- 208 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

314 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. V. SIPP

Cite as 314 Neb. 208

State of Nebraska ex rel. Counsel for Discipline 

of the Nebraska Supreme Court, relator, 

v. Bradley A. Sipp, respondent.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed May 12, 2023. No. S-21-832.

Original action. Judgment of suspension.

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

and Freudenberg, JJ.

Per Curiam.

INTRODUCTION

The relator, the Counsel for Discipline of the Nebraska 

Supreme Court, filed formal charges against the respondent, 

Bradley A. Sipp, alleging that the respondent violated several 

provisions of the Nebraska Rules of Professional Conduct. 

The respondent admitted to violating Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. 

Cond. §§ 3-501.3 (diligence), 3-501.4 (client communications), 3-508.1 (failure to respond to disciplinary authority), 

and 3-508.4(a) (misconduct) (rev. 2016). After a hearing, the 

referee found that the respondent also violated Neb. Ct. R. of 

Prof. Cond. § 3-501.15(a) and (c) (failure to deposit unearned 

fees into trust account and withdraw only as earned). The 

referee recommended that the respondent be suspended from 

the practice of law in the State of Nebraska for 9 months, 

followed by 9 months’ monitored probation. The respondent 

takes exception to the recommended sanction. We agree with 

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

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

05/12/2023 09:06 AM CDT
- 209 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

314 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. V. SIPP

Cite as 314 Neb. 208

the referee’s recommendation and impose discipline as indicated below.

BACKGROUND

The respondent was admitted to the practice of law in the 

State of Nebraska on September 16, 2008. At all times relevant 

to these proceedings, the respondent was engaged in the private 

practice of law in Lincoln, Nebraska.

The Counsel for Discipline filed amended formal charges 

against the respondent on January 10, 2022, arising from his 

representation of four separate clients between 2019 and 2021. 

The charges generally alleged neglect of client matters, failure to communicate with clients, failure to timely respond to 

the Counsel for Discipline, and failure to deposit “advance 

fees” paid to the respondent by clients into the respondent’s 

trust account.

Ultimately, the respondent admitted to violating §§ 3-501.3, 

3-501.4, 3-508.1, and 3-508.4(a). The respondent denied violating § 3-501.15(a) and (c). However, after a hearing, the referee found by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent also violated the rules as to the deposit of unearned fees 

into a trust account and their withdrawal as earned. The 

respondent had argued that he earned the “initial [fee] deposits” upon receipt under the terms of the fee agreement and thus 

could not place them in his trust account without impermissibly commingling his funds with clients’ funds. The referee 

disagreed, finding that the initial deposits were for work yet to 

be performed and were not earned when given.

The referee recommended that the respondent be suspended 

from the practice of law in the State of Nebraska for 9 

months, followed by 9 months’ monitored probation. The 

referee acknowledged various mitigating factors noted by the 

Counsel for Discipline, including that the respondent had no 

prior disciplinary sanctions, eventually cooperated with the 

Counsel for Discipline, admitted his misconduct and assumed 
- 210 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

314 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. V. SIPP

Cite as 314 Neb. 208

responsibility for his actions, appears remorseful, refunded 

the fee deposits of three of the four clients, and apparently 

has a good reputation in his community. However, the referee 

took issue with the respondent’s claim that “‘from this record, 

all the clients were made whole and their cases resolved 

to their satisfaction.’” The recommended sanctions were 

based on the respondent’s admitted violations of §§ 3-501.3, 

3-501.4, 3-508.1, and 3-508.4(a). The Counsel for Discipline 

did not seek sanctions for the violations of § 3-501.15(a) and 

(c), and the referee did not recommend any sanctions for 

those violations.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

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. 1

ANALYSIS

The basic issues in a disciplinary proceeding against a 

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

the type of discipline appropriate under the circumstances. 2

In the present case, however, there does not appear to be any 

dispute as to whether discipline should be imposed. Violation 

of a disciplinary rule concerning the practice of law is a 

ground for discipline, 3 and the respondent admitted to violating §§ 3-501.3, 3-501.4, 3-508.1, and 3-508.4(a) and takes no 

exception to the referee’s finding that he violated § 3-501.15(a) 

and (c). As such, the sole issue is the type of discipline 

appropriate under the circumstances. The respondent takes 

1 State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Castrejon, 311 Neb. 560, 973 N.W.2d 701 

(2022).

