State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Walz
291 Neb. 566
| Neb. | 2015Background
- Kristin R. Walz, admitted to Nebraska bar Sept. 3, 2010, pled no contest and was convicted of making terroristic threats (Class IV felony) under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-311.01; sentence 1–3 years, released on parole in Dec. 2012.
- Formal disciplinary charges filed alleging violation of Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. § 3-508.4 for committing a criminal act reflecting adversely on fitness as a lawyer; she was temporarily suspended pending resolution.
- Walz maintained innocence, asserted plea was to avoid a harsher conviction and publicity; husband recanted prior statements to police; she unsuccessfully sought to withdraw plea and lost postconviction relief avenues.
- Referee found the certified judgment conclusive under Neb. Ct. R. § 3-326(A), concluded Walz violated § 3-508.4(b), and recommended disbarment.
- Mitigating evidence: cooperation with Counsel for Discipline, letters of support, pro bono work, no prior discipline; treating psychologist testified Walz had no violent tendencies but needed at least 12 months of counseling and was not then fit to practice.
- Supreme Court reviewed de novo and concluded that disbarment was the appropriate sanction to protect public confidence and deter similar misconduct by lawyers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the felony conviction conclusively establishes misconduct for discipline | Conviction is conclusive evidence under Neb. Ct. R. § 3-326(A); discipline is warranted | Walz contended she is innocent and entered plea for pragmatic reasons | Held: Conviction is conclusive; inquiry limited to appropriate discipline |
| Whether the conviction violated Neb. Ct. R. § 3-508.4(b) (criminal act reflecting adversely on fitness) | Counsel for Discipline: felony for terroristic threats reflects adversely on honesty/trustworthiness and fitness | Walz: crime did not harm clients, no dishonesty, argues fitness to practice remains | Held: Violated § 3-508.4(b); conviction reflects adversely on fitness |
| Appropriate sanction (disbarment vs lesser sanction) | Counsel for Discipline and referee: disbarment necessary to protect public confidence and deter violent crimes by lawyers | Walz: mitigating factors (cooperation, good character, pro bono work) support lesser sanction or rehabilitation | Held: Disbarment is appropriate given nature of felony of violence and need to maintain bar reputation |
| Effect of mitigation (cooperation, lack of prior record, psychological treatment) on sanction severity | Mitigation should temper sanction, but not enough to avoid disbarment here | Walz relied on mitigation to argue against disbarment | Held: Mitigation credited but insufficient; disbarment imposed |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Smith, 287 Neb. 755 (Neb. 2014) (standard of review and disciplinary principles)
- State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Barnes, 275 Neb. 914 (Neb. 2008) (serious misconduct involving violence/dishonesty warrants severe discipline)
- State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Pivovar, 288 Neb. 186 (Neb. 2014) (factors for discipline and seriousness of offenses)
- State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Mills, 267 Neb. 57 (Neb. 2003) (reinstatement after felony where mitigating circumstances and prior exemplary career existed)
- State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Sundvold, 287 Neb. 818 (Neb. 2014) (discipline aims to protect public confidence in the bar)