Opinion ID: 4562912
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: facts

Text: The respondent was admitted to the practice of law in the State of Nebraska on December 7, 2010, and has also been admitted to the practice of law in Arizona. She is currently an inactive member of the Nebraska State Bar Association and an active member of the State Bar of Arizona. On February 7, 2020, the State Bar of Arizona issued an order entered on the consent of the parties that found that the respondent violated the Arizona Rules of Professional - 543 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 306 Nebraska Reports STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. VERNON Cite as 306 Neb. 542 Conduct. The order suspended the respondent from the practice of law for 6 months and 1 day, effective March 9, 2020, to be followed by 2 years of monitored probation. The respond­ ent conditionally admitted that she violated “Rule 41(g), Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. (Duties and Obligations: members shall avoid engaging in unprofessional conduct and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or a witness unless required by the duties to a client or the tribunal)” and “Rule 42, ER 8.4(b) (It is professional misconduct for a ­lawyer to commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects)” when she was arrested on four separate occasions for conduct while intoxicated. On March 12, 2020, the relator filed a motion for reciprocal discipline pursuant to Neb. Ct. R. § 3-321 of the discipli­ nary rules. The motion stated that the above-cited “Arizona Supreme Court Rule 41(g) and Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(b)” are in sum and substance the equivalent of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 7-104 (Reissue 2012) and Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. § 3-508.4(b) and (d) (rev. 2016). On March 17, 2020, this court filed an order to show cause as to why it should not impose reciprocal discipline. On March 19, the relator filed a response that requested reciprocal discipline of a period of suspension without specification. On April 3, the respondent filed a response in which she requested that this court grant her a 3-month suspension or, in the event that this court agrees with the discipline imposed in Arizona, that the suspension and probation run concurrently to discipline imposed in Arizona.