State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Castrejon, 311 Neb. 560

Background

Dazmi H. Castrejon, admitted in Nebraska in 2011, practiced solo and later in Castrejon & Buenrostro, LLC in Omaha.
Between Jan. 2017 and Sept. 2019, Castrejon’s IOLTA incurred multiple overdrafts; she admitted depositing personal/business funds into the IOLTA to shield them from IRS levy attempts and commingling client funds.
A former client alleged a $3,500 flat fee for immigration work, received a $636 refund, and was not given a full accounting; Castrejon failed to timely respond to the relator’s investigation and to the client.
Castrejon admitted the misconduct, struggled with extreme mental and emotional distress tied to long-term sexual assault and intimate‑partner violence, and presented expert therapy testimony diagnosing PTSD and major depression; she engaged in ongoing treatment.
The referee found violations of multiple Nebraska Rules of Professional Conduct and Castrejon’s oath, recommended a 2‑year suspension plus probation; the Nebraska Supreme Court imposed a 30‑month suspension retroactive to March 18, 2020, followed by 2 years of monitored probation with conditions (therapy, supervision, no solo practice, accounting coursework).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did respondent violate professional rules governing fees, safekeeping, responsiveness, and misconduct?	Relator: clear violations of Neb. Ct. R. §§ 3‑501.5(a), 3‑501.15, 3‑508.1(b), 3‑508.4(a)‑(c).	Castrejon admitted the factual allegations and violations.	Held: Violations proven by clear and convincing evidence; oath of office violation found.
Does domestic violence/mental‑health evidence mitigate warranting less than disbarment?	Relator: serious trust‑account misconduct ordinarily warrants disbarment absent extraordinary mitigation; mitigation must be proven.	Castrejon: long‑term intimate‑partner violence and PTSD caused impaired capacity; successful ongoing treatment makes future misconduct unlikely.	Held: Court found extraordinary mitigating factors weighty and accepted mitigation as substantial.
What discipline is appropriate?	Relator: sanction appropriate to protect public and deter dishonesty (implicitly seeking severe sanction).	Castrejon: suspension with rehabilitation and supervision sufficient; seeks opportunity for reinstatement after treatment.	Held: 30‑month suspension (retroactive to Mar. 18, 2020) and, upon reinstatement, 2 years monitored probation with detailed conditions.
Must respondent cooperate and comply with post‑suspension requirements?	Relator: require compliance with Neb. Ct. R. § 3‑316 and monitoring; costs and conditions to protect public.	Castrejon: agreed to therapy and supervision as conditions for return.	Held: Court ordered compliance with § 3‑316, payment of costs, and specified monitoring, therapy, supervision, and accounting training as conditions of probation.

Key Cases Cited

State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Trembly, 300 Neb. 195, 912 N.W.2d 764 (establishes de novo review in attorney discipline cases)
State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Wolfe, 301 Neb. 117, 918 N.W.2d 244 (standard that charges must be proven by clear and convincing evidence)
State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Council, 289 Neb. 33, 853 N.W.2d 844 (misappropriation/commingling ordinarily warrants disbarment absent extraordinary mitigation)
State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Thompson, 264 Neb. 831, 642 N.W.2d 593 (considerations for mitigation involving mental health issues)
In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Dornay, 160 Wash. 2d 671, 161 P.3d 333 (intimate‑partner violence is a mitigating factor deserving substantial weight)
Matter of Saunders, 304 Ga. 824, 822 S.E.2d 235 (domestic‑violence‑related extreme emotional distress may mitigate conversion of client funds)