Opinion ID: 2760236
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Count I: Diligence

Text: and Competence With regard to respondent’s misconduct involving the lack of diligence and competence, which was due in large part 2 State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Barnes, 275 Neb. 914, 750 N.W.2d 668 (2008). 3 State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Pivovar, 288 Neb. 186, 846 N.W.2d 655 (2014). 4 State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Beltzer, 284 Neb. 28, 815 N.W.2d 862 (2012). Nebraska Advance Sheets STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. CONNOR 669 Cite as 289 Neb. 660 to his inexperience with probate cases, we find our decision in State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Seyler5 to be relevant. In Seyler, we determined that a 30-day suspension was appropriate where an attorney who normally worked in the area of estate planning accepted representation of a plaintiff in a personal injury case despite having very little litigation experience. The attorney in Seyler failed to respond to discovery requests and court orders, failed to attend hearings, and failed to keep his clients reasonably informed about developments in the case. All the mitigating factors present in Seyler are present in this case to a greater extent, and none of the aggravating factors were present. In State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Barnes,6 we found a 30-day suspension appropriate for an attorney who was retained to help an organization obtain nonprofit corporation status, even though he primarily practiced in the areas of domestic relations and criminal law. The attorney’s inexperience in Barnes led to various mistakes in the nonprofit’s application for tax-exempt status. In Barnes, the attorney contended with personal and family health issues during the representation that caused him mental and financial stress. Additionally, like respondent, the attorney in Barnes cooperated with the Counsel for Discipline, admitted most of the allegations in the formal charges, and acknowledged responsibility for his actions, and there was no record of other complaints against the attorney. We find the scope of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in Barnes to be analogous to the present case. Both relator and respondent cite to our decision in State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Holthaus7 because of its factual similarity to these proceedings. Similar to respondent, the attorney in Holthaus did not challenge the truth of the allegations of his violations in the underlying probate case that led to sanctions. He took upon himself all the duties and responsibilities 5 State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Seyler, 283 Neb. 401, 809 N.W.2d 766 (2012). 6 Barnes, supra note 2. 7 State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Holthaus, 268 Neb. 313, 686 N.W.2d 570 (2004). Nebraska Advance Sheets 670 289 NEBRASKA REPORTS of personal representative while serving as an attorney for the personal representative. Thereafter, he failed to timely file pleadings and tax returns, did not communicate with the residual beneficiary of the estate, and improperly handled estate assets. We determined that the violations warranted a 6-month suspension of his license to practice law. We distinguish this case from Holthaus insofar as the various mitigating factors that exist in the present case did not exist in Holthaus. For example, in the present case, respond­ ent’s violations were isolated incidents rather than a pattern of misconduct. Respondent was candid in his admissions and expressions of remorse. Respondent had a 35-year legal career without prior misconduct. Numerous retired and active judges and lawyers wrote letters on respondent’s behalf attesting to respondent’s good reputation and his work with the Nebraska Lawyers Assistance Program. No such mitigating factors were present in Holthaus. The referee found that respondent’s intentions were honest and that he was motivated by a feeling of obligation to help a family member whom he believed had no one else to assist her in these matters. Respondent has stated numerous times that this was the only probate case he had ever taken, and he intends to decline to accept representation on any probate or estate cases in the future.