2 Id.

3 Id. 
- 211 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

314 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. V. SIPP

Cite as 314 Neb. 208

exception to the referee’s recommendation of 9 months’ suspension, followed by 9 months’ monitored probation, on the 

grounds that it is excessive and based upon factors and conclusions that are not supported by the evidence. Instead, the 

respondent argues for a public reprimand, term of probation, or 

30 days’ suspension.

Under Neb. Ct. R. § 3-304, this court may impose one or 

more of the following disciplinary sanctions: “(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[.]” The goal of attorney discipline proceedings is not 

as much punishment as a determination of whether it is in the 

public interest to allow an attorney to keep practicing law. 4

Providing for the protection of the public requires the imposition of an adequate sanction to maintain public confidence in 

the bar. 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. 6

Each attorney discipline case must be evaluated in light of 

its particular facts and circumstances. 7 For purposes of determining the proper discipline of an attorney, we consider the 

4 State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Barfield, 305 Neb. 79, 938 N.W.2d 863 

(2020).

5 Id.

6 Castrejon, supra note 1.

7 Id.
- 212 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

314 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. V. SIPP

Cite as 314 Neb. 208

attorney’s actions both underlying the events of the case and 

throughout the proceeding, as well as any aggravating or mitigating factors. 8 Furthermore, the propriety of a sanction must 

be considered with reference to the sanctions imposed in prior 

similar cases. 9

The evidence in the present case establishes that there were 

several types of misconduct, including neglect of client matters and failure to communicate with clients. The respondent 

suggested at oral arguments before this court that he was 

performing the work but did not inform his clients. However, 

he admitted to violating both §§ 3-501.3 and 3-501.4, and the 

record shows multiple instances in which he neglected matters entrusted to him by clients. Notably, despite having been 

retained by one client in part to settle a debt, the respondent 

failed to respond to an inquiry from opposing counsel about 

whether his client was interested in settling, and “at no time 

thereafter made any attempt to negotiate . . . to settle [the] 

claim.” The respondent also failed to timely submit a brief 

in that client’s appeal. As to another client, the respondent 

submitted no evidence on her behalf at a contested divorce 

hearing. And with yet another client, the respondent agreed 

to seek a pardon, but then stopped communicating with the 

client and subsequently admitted he had not represented the 

client with the “‘diligence that was necessary.’” In addition, 

the respondent failed to timely respond to multiple inquiries 

from the Counsel for Discipline and never provided certain 

requested documents.

A lawyer who neglects an entrusted matter has failed to 

act competently and is guilty of unprofessional conduct. 10

8 Id.

9 State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Argyrakis, 305 Neb. 396, 940 N.W.2d 279 

(2020).

10 State ex rel. NSBA v. Aupperle, 256 Neb. 953, 594 N.W.2d 602 (1999).
- 213 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

314 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. V. SIPP

Cite as 314 Neb. 208

Where there is a pattern of neglect, protection of the public 

and the maintenance of the reputation of the bar as a whole 

are of paramount concern. 11 Similarly, responding to disciplinary complaints in an untimely manner and repeatedly ignoring requests for information from the Counsel for Discipline 

indicate 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. 12

The referee viewed State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Gase 13

as similar in that the respondent there was the subject of three 

separate grievances generally alleging neglect of client matters and failure to communicate with clients, and the respondent failed to timely respond to the Counsel for Discipline. 

We suspended the respondent in Gase for 1 year, followed by 

1 year’s monitored probation. 14 The respondent here argues 

that Gase is distinguishable because Gase involved a conditional admission, 15 and the record in Gase apparently did not 

include mitigating circumstances or letters or testimonials 

in favor of the respondent. 16 However, other cases involving 

multiple instances of neglect of client matters, failure to communicate with clients, and failure to timely respond to the 

Counsel for Discipline have also resulted in similar sanctions, 

even though they did not involve conditional admissions 

11 Id.

12 State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Nelson, 311 Neb. 251, 971 N.W.2d 777 

(2022).

13 State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Gase, 283 Neb. 479, 811 N.W.2d 169 

(2012).

