Court Opinion

ID: 8041779
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-09 03:37:15.504472+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:37:20.684717
License: Public Domain

Caporale, J.,
concurring in part, and in part dissenting.
I agree that the respondent Charles L. Caskey’s misconduct involves moral turpitude and that for the reasons discussed in the majority opinion, he must be suspended from the practice of law. However, I disagree that the period of suspension should be only 6 months.
I respectfully suggest that the majority fails to give sufficient weight to Caskey’s two prior reprimands for having failed to recognize conflicts of interest, for, as charged, the failure to recognize a conflict of interest is at the core of this offense as well. No matter how altruistic Caskey wishes to consider his motives, the harsh reality is that he elected to ignore the creditor preferred by the law, see Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-2757 (Reissue 1996), and, instead, preferred the creditors in the community in which he maintained his law practice, thereby enhancing his own . standing among those living and doing business therein and from whom he might reasonably expect to draw his clientele.
As the majority recognizes, multiple acts of misconduct are deserving of more serious sanctions than is an isolated act of misconduct. See State ex rel. NSBA v. Johnston, ante p. 468, 558 N.W.2d 53 (1997). I suggest this is especially applicable when multiple infractions involve the same type of misconduct, for that demonstrates an inability to learn from one’s mistakes.
Indeed, not only did Caskey resolve a conflict of interest in his own favor, he invaded trust funds belonging to the state. § 77-2757. However, as the relator did not charge Caskey with that far more serious misconduct, I do not consider it in assessing what I consider to be the appropriate sanction.
*891For the misconduct with which he was charged, I would suspend Caskey from the practice of law for a period of 1 year.