State ex re. Counsel for Dis. v. Island, 296 Neb. 624

Respondent Bell Island represented a woman who was an accessory after the fact in the 2008 death of her 2-year-old; the woman refused to give further statements after Island became counsel.
A grand jury indicted Dustin Chauncey for intentional child abuse resulting in death; the client was ordered to testify at Chauncey’s 2015 trial but invoked her Fifth Amendment right and was held in contempt after conferring with Island.
During trial, Island caused a press release to be issued asserting that the prosecution’s version of events would “force [the client] to either lie or face perjury,” a statement that implied prosecutorial misconduct and called into question the prosecutor’s integrity.
The Counsel for Discipline filed formal charges alleging violations of Nebraska Rules of Professional Conduct, including trial publicity (§ 3-503.6), truthfulness in statements (§ 3-504.1(a)), misconduct (§ 3-508.4), and others; Island denied the allegations.
A referee found Island knowingly made false/misleading extrajudicial statements and violated §§ 3-503.6, 3-504.1(a), and 3-508.4(a) and (d), but did not violate his oath or § 3-504.4; the referee recommended a public reprimand.
Neither party filed exceptions to the referee’s report; the Nebraska Supreme Court treated the findings as final, granted judgment on the pleadings, and imposed a public reprimand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Island violate rules by issuing a public press release during an active trial that could prejudice the adjudicative process?	Press release was extra-judicial, public, and had substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing the proceeding (violating § 3-503.6).	Release defended client and protected her reputation; not intended to prejudice or impede the trial.	Court held Island violated § 3-503.6 (trial publicity).
Did Island knowingly make false statements or mislead third persons in violation of truthfulness rule?	The press release contained materially false/misleading statements about the prosecution forcing perjury (violating § 3-504.1(a)).	Island regretted wording and did not intend to impugn prosecutor; content was a defense of client.	Court held Island violated § 3-504.1(a).
Did Island engage in professional misconduct prejudicial to administration of justice and breach other related rules (including oath and § 3-504.4)?	Conduct was prejudicial and called into question bar reputation; prior similar reprimand noted as aggravating.	Denied intent to impugn prosecutor; argued conduct did not rise to oath violation.	Court held violations of § 3-508.4(a) and (d) (misconduct) but did not find violation of oath or § 3-504.4; imposed a public reprimand.

State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Ubbinga, 295 Neb. 995 (treating referee findings as final when no exceptions filed)
State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Thebarge, 289 Neb. 356 (disciplinary proceeding is a trial de novo on the record)
State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Sundvold, 287 Neb. 818 (disciplinary charges must be proved by clear and convincing evidence)
State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Tighe, 295 Neb. 30 (standards for attorney discipline and factors to consider)
State v. Chauncey, 295 Neb. 453 (criminal trial referenced in factual background)