State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Nelson
311 Neb. 251
Neb.2022Background:
- Nelson was administratively suspended June 13, 2018 for failing to meet CLE reporting requirements and reinstated December 7, 2018.
- While suspended he remained counsel of record in five matters (three county-court estates, one county-court informal probate, and a district-court boundary case) and did not notify courts or clients or formally withdraw.
- Nelson’s neglect caused dismissals and financial harm: two estates incurred penalties/interest (about $7,415.81 and $11,409.18) and multiple matters were dismissed or required new counsel.
- After reinstatement Nelson failed to progress or conclude the matters, and clients filed grievances with the Counsel for Discipline.
- Nelson did not answer the formal charges, failed to respond to repeated requests from the Counsel for Discipline, and did not brief mitigation; the court entered judgment on the pleadings as to the facts and reserved sanction.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court found violations of several Rules of Professional Conduct and § 7-104 and ordered disbarment effective immediately.
Issues
| Issue | Counsel for Discipline’s Argument | Nelson’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nelson’s conduct violated professional rules and his oath | Nelson breached competence, diligence, communication rules, committed misconduct, and failed to respond to disciplinary authority | No response / did not contest facts | Court found violations of § 7-104 and Rules 3-501.1, 3-501.3, 3-501.4, 3-508.1, 3-508.4(a),(d) |
| Whether failing to respond to Counsel for Discipline justifies harsher discipline | Noncooperation shows disrespect for disciplinary jurisdiction and supports disbarment | No response | Court treated nonresponse as aggravating and refused to consider mitigating evidence; noncooperation supports disbarment |
| Whether practicing/remaining counsel while suspended is an independent basis for severe sanction | Continuing to practice during suspension warrants disbarment | No response | Court held practicing while suspended is independent basis for disbarment |
| Appropriate sanction (disbarment vs. suspension/indefinite suspension) | Disbarment or indefinite suspension necessary given cumulative misconduct, prior suspension, client harm, and silence | No response | Court disbarred Nelson; indefinite suspension deemed generally inconsistent with public protection in this record |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Birch, 309 Neb. 79, 957 N.W.2d 923 (discussing factors for attorney discipline)
- State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Sutton, 269 Neb. 640, 694 N.W.2d 647 (cumulative misconduct and ignoring disciplinary inquiries often warrant disbarment)
- State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Samuelson, 280 Neb. 125, 783 N.W.2d 779 (disbarment for abandonment of client matters and failure to participate in discipline)
- State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Villarreal, 267 Neb. 353, 673 N.W.2d 889 (continuing to practice during suspension can justify disbarment)
- State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Tighe, 295 Neb. 30, 886 N.W.2d 530 (reference on indefinite suspension and discipline when attorney fails to cooperate)