Opinion ID: 6353381
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: analysis

Text: [1-3] 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 circum­ stances. 1 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. 2 Although a judicial determination of attorney misconduct in another state is generally given conclusive effect, this court is entitled, in a reciprocal discipline action, to independently assess the facts and 1 State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Beauvais, 308 Neb. 704, 956 N.W.2d 298 (2021). 2 Id. - 630 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 311 Nebraska Reports STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. PANICK Cite as 311 Neb. 627 independently determine the appropriate disciplinary action to be taken against the attorney in this state. 3 Our disciplinary rules set forth the discipline that may be ­considered for attorney misconduct. The disciplinary options are: (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. 4 Another disciplinary rule 5 provides in part that upon receipt of appropriate notice that a member of Nebraska’s bar has been disciplined in another jurisdiction, this court may enter an order imposing the identical discipline, or greater or lesser discipline as the court deems appropriate. [4,5] In imposing attorney discipline, we evaluate each case in light of its particular facts and circumstances. 6 In response to our order to show cause, the respondent requests less severe discipline. For purposes of determining the proper discipline of an attorney, we consider the attorney’s actions both underlying the events of the case and throughout the proceeding, as well as any aggravating or mitigating factors. 7 The relator’s brief points out that the respondent’s misconduct was 3 State ex rel. NSBA v. Gallner, 263 Neb. 135, 638 N.W.2d 819 (2002). 4 Neb. Ct. R. § 3-304(A). 5 Neb. Ct. R. § 3-321(A). 6 State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Beauvais, supra note 1. 7 State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Barfield, 305 Neb. 79, 938 N.W.2d 863 (2020). - 631 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 311 Nebraska Reports STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. PANICK Cite as 311 Neb. 627 unrelated to her law practice, did not implicate any breach in her duty to her clients, and did not involve a failure to respond to disciplinary inquiries. It appears she had no prior discipline. We take into consideration the respondent’s explanation of the situation she was in at the time of her misconduct. But we also observe that the respondent had an opportunity to contest the charge and offer mitigating circumstances during the investigatory hearing in the Texas proceeding, that she does not challenge the discipline ordered by the State Bar of Texas, and that she did not request a hearing in Nebraska. Upon due consideration of our record and the fact that the State Bar of Texas held an investigatory hearing in the matter, we determine that suspension is appropriate. During oral argument, the relator suggested that reciprocal discipline retroactive to September 1, 2021, would be appropriate. We agree. We grant the motion for reciprocal discipline and impose a suspension of 2 years, retroactive to the commencement of the Texas suspension and ending on August 31, 2023.