State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Boyum, 291 Neb. 696

Bradley A. Boyum (admitted 2004) was retained in June 2013 to prepare estate-planning documents and received a $1,700 retainer after a June 17, 2013 meeting.
Boyum did not complete the work, failed to provide a draft the client expected, and made minimal communication thereafter despite numerous client calls beginning January 2014.
The client sought a refund in April 2014; Boyum immediately returned the $1,700 retainer.
The Counsel for Discipline received the client grievance (Feb. 2014), sent multiple letters to Boyum, and received delayed or incomplete responses; Boyum acknowledged poor handling in at least one response.
Two other grievances for similar communication/work failures were on Boyum’s record; one had resulted in a private reprimand.
A referee found violations of Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. §§ 3-501.3 (diligence), 3-501.4(a)(3) (communications), and 3-508.4 (misconduct), and of Boyum’s attorney oath; recommended a 60-day suspension, 6 hours CLE in professional responsibility before reinstatement, and 2 years monitored probation. Neither party excepted to the referee’s report; the Supreme Court adopted the referee’s findings and recommendations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Boyum violated duties of diligence and communication (prof. conduct §§ 3-501.3, 3-501.4(a)(3))	Counsel: Boyum failed to perform paid work and failed to keep client reasonably informed	Boyum: Client was "not in a hurry" and controlled pacing; Boyum believed client would re-contact him	Court: Violations proven by clear and convincing evidence; duties breached
Whether Boyum violated misconduct rule (§ 3-508.4) and his oath of office	Counsel: Failure to cooperate with investigation and repeated similar complaints constitute misconduct	Boyum: Denied receipt of some correspondence; acknowledged poor handling but disputed extent	Court: Violation of § 3-508.4 and oath established; failure to cooperate shown
Whether prior grievances/reprimand aggravate sanction	Counsel: Multiple similar grievances and prior private reprimand justify enhanced discipline	Boyum: Mitigating evidence (support letters; difficult client)	Court: Aggravating factors credited; some mitigation given but not dispositive
Appropriate discipline (suspension, CLE, probation/monitoring)	Counsel: Suspension and monitoring appropriate to protect public and deter recurrence	Boyum: (implicitly) lesser sanction due to mitigation and refund	Held: 60-day suspension, 6 hours CLE before reinstatement, and 2 years monitored probation upon reinstatement; monitoring plan and reporting required

State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Council, 289 Neb. 33 (discussing deference to referee findings 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. Connor, 289 Neb. 660 (factors to consider in imposing attorney discipline)