State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Garrison, 296 Neb. 550

Dustin A. Garrison, admitted 2008, represented a client injured in Aug. 2008 after the client’s original lawyer was suspended; no written engagement agreement was signed.
Garrison sued “Serco, Inc.” (New Jersey entity) and driver Devin Witt; service was attempted via a registered agent in Lincoln and by mail to Witt. Default judgment for $210,216.36 was entered against Serco (NJ).
Serco (NJ) denied employing Witt and asserted it was not the Texas entity identified in the police report; it moved to vacate the default judgment and for an injunction; the trial court denied relief.
This court later reversed and directed vacation of the default judgment in Carrel v. Serco Inc.; subsequent correct service on the Texas Serco/Witt led to dismissal of claims.
Client communications (Facebook) show repeated client requests for status and explanations; court found Garrison’s responses were inadequate.
Counsel for Discipline charged Garrison with multiple professional-rule violations; Garrison filed a conditional admission admitting violations and consenting to a proposed sanction (90-day suspension + 1 year monitored probation upon reinstatement).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Garrison violated duties of competence and diligence (Neb. Ct. R. §§ 3-501.1, 3-501.3)	Counsel: Garrison failed to prosecute correctly, sued the wrong corporate entity, and obtained a vulnerable default judgment.	Garrison: (by conditional admission) did not contest the facts but admitted violations.	Court: Found violations of competence and diligence; accepted conditional admission.
Whether Garrison failed in communication obligations (§§ 3-501.4(a),(b))	Counsel: Garrison inadequately answered client’s inquiries and explanations.	Garrison: admitted the communications failures conditionally.	Court: Found communication violations.
Whether Garrison’s fee handling breached rules (§§ 3-501.5(b),(c))	Counsel: Fee disclosures/agreements were deficient (no signed engagement; fee discussion via Facebook).	Garrison: conditionally admitted fee-rule violations.	Court: Found fee-rule violations.
Whether professional misconduct (misrepresentation/other) occurred (§ 3-508.4(a)) and appropriate discipline	Counsel: Misconduct shown by procedural failures and missteps; proposed 90-day suspension + monitored probation appropriate.	Garrison: waived contest and consented to proposed discipline and monitoring plan.	Court: Approved conditional admission; suspended Garrison 90 days, then 1 year monitored probation upon reinstatement; ordered costs and monitoring conditions.

Carrel v. Serco Inc., 291 Neb. 61 (Neb. 2015) (reversed district court denial and directed vacation of default judgment against Serco)