14 Id.

15 See, generally, Neb. Ct. R. § 3-313.

16 But see State ex rel. NSBA v. Kelly, 221 Neb. 8, 374 N.W.2d 833 

(1985) (evidence of good reputation does not necessarily mitigate proved 

misconduct). 
- 214 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

314 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. V. SIPP

Cite as 314 Neb. 208

and even though there was evidence of mitigating circumstances or letters and testimonials. 17

The respondent also argues that the referee considered certain aggravating factors that were not supported by the record 

or that overstated the degree of the respondent’s misconduct. 

However, the referee’s report makes no reference to aggravating factors. Instead, the referee discusses—and takes issue 

with—the respondent’s view that “‘from this record, all the 

clients were made whole and their cases resolved to their satisfaction’” when discussing mitigating factors.

Relatedly, the respondent argues that the referee “misconstrued [his] position” as to his clients’ being made whole and 

their cases being resolved to their satisfaction. 18 Specifically, 

the respondent argues that he refunded all unearned fees and 

that “[his] lack of diligence did not cause additional harm 

or prejudice in the disposition of [his clients’] case; or at 

least there was no evidence to establish otherwise.” 19 As 

proof of this, he notes, among other things, that one client 

had “no defense to the debt she owed.” 20 However, we have 

17 See, e.g., State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Wadman, 275 Neb. 357, 746 

N.W.2d 681 (2008) (respondent suspended for 6 months for neglecting two 

clients’ matters, despite mitigating circumstances); State ex rel. Counsel 

for Dis. v. Coe, 271 Neb. 319, 710 N.W.2d 863 (2006) (respondent 

disbarred for neglecting client matters and failing to respond to Counsel for 

Discipline, despite mitigating circumstances); State ex rel. Special Counsel 

for Dis. v. Fellman, 267 Neb. 838, 678 N.W.2d 491 (2004) (respondent 

suspended for 1 year followed by 2 years’ probation for violations, 

including neglecting client’s matter in multiple respects and failing to 

respond to Counsel for Discipline, despite mitigating circumstances and 

testimonials); Aupperle, supra note 10 (respondent suspended indefinitely, 

with no possibility of reinstatement for 2 years, for violations, including 

neglecting six separate clients’ matters and failing to communicate with 

various clients, despite mitigating circumstances).

18 Brief for respondent at 10.

19 Id.

20 Id. at 11.
- 215 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

314 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. V. SIPP

Cite as 314 Neb. 208

previously explained that the restitution of funds wrongfully 

converted by a lawyer, after he or she is faced with legal 

accountability, is not an exoneration of the lawyer’s professional misconduct. 21 Likewise, we have previously recognized 

that an attorney’s neglect, in and of itself, is frustrating and 

prejudicial for clients. 22

As to the respondent’s failure to deposit clients’ “initial 

fee deposits” into his trust account, the referee found that 

the respondent violated § 3-501.15(a) and (c). In so finding, 

the referee determined that the fee agreements the respondent 

entered into with the four clients in question were hourly 

fee agreements involving an initial fee deposit against which 

the respondent agreed to work at a rate of $250 an hour, and 

other charges would be made against the deposit as they were 

incurred, as set out in the plain and simple language of the 

written fee agreements.

We have repeatedly said that advanced fees are payments 

made by a client for the performance of legal services and 

belong to the client until earned by the attorney. 23 Nonetheless, 

because there was “‘conflicting information’” about the application of § 3-501.15, the Counsel for Discipline sought no 

sanction as to the respondent’s violations, and the referee 

21 Kelly, supra note 16.

22 See Aupperle, supra note 10. See, also, State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. 

Ellis, 283 Neb. 329, 339, 808 N.W.2d 634, 642 (2012) (attorney’s neglect 

cost client opportunity to pursue claim, regardless of whether claim would 

have succeeded; alleged lack of prejudice to client from inability to pursue 

claim “entitled to little weight” as mitigating factor); State ex rel. Counsel 

for Dis. v. James, 267 Neb. 186, 673 N.W.2d 214 (2004) (rejecting claim 

that even if attorney had duty to contact estate’s personal representative, 

no prejudice occurred as a result of failure to do so, because after 

decedent’s death, there was no witness to accident and decedent’s claim 

was of little or no value).

