Opinion ID: 6335715
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: Because Nelson did not answer the formal charges, this court granted the Counsel for Discipline’s motion for judgment - 257 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 311 Nebraska Reports STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. NELSON Cite as 311 Neb. 251 on the pleadings as to the facts. Having concluded that Nelson violated the Nebraska Rules of Professional Conduct and his oath of office as an attorney, see § 7-104, we must determine the appropriate sanction. [1] Violation of a disciplinary rule concerning the practice of law is a ground for discipline. State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Birch, 309 Neb. 79, 957 N.W.2d 923 (2021). The basic issues in a disciplinary proceeding against an attorney are whether discipline should be imposed and, if so, the appropriate discipline under the circumstances. See id. Neb. Ct. R. § 3-304 of the disciplinary rules provides that the following may be considered as discipline for attorney misconduct: (A) Misconduct shall be grounds for: (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. See, also, Neb. Ct. R. § 3-310(N) (rev. 2019). [2] To determine whether and to what extent discipline should be imposed in an attorney discipline proceeding, we consider the following factors: (1) the nature of the offense, (2) the need for deterring others, (3) the maintenance of the reputation of the bar as a whole, (4) the protection of the public, (5) the attitude of the respondent generally, and (6) the respond­ ent’s present or future fitness to continue in the practice of law. State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Birch, supra. [3,4] Ordinarily, cumulative acts of attorney misconduct and repeated disregard of requests for information from the Counsel for Discipline will appropriately lead to disbarment. State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Sutton, 269 Neb. 640, 694 - 258 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 311 Nebraska Reports STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. NELSON Cite as 311 Neb. 251 N.W.2d 647 (2005). Responding to disciplinary complaints in an untimely manner and repeatedly ignoring requests for information from the Counsel for Discipline of the Nebraska Supreme Court indicate a disrespect for our disciplinary jurisdiction and a lack of concern for protecting the public, the profession, and the administration of justice. Id. [5] With respect to the imposition of attorney discipline, each attorney discipline case must be evaluated in light of its particular facts and circumstances. See State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Birch, supra. For purposes of determining the proper discipline of an attorney, we consider the attorney’s acts, both underlying the events of the case and throughout the proceeding, as well as any aggravating or mitigating factors. Id. The Counsel for Discipline argues that Nelson’s acts and omissions set forth in the formal charges violated his oath of office as an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Nebraska as provided by § 7-104, as well as the following Nebraska Rules of Professional Conduct: §§ 3-501.1 (competence), 3-501.3 (diligence), 3-501.4 (client communications), 3-508.1 (failure to respond to disciplinary authority), and 3-508.4(a) and (d) (misconduct). The Counsel for Discipline contends that disbarment or indefinite suspension is the appropriate sanction because of the harm Nelson caused to his clients, his continued violation of the disciplinary rules after his prior suspension in 2018, and his failure to respond to inquiries from the Counsel for Discipline regarding his clients’ grievances. As aggravating factors, the Counsel for Discipline notes that Nelson has previously been disciplined; in particular, he was suspended for nearly 6 months after he failed to satisfy the mandatory continuing legal education reporting requirements for 2017. During the period of that suspension, he failed to inform the courts of his suspension and failed to withdraw as counsel in the five cases encompassed by the formal charges. The facts established by our order granting judgment on the pleadings show that Nelson violated the disciplinary rules in - 259 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 311 Nebraska Reports STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. NELSON Cite as 311 Neb. 251 five separate incidents involving noncompliance and lack of communication with clients and with the courts. During these proceedings, Nelson has failed, and continues to fail, to comply with efforts by the Counsel for Discipline to investigate the grievances. This represents a pattern of noncompliance with our disciplinary rules, and cumulative acts of attorney misconduct are distinguishable from isolated incidents, therefore justifying more serious sanctions. See State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Samuelson, 280 Neb. 125, 783 N.W.2d 779 (2010) (disbarring attorney who abandoned legal matters of his clients and mismanaged their funds). As aggravating factors, the facts show that because of Nelson’s neglect, each of the clients identified above was left without counsel and several clients suffered financial consequences as a result. Nelson’s neglect caused the estate of Dorothy and the estate of Altmaier to be assessed $7,415.81 and $11,409.18, respectively, in penalties and interest. Nelson’s neglect of the Trampe case and the Kring estate case caused them to be dismissed. [6] We are unable to acknowledge mitigating factors because we lack any record on the question. We are troubled by Nelson’s failure to respond to the Counsel for Discipline. In the present disciplinary process, Nelson has failed to correspond with the Counsel for Discipline, failed to respond to the formal charges by way of an answer, and failed to brief the issue of discipline as directed by this court. We have stated that responding to inquiries and requests for information from the Counsel for Discipline is an important matter, and an attorney’s cooperation with the discipline process is fundamental to the credibility of attorney disciplinary proceedings. See, State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Gast, 298 Neb. 203, 903 N.W.2d 259 (2017); State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Tonderum, 286 Neb. 942, 840 N.W.2d 487 (2013). By failing to file an answer to the formal charges, Nelson missed the opportunity to enlighten us about the existence of any mitigating factors, as well as his current or future fitness to practice law. Failing to participate - 260 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 311 Nebraska Reports STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. NELSON Cite as 311 Neb. 251 in the disciplinary process is a very serious matter. State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Gast, supra. We have stated that an attorney’s unwillingness or inability to respond to the charges “indicate[s] a disrespect for the court’s disciplinary jurisdiction.” State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Samuelson, 280 Neb. at 129, 783 N.W.2d at 783. [7] We have disbarred attorneys who have repeatedly neglected clients’ matters. See, e.g., State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Samuelson, supra (disbarring attorney who abandoned legal matters of his clients and mismanaged their funds); State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Coe, 271 Neb. 319, 710 N.W.2d 863 (2006) (disbarring attorney who neglected five cases and stopped participating in disciplinary proceedings); State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Hart, 270 Neb. 768, 708 N.W.2d 606 (2005) (disbarring attorney who had a pattern of neglecting client matters and failed to communicate with the Counsel for Discipline). We have also found that an attorney’s continuing to practice law contrary to a temporary suspension order is an independent basis for disbarment from the practice of law. State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Villarreal, 267 Neb. 353, 673 N.W.2d 889 (2004). [8] The purpose of a disciplinary proceeding against an attorney is not so much to punish the attorney as it is to determine whether it is in the public interest that an attorney be permitted to practice, which question includes considerations of the protection of the public. State v. Jorgenson, 302 Neb. 188, 922 N.W.2d 753 (2019). Nelson’s violations negatively affected legal proceedings on behalf of at least five clients, and they undermine the public’s confidence in the bar and its members to be dependable and capable in the representation of clients. [9] We are aware that in the past we have occasionally imposed an indefinite suspension on attorneys who had violated the disciplinary rules or failed to communicate with the Counsel for Discipline and this court. See, e.g., State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Tighe, 295 Neb. 30, 886 N.W.2d - 261 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 311 Nebraska Reports STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. NELSON Cite as 311 Neb. 251 530 (2016). Ordinarily, indefinite suspension of an attorney’s license to practice law is not consistent with our duty to protect the public. We are without knowledge of mitigating circumstances which would give us an opportunity to assess Nelson’s future ability to practice law. In view of the facts that have been established—Nelson’s prior discipline and his silence in connection with the current matter—the sanction of disbarment in this case falls squarely within the principles we have recited above. We therefore determine that the appropriate discipline in this matter is disbarment.