Court Opinion

ID: 9532751
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:24:32.391024+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:49.994801
License: Public Domain

Simmons, C. J.,
concurring in dissent.
I concur in Judge Yeager’s dissent. I desire to add a bit thereto.
In connection with Judge Yeager’s discussion of the evidence, I desire to direct attention to the standard of quality of evidence which we have stated is applicable in this type of case. It is: “The findings to sustain disbarment must be sustained by a higher degree of proof than that required in civil actions, yet falling short of the proof required to sustain a conviction in a criminal action.” State ex rel. Nebraska State Bar Assn. v. Richards, 165 Neb. 80, 84 N. W. 2d 136.
It now appears that when the respondent was suspended we left him with a sword of Damocles hanging over his head in that we deprived him of all the rights of a lawyer while suspended but now hold him subject to all the standards of a lawyer during that period.
A suspended lawyer has to live and do and earn. Respondent is now being disbarred for doing those things which it is common knowledge are done by laymen without citations for contempt for practicing law. He *662should not be held to have forfeited being restored to the status of a lawyer because of it.