23 See, e.g., State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Crawford, 285 Neb. 321, 827 

N.W.2d 214 (2013); Fellman, supra note 17.
- 216 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

314 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. V. SIPP

Cite as 314 Neb. 208

recommended none. Neither party took exception to this. When 

no exceptions to the referee’s findings of fact are filed, we may 

consider the referee’s findings final and conclusive. 24 We do so 

in the instant case.

The Counsel for Discipline invites us to determine whether 

a lawyer may enter into a fee agreement that allows the lawyer 

to treat an advance fee payment as earned upon receipt and 

not deposit any portion thereof into the lawyer’s trust account. 

In making that request, the Counsel for Discipline cites to 

two seemingly contradictory advisory opinions regarding when 

an attorney must deposit client fees into the attorney’s trust 

account and when it is permissible to deposit client fees into 

the attorney’s business account. 25 However, the facts of this 

case do not squarely put this issue before us, and as such, we 

decline the Counsel for Discipline’s invitation. 26

We also observe that although the formal charges accused 

the respondent of violating his oath of office, 27 the referee’s 

report is silent on the issue. We find that the evidence clearly 

and convincingly shows that the respondent violated his oath 

of office.

Accordingly, upon due consideration and after a de novo 

review of the record and a balancing of the respondent’s 

offenses with all mitigating factors, the court agrees with the 

referee’s recommendation and concludes that the respondent 

should be suspended from the practice of law in the State 

of Nebraska for 9 months, followed by 9 months’ monitored probation. The monitor shall be an attorney licensed to 

24 State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Hanson, 305 Neb. 566, 941 N.W.2d 193 

(2020).

25 See Neb. Ethics Adv. Op. for Lawyers No. 79-3 (1979) and Neb. Ethics 

Adv. Op. for Lawyers No. 06-2 (2006).

26 But see ABA Comm. on Ethics & Prof. Responsibility, Formal Op. 505 

(2023) (discussing fees paid in advance for contemplated services).

27 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 7-104 (Reissue 2022).
- 217 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

314 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. V. SIPP

Cite as 314 Neb. 208

practice in the State of Nebraska and shall be approved by the 

Counsel for Discipline.

Consistent with the referee’s recommendation that the 

respondent be subjected to 9 months’ monitored probation 

like that in Gase,

 28 the monitoring plan shall include, but not 

be limited to, the following: (1) The respondent shall provide 

the monitor with copies of all fee agreements with clients; (2) 

the respondent shall provide the monitor with a monthly list 

of cases for which the respondent is currently responsible, 

which list shall include (a) the date the attorney-client relationship began, (b) the general type of the case, (c) the date of 

the last contact with the client and the last type and date of the 

work completed on the file (e.g., pleading, correspondence, 

document preparation, discovery, court hearing), (d) the next 

type of work and date that work should be completed on 

the case, and (e) any applicable statute of limitations and its 

date; (3) during the first 6 months of probation, the respondent will personally meet with the monitor on a monthly basis 

to review the case list and the status of the cases; (4) the 

respondent will review with the monitor his office practices 

and continue to work to develop efficient office procedures 

that protect the clients’ interests; (5) the monitor shall have 

the right to contact the respondent with any questions the 

monitor may have regarding the respondent’s then-pending 

cases; and (6) if at any time the monitor believes the respondent has violated the Nebraska Rules of Professional Conduct 

or has failed to comply with the terms of probation, the 

monitor shall report such violation or failure to the Counsel 

for Discipline.

CONCLUSION

The respondent is suspended from the practice of law in 

the State of Nebraska for a period of 9 months, effective 

28 See Gase, supra note 13.
- 218 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

314 Nebraska Reports

STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. V. SIPP

Cite as 314 Neb. 208

immediately. Should the respondent apply for reinstatement, 

his reinstatement shall be conditioned upon his being on probation for a period of 9 months, including monitoring for 9 

months following reinstatement, subject to the terms outlined 

above. The 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. The respondent is also 

directed to pay costs and expenses in accordance with Neb. 

Rev. Stat. §§ 7-114 and 7-115 (Reissue 2022) and Neb. Ct. 

R. §§ 3-310(P) (rev. 2022) and 3-323(B) within 60 days after 

the order imposing costs and expenses, if any, is entered by 

this court.

Judgment of suspension.

Stacy, J., not participating.