Court Opinion

ID: 9706442
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:43:32.237467+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:22.790117
License: Public Domain

Wright, J.,
dissenting.
The various incidents described by the majority suggest that Lane is at times obnoxious, has a temper, and can be difficult to work with and that these qualities appear to be amplified around women. With this, I cannot quibble. Until today, however, being obnoxious, having a quick temper, and being hard to get along with were not grounds for the extreme sanction of denial of admission to the Nebraska bar. The majority reaches far beyond the current rules governing admission to the Nebraska bar; therefore, I respectfully dissent.
*516The majority cites two grounds for excluding Lane: (1) Lane’s disruptive, threatening, and hostile behavior and (2) Lane’s lack of candor.
After reviewing the factual basis for its first allegation against Lane, the majority concludes that “these incidents show that Lane is prone to turbulence, intemperance, and irresponsibility, characteristics which are not acceptable in one who would be a counselor and advocate in the legal system.” While I do not approve of such characteristics, there are no bar admission rules for excluding an applicant on such grounds.
The majority states that it has found authority to exclude turbulent or intemperate people such as Lane in Neb. Ct. R. for Adm. of Attys. 3 (rev. 1992). The pertinent portion of rule 3 provides:
An attorney should be one whose record of conduct justifies the trust of clients, adversaries, courts, and others with respect to the professional duties owed to them. A record manifesting a significant deficiency in the honesty, trustworthiness, diligence, or reliability of an applicant may constitute a basis for denial of admission.
Lane’s behavior does not meet this definition. Rule 3 provides authority for the bar to deny admission for behavior which manifests “a significant deficiency in the honesty, trustworthiness, diligence, or reliability” of an applicant. Obnoxious and rude behavior by definition simply do not reflect on one’s character for honesty, trustworthiness, diligence, or reliability — let alone demonstrate a “significant deficiency” in these traits, as required by rule 3.
Dishonesty and incivility are two vastly different behavioral traits. Rule 3 reaches the former, but simply does not reach the latter. Nothing in the record suggests that Lane has manifested dishonesty toward clients, adversaries, courts, or others with respect to the professional duties owed to them. Rule 3 is not a catchall exclusionary rale reaching all sorts of personality defects in applicants.
The majority explains that we must preclude Lane from membership in the bar in order to protect the public. However, Lane has practiced law in a number of states since being admitted to practice in 1977. Whatever interpersonal problems *517Lane may have, they apparently have not led to injury to his clients.
Lane is accused of lacking candor based on two omissions on his bar application. First, Lane failed to report approximately 60 to 100 hours of temporary employment during a 5-week period in 1993. At the commission hearing, Lane could not recall exactly why he left the temporary employment off his application. He thought that he may have either misread the question or forgotten about the jobs. Lane speculated that given that the jobs were short-lived, trivial positions, he may have thought that it was not important to mention them or that he may have been embarrassed to do so. The majority does not find this explanation credible.
Second, Lane failed to report that he was formerly a member of the Iowa and Nebraska bars. Lane noted that there were only three lines available on the application for listing past or current bar memberships. Lane speculated that once he filled in those three lines — with information about his other bar memberships — he intended to attach an extra sheet listing these memberships, but forgot to do so prior to sending in his application.
Whatever the case, an allegation of lack of candor is only probative of one’s character for honesty if there is evidence of some intent to deceive, or at least purposeful evasiveness. The record does not show any such intent or even any motive for Lane to deceive the commission. The record shows no disciplinary sanctions against Lane in the omitted states, nor any evidence of malpractice. Lane apparently just filled out his application carelessly.
Nevertheless, the majority concludes that an applicant who “recklessly” fills out an application — and as a result the application contains false answers — is just as culpable of lacking candor in the application process as an applicant who intends to deceive the commission. Consequently, the majority finds that Lane lacked candor in filling out the application and that such conduct reflects on' his honesty, trustworthiness, diligence, and reliability. The. majority cites this as an additional reason to deny him admission to the bar.
*518However, the determination of whether someone is dishonest is a judgment about that person’s state of mind and about his or her intentions. If the goal of the “lack of candor” standard is to ensure that potential attorneys are not dishonest, then a rule which holds that lack of candor can be established without showing any culpable state of mind is a rule that does not advance its own purpose.
Moreover, such a rule completely ignores the “use of information” instructions that we have issued to the commission. Appendix A to the rules for admission of attorneys states: “In making this determination [of whether the present character and fitness of an applicant qualify the applicant for admission], the following factors should be considered in assigning weight and significance to prior conduct: ... 10. the materiality of any omissions or misrepresentations.” The majority’s approach to application omissions ignores factor No. 10. Likewise, we have held that an omission can be material to a consideration of honesty if the omission also demonstrates an intent to deceive, give false answers, or be evasive. See In re Application of Majorek, 244 Neb. 595, 508 N.W.2d 275 (1993). Lane’s omissions do not establish that he intended to deceive the commission or that he is dishonest.
Under the current rules for admission to the Nebraska bar, I do not believe that Lane can be denied admission.
Connolly, J., joins in this dissent.