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

Rodney A. Halstead, admitted 1991, served as permanent guardian for an incapacitated adult beginning August 2009 and was required to file annual guardian reports.
From 2010–2015 Halstead filed annual reports containing handwritten statements that he had seen or been kept updated about the ward, though he had not visited or been in contact with the ward or facility since 2009.
The ward actually moved from the assisted living facility in 2011; Halstead learned the ward’s whereabouts only after a court-appointed visitor discovered the ward and reported concerns.
Counsel for Discipline charged Halstead with multiple violations of the Nebraska Rules of Professional Conduct and his attorney oath; Halstead admitted the factual allegations.
A referee found repeated misconduct over six years, credited Halstead’s cooperation and remorse as mitigating, but treated the repeated duty-of-candor violations as strongly aggravating; recommended a 1-year suspension plus ethics/office-management CLE, probation, and limits on guardianship work.
The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed de novo and adopted the referee’s recommended sanction: immediate 1-year suspension, required CLE before reinstatement, 1-year probation after reinstatement during which he may not accept guardianship/conservatorship appointments, and costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Appropriate sanction for repeated false guardian reports	1-year suspension (referee) given repeated written false statements to court, duty-of-candor breach, and comparability to prior suspension cases	Argued for lesser sanction (public reprimand), pointing to less severe cases and mitigating factors	Court upheld 1-year suspension, finding duty-of-candor breaches repeated over 6 years justify suspension
Whether misconduct showed deliberate deceit vs. neglect	Counsel: false written reports undermined tribunal integrity regardless of motive	Halstead: denied intent to mislead; claimed he reported what he believed to be current condition	Court found lack of deliberate scheme but emphasized indifference and repeated neglect sufficient for serious sanction
Weight of mitigating evidence (cooperation, no prior discipline, remorse)	Mitigation supports leniency	Halstead sought credit for cooperation, service, letters of support	Court considered mitigation but found it outweighed by repeated duty-of-candor violations and public-protection concerns
Comparable precedent for sanction	Counsel relied on prior suspension cases involving knowingly false court filings and similar misconduct	Halstead relied on cases with reprimands and isolated misconduct	Court found suspension cases more analogous; cumulative repeated misconduct distinguishes and warrants suspension

State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Gast, 296 Neb. 687 (de novo review and disciplinary factors)
State ex rel. NSBA v. Zakrzewski, 252 Neb. 40 (filing affidavit containing known false allegations)
State ex rel. NSBA v. Scott, 252 Neb. 698 (lying to court/agency to aid client)
State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Mills, 267 Neb. 57 (notarizing/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 and altering court document)
State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Peppard, 291 Neb. 948 (conflicts of interest; cited for contrast with isolated misconduct)
State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Connor, 289 Neb. 660 (probate management failures; cited for contrast with isolated misconduct)