State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Ubbinga, 893 N.W.2d 694

Background

Lori Anne Ubbinga, admitted 2001, was charged by the Nebraska Counsel for Discipline for neglecting a client’s child-visitation matter, failing to communicate, failing to file promised pleadings, and not returning the client’s file or accounting.
The client paid fees ($500 cash + $1,000 check; dispute over total), repeatedly requested a contempt motion and file/fee refund, and filed a grievance after delays and nonperformance.
Respondent communicated intermittently (Facebook, email), made assurances she would file contempt proceedings but did not file them, and did not deliver the client’s file or accounting despite repeated requests.
Respondent failed to cooperate timely with the disciplinary investigation and with the referee, gave false statements to relator, missed the referee hearing due to claimed illness, and did not submit posthearing materials.
The referee found violations of multiple Nebraska Rules of Professional Conduct and the attorney’s oath, identified aggravating (dishonesty, lack of remorse, failure to cooperate) and limited mitigating factors (no prior discipline, good bar standing), and recommended a 1-year suspension plus 2 years monitored probation on reinstatement.
The Nebraska Supreme Court adopted the referee’s findings (no exceptions filed), granted relator’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, suspended Ubbinga for 1 year effective immediately, and conditioned reinstatement on 2 years monitored probation and other terms including monitoring plan and costs.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether respondent violated RPC duties (competence, diligence, communication, safekeeping, termination) and oath	Relator: respondent neglected client matters, failed to communicate, misrepresented actions, failed to deliver file/accounting, and impeded investigation — violating listed RPCs and oath	Ubbinga: denied some allegations in answer; asserted work was performed and process server failure caused nonfiling (generally contested)	Court: Found violations of §§ 3-501.1, 3-501.3, 3-501.4(a),(b), 3-501.15(d), 3-501.16(d) by clear and convincing evidence and violation of oath
Whether respondent engaged in misconduct re: bar admission/disciplinary matters	Relator: respondent made false statements and failed to cooperate with investigation and referee	Ubbinga: contested factual assertions; blamed service failures and offered explanations	Court: Found violations of §§ 3-508.1(a),(b) and 3-508.4(a),(c),(d); respondent failed to cooperate and made false statements
Appropriate discipline for proven misconduct	Relator: suspension and monitored probation to protect public and deter	Respondent: no exceptions filed to referee; limited mitigation (no prior discipline) implicitly urged lesser sanction	Court: Adopted referee’s recommendation — 1-year suspension, upon reinstatement 2 years monitored probation with detailed monitoring requirements
Whether referee’s findings are final absent exceptions and support judgment on pleadings	Relator: no exceptions filed, so findings are final and support judgment on pleadings under §3-310(L)	Respondent: did not file exceptions; argued or sought extensions earlier but did not pursue exceptions	Court: Granted motion for judgment on the pleadings; treated referee’s findings as final and conclusive

Key Cases Cited

State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Boyum, 291 Neb. 696 (discussing effect of no exceptions to referee findings)
State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Thebarge, 289 Neb. 356 (attorney discipline is a trial de novo on the record)
State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Sundvold, 287 Neb. 818 (disciplinary charges require clear and convincing proof)
State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Tighe, 295 Neb. 30 (factors for determining appropriate discipline)