State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Halstead, 298 Neb. 149

Background

Rodney A. Halstead, admitted 1991, served as permanent guardian for an incapacitated adult beginning August 2009 and was required to file annual guardianship reports.
From 2010 through 2015 Halstead filed annual reports that contained written statements he knew to be false about contact with and the whereabouts of the ward.
Halstead had not visited the ward or contacted the assisted-living facility since 2009; the ward had moved in 2011 and Halstead learned of the true location only after a court-appointed visitor discovered it.
Counsel for Discipline charged Halstead with multiple violations of the Nebraska Rules of Professional Conduct and his oath; Halstead admitted the factual allegations.
A referee found repeated, nonpurposeful false filings over six years, noted aggravating and mitigating factors, and recommended a 1-year suspension plus ethics/office-management CLE, supervised probation on reinstatement, and a temporary ban on guardianship appointments.
The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed de novo, agreed with the referee, and imposed a 1-year suspension with conditions: required CLE before reinstatement, 1-year probation after reinstatement during which Halstead may not accept guardianship/conservatorship appointments, and compliance with court rules and costs.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Halstead violated duties of candor/officer-of-the-court by filing false annual guardianship reports	Halstead knowingly filed false statements to the tribunal and violated multiple RPC provisions and his oath	Halstead admitted false filings but asserted he did not deliberately mislead; claimed he reported as he believed the ward's condition	Court treated the violations as established and serious; duty of candor breached repeatedly
Appropriate seriousness of discipline given multiple-year misconduct	Suspension is warranted given repeated written falsehoods to a tribunal, need to protect public and bar reputation, and deterrence	Halstead pointed to cooperation, remorse, lack of prior discipline, and argued lighter sanctions (public reprimand) were appropriate	Court imposed a 1-year suspension, finding repeat misconduct distinguishable from isolated incidents and comparable to prior suspensions
Weight of mitigating evidence (cooperation, remorse, community letters, no harm)	Mitigating factors reduce severity; letters and lack of prior record support leniency	N/A (same as plaintiff’s acknowledgement of mitigation)	Court credited some mitigation (cooperation, remorse, no prior discipline) but found aggravation (repeated violations) controlling
Comparable precedent to guide sanction	Relator relied on prior cases imposing 1–2 year suspensions for knowingly filing false court documents	Halstead cited cases resulting in public reprimand involving isolated or different-rule violations	Court found cases involving false filings more analogous and concluded suspension consistent with precedent

Key Cases Cited

State ex rel. NSBA v. Zakrzewski, 252 Neb. 40 (attorney filed affidavit containing known false allegations)
State ex rel. NSBA v. Scott, 252 Neb. 698 (lying to court and federal agency to assist client)
State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Mills, 267 Neb. 57 (notarizing and filing documents without signer present)
State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Rokahr, 267 Neb. 436 (knowingly filing a false easement)
State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Gilner, 280 Neb. 82 (neglecting client matters and altering court document)
State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Peppard, 291 Neb. 948 (conflict-of-interest matters resulting in public discipline)
State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Connor, 289 Neb. 660 (failure to timely manage probate matters resulting in public discipline)
State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Gast, 296 Neb. 687 (standard for de novo review in attorney-discipline proceedings)