Opinion ID: 1571281
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: analysis

Text: When neither party files written exceptions to the referee's report, the Nebraska Supreme Court may consider the referee's findings final and conclusive. See State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Kleveland, 270 Neb. 52, 703 N.W.2d 244 (2005). Based upon the findings in the referees' reports, which we consider to be final and conclusive, we conclude the formal charges in both cases are supported by clear and convincing evidence. Under Neb. Ct. R. of Discipline 4 (rev.2004), this court may impose one or more of the following sanctions: (1) disbarment, (2) suspension, (3) probation in lieu of or subsequent to suspension, (4) censure and reprimand, or (6) temporary suspension. State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Jones, supra . To determine whether and to what extent discipline should be imposed in a lawyer disciplinary proceeding, the Nebraska Supreme Court considers the following factors: (1) the nature of the offense, (2) the need for deterring others, (3) the maintenance and 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. Id.; State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Sutton, 269 Neb. 640, 694 N.W.2d 647 (2005). Each attorney disciplinary case must be evaluated individually in the light of its particular facts and circumstances. State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Widtfeldt, 269 Neb. 289, 691 N.W.2d 531 (2005); State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Janousek, supra . In addition, the propriety of a sanction must be considered with reference to the sanctions imposed in similar cases. Id. To determine the proper discipline of an attorney, this court considers the attorney's acts both underlying the events of the case and throughout the disciplinary proceeding. State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Widtfeldt, supra ; State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Thompson, 264 Neb. 831, 652 N.W.2d 593 (2002). While these cases do not involve theft or misappropriation of client funds, the misconduct is nevertheless very serious in nature. The referee in case No. S-04-1399 specifically found that respondent's client, J.N., was a drug addicted, psychologically impaired woman in need of legal and personal help. She retained respondent to represent her with respect to a probation revocation case. Before she finally discharged him as her lawyer, respondent accompanied her to bars and purchased alcoholic beverages for her, in violation of the terms of her probation; urged her estranged husband to commit suicide; and directed her to sign a divorce petition which he had drafted without being requested to do so. When disciplinary charges were filed against him, respondent directed his verbal fury at the Counsel for Discipline, court-appointed referees, the attorney representing J.N., the bar association, and this court. Some of his letters disclosed confidential information about J.N. to persons having no association with these proceedings. Hostile, threatening, and disruptive conduct reflects on an attorney's honesty, trustworthiness, diligence, and reliability and adversely reflects on one's fitness to practice law. State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Janousek, 267 Neb. 328, 674 N.W.2d 464 (2004); State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Lopez Wilson, 262 Neb. 653, 634 N.W.2d 467 (2001). An attorney's conduct which includes progressively abusive language, demeanor, and threats violates disciplinary rules that prohibit engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice and engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on one's fitness to practice law. State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Lopez Wilson, supra . Cumulative acts of attorney misconduct are distinguishable from isolated incidents and are therefore deserving of more serious sanctions. State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Janousek, supra ; State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Cannon, 266 Neb. 507, 666 N.W.2d 734 (2003). The records in these two cases reflect numerous acts of hostile, threatening, and disruptive conduct which is similar in nature to that for which respondent was previously disciplined. His 1991 private reprimand resulted from a letter he wrote to a female attorney then representing his former client in which he referred to the client as a crazy bitch and closed with an even more crude and degrading remark about women. Respondent's 1996 private reprimand resulted from his verbal harassment of a female client who had terminated his services. We agree with the determination of the referee in case No. S-05-1116 that [r]espondent's implied threat of vigilante justice administered by his [angry] friends clearly demonstrates complete and total disrespect for the rule of law and those that administer the law. In light of this pattern of highly unprofessional conduct marked by a serial disregard for our disciplinary rules, a significant sanction is necessary to maintain the reputation of the bar as a whole, deter others from similar conduct, and protect the public. See State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Janousek, 267 Neb. at 338, 674 N.W.2d at 473. Respondent's attitude in light of the evidence does little to warrant leniency. As noted by the referee in case No. S-05-1116, respondent has failed to acknowledge that any of his conduct is outside the bounds of conduct governed by the Code, let alone outside the bounds of human decency. In his final communication with the referee, respondent stated: The status of my license means nothing in the big picture. You and all those involved in kangaroo proceedings of this nature mean absolutely nothing in the big picture. In mitigation, respondent asserted at various times in the proceedings that he had suffered a stroke soon after receiving the referee's report in case No. S-04-1399 and that his actions thereafter were affected by this medical condition. However, respondent presented no medical evidence to substantiate this claim. In other cases involving a pattern of abusive conduct by an attorney, we have imposed severe sanctions. State ex rel. Nebraska State Bar Assn. v. Michaelis, 210 Neb. 545, 316 N.W.2d 46 (1982), involved a lawyer who made repeated unsubstantiated derogatory statements about other attorneys during a political campaign. After disciplinary charges were filed, he filed documents in which he continue[d] to vilify certain attorneys, the bar generally, and the Nebraska Supreme Court. Id. at 561, 316 N.W.2d at 55. Noting that the attorney demonstrated no remorse, change in attitude, or desire to cease his scurrilous attacks upon the bar and bench of this state, we concluded that the pattern of conduct demonstrated a lack of fitness to practice law and entered a judgment of disbarment. Id. at 562, 316 N.W.2d at 56. In State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Janousek, 267 Neb. 328, 674 N.W.2d 464 (2004), a lawyer engaged in a pattern of harassment directed at a former client with whom he had had a personal relationship which ended. The conduct included degrading and threatening letters written to the former client and the attorney then representing her. One of the letters was composed entirely of degrading, vile racism and obscenity. Id. at 337, 674 N.W.2d at 472. Determining that the lawyer's conduct constituted a deliberate campaign to discredit the complainant, deprive her of legal counsel, interrupt her education, and terrorize her, we concluded that the lawyer's conduct was not only disgraceful, but shows disrespect for the law, the legal profession, the legal process, the authority of the courts, and basic principles of justice, fairness, and human dignity. Id. at 336-37, 338, 674 N.W.2d at 472, 473. The lawyer had three prior disciplinary reprimands for dissimilar conduct. We entered a judgment of disbarment. The evidence in these cases, considered in conjunction with the two prior reprimands for similar misconduct, leads to the conclusion that respondent is presently unfit to practice law. In the absence of any persuasive mitigating factors, or any acknowledgment by respondent that his conduct in these cases deviates from ethical standards to which attorneys are held, we conclude that disbarment is the appropriate sanction.