Title: STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DISCIPLINE v. Moorer
Citation: 268 Neb. 496, 684 N.W.2d 44
Docket Number: 533
State: Nebraska
Issuer: Nebraska Supreme Court
Date: July 30, 2004

684 N.W.2d 44 (2004) 268 Neb. 496 STATE of Nebraska ex rel. COUNSEL FOR DISCIPLINE of the NEBRASKA SUPREME COURT, relator, v. Lynn E. MOORER, respondent. No. S-04-533. Supreme Court of Nebraska. July 30, 2004. HENDRY, C.J., and WRIGHT, CONNOLLY, GERRARD, STEPHAN, McCORMACK, and MILLER-LERMAN, JJ. PER CURIAM. Respondent, Lynn E. Moorer, was admitted to the practice of law in the State of Nebraska on April 20, 1999, and at all times relevant hereto was engaged in the private practice of law in Lincoln, Nebraska. On May 4, 2004, formal charges were filed against respondent. The formal charges set forth one count that included charges that the respondent violated the following provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility: Canon 1, DR 1-102(A)(1) (violating disciplinary rule), DR 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on fitness to practice law), and Canon 7, DR 7-101(A)(3) (prejudicing or damaging client during course of professional relationship), as well as her oath of office as an attorney, Neb.Rev.Stat. § 7-104 (Reissue 1997). On June 9, 2004, respondent filed a conditional admission under Neb. Ct. R. of Discipline 13 (rev.2002), in which she knowingly did not challenge or contest the truth of the allegations that she violated DR 1-102(A)(1) and (6), and DR 7-101(A)(3), as well as her oath of office as an attorney, and waived all proceedings against her in connection therewith in exchange for a public reprimand. Upon due consideration, the court approves the conditional admission and orders that respondent be publicly reprimanded. In summary, the formal charges allege that on June 11, 2001, respondent was employed as general counsel and director of operations for the Organic Crop Improvement Association International, Inc. (OCIA). On that same day, her employment with OCIA was terminated, and she was instructed to leave OCIA's premises. The formal charges further allege that respondent refused to leave and instead met and spoke with other OCIA employees, resulting in OCIA calling the police, who forcibly removed respondent from OCIA's premises. Rule 13 provides in pertinent part: Pursuant to rule 13, we find that respondent knowingly does not challenge or contest the essential relevant facts outlined in the formal charges and knowingly does not challenge or contest that she violated DR 1-102(A)(1) and (6), and DR 7-101(A)(3), as well as her oath of office as an attorney. We further find that respondent waives all proceedings against her in connection herewith. Upon due consideration, the court approves the conditional admission and enters the orders as indicated below. Based on the conditional admission of respondent, the recommendation of the Counsel for Discipline, and our independent review of the record, we find by clear and convincing evidence that respondent has violated DR 1-102(A)(1) and (6), and DR 7-101(A)(3), as well as her oath of office as an attorney, and that respondent should be and hereby is publicly reprimanded. Respondent is directed to pay costs and expenses in accordance with Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 7-114 and 7-115 (Reissue 1997) and Neb. Ct. R. of Discipline 10(P) (rev.2003) and 23(B) (rev.2001). JUDGMENT OF PUBLIC REPRIMAND.