granted. The respond

ent is suspended from the practice of law for 60 days, effective 
- 541 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

309 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. PRIMMER

Cite as 309 Neb. 538

immediately. The respondent shall comply with all notification 

requirements by suspended members provided by 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 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) (rev. 2019) and 3-323(B) of the disciplinary rules 

within 60 days after an order imposing costs and expenses, if 

any, is entered by the court.

Judgment of suspension.