State ex rel. Counsel for Discipline of Neb. Supreme Court v. Gast

6 Citing cases

  1. State ex rel. Counsel for Discipline of the Neb. Supreme Court v. Gast

    298 Neb. 203 (Neb. 2017)   Cited 6 times

    On May 19, 2017, we issued our decision in another disciplinary matter involving Gast, his only previous discipline for violating the Rules of Professional Conduct. See State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Gast, 296 Neb. 687, 896 N.W.2d 583 (2017). That disciplinary matter includes facts relevant to the current charges for the unauthorized practice of law.

  2. In re Marshall

    528 P.3d 653 (N.M. 2023)   Cited 4 times

    As a matter of logic, any evidence an attorney may have acquired after making a statement could not have formed the basis for making it. See State ex rel. Counsel for Discipline of the Nebraska Supreme Court v. Gast , 296 Neb. 687, 896 N.W.2d 583, 597 (2017) (per curiam) ("Because the relevant inquiry is whether [the attorney] made the ‘cover-up’ statement ... with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity, we will focus on his knowledge at that time."). To conclude otherwise would defeat the purpose of the rule, which, as we have discussed herein, is to ensure that an attorney does not act with conscious indifference to truth or falsity when speaking about the integrity or qualifications of a judicial officer.

  3. State ex rel. Counsel for Discipline of Neb. Supreme Court v. Argyrakis

    305 Neb. 396 (Neb. 2020)   Cited 1 times

    Because attorney discipline cases are original proceedings before this court, we review a referee’s recommendations de novo on the record, reaching a conclusion independent of the referee’s findings.State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Gast , 296 Neb. 687, 896 N.W.2d 583 (2017).ANALYSIS

  4. State ex rel. Counsel for Discipline of the Neb. Supreme Court v. Nimmer

    300 Neb. 906 (Neb. 2018)   Cited 5 times

    State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Herzog , 281 Neb. 816, 805 N.W.2d 632 (2011). See, also, State ex rel. Counsel for Discipline v. Gast , 296 Neb. 687, 696-97, 896 N.W.2d 583, 591 (2017) ("[t]he basic issues in a disciplinary proceeding against an attorney are whether the Nebraska Supreme Court should impose discipline and, if so, the appropriate discipline under the circumstances"). II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

  5. State ex rel. Counsel for Discipline of the Neb. Supreme Court v. Jorgenson

    298 Neb. 855 (Neb. 2018)   Cited 5 times

    Having concluded that Jorgenson violated the Rules of Professional Conduct and his oath of office as an attorney, § 7-104, we must determine the appropriate sanction. Violation of a disciplinary rule concerning the practice of law is a ground for discipline. State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Gast, 296 Neb. 687, 896 N.W.2d 583 (2017). The basic issues in a disciplinary proceeding against an attorney are whether discipline should be imposed and, if so, the appropriate discipline under the circumstances.

  6. State v. Halstead

    298 Neb. 149 (Neb. 2017)   Cited 4 times

    ANALYSISState ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Gast, 296 Neb. 687, 896 N.W.2d 583 (2017). To determine whether and to what extent discipline should be imposed in a lawyer discipline proceeding, the Nebraska Supreme Court considers the following factors: (1) the nature of the offense, (2) the need for deterring others, (3) the maintenance of the reputation of the bar as a whole, (4) the protection of the public, (5) the attitude of the offender generally, and (6) the offender's present or future fitness to continue in the practice of law.