State v. Hart

7 Citing cases

  1. State ex Rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Reilly

    271 Neb. 465 (Neb. 2006)   Cited 5 times

    With respect to the type of discipline appropriate in an individual case, we have stated that "[e]ach case justifying discipline of an attorney must be evaluated individually in light of the particular facts and circumstances of that case." State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Hart, 270 Neb. 768,771, 708 N.W.2d 606, 609 (2005). Neb. Ct. R. of Discipline 4 (rev. 2004) provides that the following may be considered by the court as sanctions for attorney misconduct: (1) disbarment; (2) suspension for a fixed period of time; (3) probation in lieu of suspension, on such terms as the court may designate; (4) censure and reprimand; or (5) temporary suspension. For purposes of determining the proper discipline of an attorney, this court considers the attorney's acts both underlying the events of the case and throughout the proceeding.

  2. State ex rel. Counsel for Discipline of the Neb. Supreme Court v. Nelson

    311 Neb. 251 (Neb. 2022)   Cited 2 times

    We have disbarred attorneys who have repeatedly neglected clientsโ€™ matters. See, e.g., State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Samuelson, supra (disbarring attorney who abandoned legal matters of his clients and mismanaged their funds); State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Coe , 271 Neb. 319, 710 N.W.2d 863 (2006) (disbarring attorney who neglected five cases and stopped participating in disciplinary proceedings); State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Hart , 270 Neb. 768, 708 N.W.2d 606 (2005) (disbarring attorney who had a pattern of neglecting client matters and failed to communicate with the Counsel for Discipline). We have also found that an attorney's continuing to practice law contrary to a temporary suspension order is an independent basis for disbarment from the practice of law.

  3. State ex rel. Counsel for Discipline of the Nebraska Supreme Court v. Ellis

    283 Neb. 329 (Neb. 2012)   Cited 9 times
    Finding that prior discipline in 2003 resulting in a suspension was not too remote in time to be considered an aggravating factor in the instant case, where the prior misconduct was similar to the current charges

    For example, we disbarred an attorney who neglected a client's case and court schedules, did not cooperate with the Counsel for Discipline in a separate case, and had received a previous prior reprimand for similar conduct. State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Hart, 270 Neb. 768, 708 N.W.2d 606 (2005). Neglect of client cases and failure to cooperate with the Counsel for Discipline are grounds for disbarment. State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Coe, 271 Neb. 319, 710 N.W.2d 863 (2006).

  4. State ex rel. Counsel for Discipline of the Nebraska Supreme Court v. Bouda

    282 Neb. 902 (Neb. 2011)   Cited 3 times

    We note that several of the misdeeds underlying the present case took place during and after Bouda's previous disciplinary proceedings. See, e.g., Thew, supra note 5; State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Coe, 271 Neb. 319, 710 N.W.2d 863 (2006); State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Hart, 270 Neb. 768, 708 N.W.2d 606 (2005). See State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Switzer, 280 Neb. 815, 790 N.W.2d 433 (2010).

  5. State ex Rel. v. Samuelson

    280 Neb. 125 (Neb. 2010)   Cited 7 times
    Disbarring attorney who abandoned legal matters of his clients and mismanaged their funds

    In particular, a pattern of attorney neglect reveals a particular need for a strong sanction to deter others from similar misconduct, to maintain the reputation of the bar as a whole, and to protect the public. See, e.g., State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Coe, 271 Neb. 319, 710 N.W.2d 863 (2006); State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Hart, 270 Neb. 768, 708 N.W.2d 606 (2005); State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Jones, 270 Neb. 471, 704 N.W.2d 216 (2005). See State ex rel. NSBA v. Johnston, 251 Neb. 468, 558 N.W.2d 53 (1997).

  6. State ex Rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Wickenkamp

    725 N.W.2d 811 (Neb. 2007)   Cited 6 times
    In State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Wickenkamp, 272 Neb. 889, 725 N.W.2d 811 (2007) (Wickenkamp I), this court found by clear and convincing evidence that Wickenkamp had violated: Canon 1, DR 1-102(A)(1) (violating disciplinary rule), DR 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and DR 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to administration of justice); Canon 6, DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting legal matter); and Canon 7, DR 7-101(A)(2) (failing to carry out contract of employment for professional services); as well as her oath of office, Neb. Rev. Stat. ยง 7-104 (Reissue 1997).

    The determination of an appropriate penalty to be imposed on an attorney in a disciplinary proceeding also requires the consideration of any aggravating or mitigating factors. See State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Hart, 270 Neb. 768, 708 N.W.2d 606 (2005). We have considered prior reprimands as aggravators. See, State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Jones, 270 Neb. 471, 704 N.W.2d 216 (2005); State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Sutton, 268 Neb. 485, 684 N.W.2d 23 (2004).

  7. State ex rel. Nebraska State Bar Ass'n v. Hogan

    717 N.W.2d 470 (Neb. 2006)   Cited 6 times

    Violation of a disciplinary rule is a ground for discipline. State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Petersen, supra. With respect to the type of discipline appropriate in an individual case, we have stated that "[e]ach case justifying discipline of an attorney must be evaluated individually in light of the particular facts and circumstances of that case." State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Hart, 270 Neb. 768, 771, 708 N.W.2d 606, 609 (2005). Neb. Ct. R. of Discipline 4 (rev. 2004) provides that the following may be considered as discipline for attorney misconduct: (1) disbarment, (2) suspension, (3) probation, (4) censure and reprimand, (5) temporary suspension, or (6) private reprimand.