State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Sundvold, 844 N.W.2d 771

Respondent Sundvold, Nebraska-licensed since 2003, practiced law in Lincoln as a firm associate from Oct 2010–Dec 12, 2011 under an oral 60/40 fee split with the firm and without formal trust-account training.
In Feb 2011, respondent entered a fee agreement with a roofing contractor client, receiving a $1,000 advance that should have been deposited into the firm’s trust account.
Respondent deposited the $1,000 advance in his personal account and did not notify the firm; he failed to deposit other client fees and kept funds due to the firm.
Respondent failed to appear for a scheduled trial on May 2, 2011, resulting in a judgment for the plaintiff and later events including a debtor’s examination and arrests in related matters.
Over seven months respondent misappropriated about $4,070 in client fees, failed to deliver several client payments to the firm, and lied in a self-disclosure letter about some facts; the referee found violations of several Rules of Professional Conduct and respondent’s oath.
The Nebraska Supreme Court suspended respondent for 3 years with 2 years of monitored probation following reinstatement, including a detailed monitoring plan.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether respondent’s conduct violated the Rules of Professional Conduct	Sundvold violated the rules through misappropriation and failure to safeguard funds	Sundvold argued discipline should be lesser due to mitigating factors	Yes; clear and convincing evidence supported violations of multiple rules and oath
Appropriate discipline for respondent’s misconduct	Relator supported a suspension with probation; considering seriousness, disbarment possible	Respondent urged lesser sanction due to mitigating factors	Suspension for 3 years with 2 years’ probation including monitoring
Role of aggravating and mitigating circumstances	Aggravating factors (multiple misappropriations, lack of trust accounting, client harm) warrant severe discipline	Mitigating factors (cooperation, lack of prior discipline, community contributions) lessen sanction	Aggravating factors outweighed mitigating factors; sanction upheld
Whether misappropriation from own firm is treated the same as client funds	Misappropriation from own firm is equally serious	Argues distinction due to offsetting compensation arrangements	Misappropriation from own firm treated as serious misconduct and akin to client funds

State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Frederiksen, 262 Neb. 562 (Neb. 2001) (misappropriation from a law firm supports serious discipline (3-year susp.))
State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Achola, 266 Neb. 808 (Neb. 2003) (misappropriation and related misconduct justify suspension; mitigating factors present)
State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Young, 285 Neb. 31 (Neb. 2013) (misappropriation/failure to deliver client funds; long suspension with probation)
State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Tonderum, 286 Neb. 942 (Neb. 2013) (attorney discipline framework; trial de novo on the record)
State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Ellis, 283 Neb. 329 (Neb. 2012) (clarifies standards for de novo review and weight of referee testimony)