State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Nelson, 311 Neb. 251

Patrick J. Nelson, admitted 1976, was administratively suspended June 13, 2018 for failing to meet mandatory CLE reporting and reinstated December 7, 2018.
While suspended he remained counsel of record in five matters (one district court boundary case and four probate/estate matters) but did not notify courts or clients or withdraw.
Nelson’s neglect led to dismissals (Trampe, Kring) and financial penalties to estates (Dorothy: $7,415.81; Altmaier: $11,409.18); several clients ultimately retained new counsel.
Counsel for Discipline filed formal charges June 10, 2021; Nelson did not answer, failed to respond to multiple requests, and did not participate in briefing on sanctions.
The court granted judgment on the pleadings as to the facts, found violations of the attorney oath and multiple Nebraska Rules of Professional Conduct (competence, diligence, communication, failure to respond to disciplinary authority, and misconduct), and appointed the question of sanction.
The Nebraska Supreme Court concluded there were aggravating factors (prior suspension, pattern of neglect, failure to cooperate) and, with no mitigating evidence offered, ordered disbarment effective immediately.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Nelson violated professional rules by neglecting client matters and failing to notify courts while suspended	Nelson’s conduct violated competence, diligence, communication, misconduct, and failure-to-respond rules	No answer or defense filed	Court found violations of the oath and rules alleged and entered facts by judgment on the pleadings
Whether failure to respond to Counsel for Discipline aggravates sanction	Nonresponse shows disrespect for disciplinary process and supports severe sanction	No response	Court treated noncooperation as an aggravating factor and grounds for harsher discipline
Whether practicing during a temporary suspension independently supports disbarment	Continued practice while suspended is independently sanctionable and supports disbarment	No response	Court held practicing during suspension is an independent basis for disbarment and considered it here
Appropriate remedy: disbarment vs. suspension/indefinite suspension	Counsel for Discipline sought disbarment or indefinite suspension given cumulative misconduct and prior suspension	No brief or mitigation from Nelson	Court ordered disbarment, citing cumulative misconduct, prior discipline, client harm, and lack of mitigating evidence

State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Birch, 309 Neb. 79, 957 N.W.2d 923 (2021) (sets factors for determining discipline)
State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Sutton, 269 Neb. 640, 694 N.W.2d 647 (2005) (cumulative misconduct and ignoring discipline requests supports disbarment)
State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Samuelson, 280 Neb. 125, 783 N.W.2d 779 (2010) (disbarment for abandoning clients and nonparticipation in proceedings)
State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Coe, 271 Neb. 319, 710 N.W.2d 863 (2006) (disbarment for neglecting multiple cases and stopping disciplinary participation)
State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Hart, 270 Neb. 768, 708 N.W.2d 606 (2005) (pattern of neglect and failure to communicate justifies disbarment)
State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Villarreal, 267 Neb. 353, 673 N.W.2d 889 (2004) (continuing to practice during suspension can be independent basis for disbarment)
State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Gast, 298 Neb. 203, 903 N.W.2d 259 (2017) (attorney cooperation with disciplinary process is fundamental)
State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Tonderum, 286 Neb. 942, 840 N.W.2d 487 (2013) (failure to respond to discipline inquiries is serious aggravation)
State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Tighe, 295 Neb. 30, 886 N.W.2d 530 (2016) (indefinite suspension used in some cases but not usually consistent with public protection goal)
State v. Jorgenson, 302 Neb. 188, 922 N.W.2d 753 (2019) (purpose of disciplinary proceeding is protecting the public and assessing fitness to practice)