reputation bar in Nebraska

1990NSBA v. Rasmussen, 232 Neb. 53 , 55, 439 N.W.2d 481 , 483 (1989), we said: The nature and extent of discipline to be imposed is determined by a consideration of the nature of the offense, the need for deterring others, the maintenance of the reputation of the bar as a whole, the protection of the public, the attitude of the offender generally, and his or her present or future fitness to continue in the practice of law.

1990NSBA v. Rasmussen, 232 Neb. 53 , 55, 439 N.W.2d 481 , 483 (1989), we said: The nature and extent of discipline to be imposed is determined by a consideration of the nature of the offense, the need for deterring others, the maintenance of the reputation of the bar as a whole, the protection of the public, the attitude of the offender generally, and his or her present or future fitness to continue in the practice of law.

2009Counsel for Dis. v. Dortch, 273 Neb. 667 , 731 N.W.2d 594 (2007). [8, 9] To determine whether and to what extent discipline should be imposed in a lawyer discipline proceeding, this 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.

2009Counsel for Dis. v. Dortch, 273 Neb. 667 , 731 N.W.2d 594 (2007). [8, 9] To determine whether and to what extent discipline should be imposed in a lawyer discipline proceeding, this 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.

2005Counsel for Dis. v. Rokahr, 267 Neb. 436 , 675 N.W.2d 117 (2004). *436 To determine whether and to what extent discipline should be imposed in a lawyer discipline proceeding, this 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.

2005Counsel for Dis. v. Rokahr, 267 Neb. 436 , 675 N.W.2d 117 (2004). *436 To determine whether and to what extent discipline should be imposed in a lawyer discipline proceeding, this 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.

2006Id.

2005Id.

2024MARTIN Cite as 317 Neb. 724 [4,5] To determine whether and to what extent discipline should be imposed in an attorney discipline proceeding, we consider 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 respondent generally, and (6) the respondent’s present or future fitness to continue in the practice of law.

2020Generally speaking, an attorney violates the rule against commingling when the funds of the client are 7 Id. 8 Id. 9 Id. 10 Id. 11 Id. 12 Id. - 89 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports STATE EX REL.

2020Generally speaking, an attorney violates the rule against commingling when the funds of the client are 7 Id. 8 Id. 9 Id. 10 Id. 11 Id. 12 Id. - 89 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports STATE EX REL.

2020Counsel for Dis. v. Gast, 296 Neb. 687 , 896 N.W.2d 583 (2017). 4 Neb. Ct. R. § 3-310(L) (rev. 2014). 5 State ex rel.

2020Counsel for Dis. v. Gast, 296 Neb. 687 , 896 N.W.2d 583 (2017). 4 Neb. Ct. R. § 3-310(L) (rev. 2014). 5 State ex rel.

2018Id. [7] As aggravating factors, we note that Jorgenson has pre- viously been disciplined.

2018COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. JORGENSON Cite as 298 Neb. 855 consider 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 pub- lic, (5) the attitude of the respondent generally, and (6) the respondent’s present or future fitness to continue in the practice of law.

2018COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. TREMBLY Cite as 300 Neb. 195 de novo on the record, reaching a conclusion independent of the referee’s findings.2 ANALYSIS [2-4] 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.3 To determine whether and to what extent discipline should be imposed in an attorney discipline proceeding, we consider 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 pr

2018Id.

2018Counsel for Dis. v. Thebarge, 289 Neb. 356 , 854 N.W.2d 914 (2014); State ex rel.

2018Counsel for Dis. v. Thebarge, 289 Neb. 356 , 854 N.W.2d 914 (2014); State ex rel.

2018After balancing the relevant factors in comparison to other cases, and consider- ing the need to protect the public, the need to deter others, the reputation of the bar as a whole, Nimmer’s fitness to practice law, and the aggravating circumstances, we conclude the only appropriate sanction here is disbarment. 70 Id. 71 See, e.g., State ex rel.

2018COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. ROBAK Cite as 301 Neb. 748 (3) probation in lieu of or subsequent to suspension, on such terms as we may designate; or (4) censure and reprimand.7 To determine whether and to what extent discipline should be imposed in an attorney discipline proceeding, this court consid- ers 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 practic

2017Halstead violated several disciplinary rules, including a rule which describes the special duties of attorneys in their role as officers of the court to protect the integrity of the adjudicative process.4 This rule sets forth a duty of candor such that “[a] lawyer shall not knowingly . . . make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of mate- rial fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer.”5 Violation of this rule is a serious offense, and repeated viola- tion indicates indifference to an attorney’s important legal obligations and fit

2017COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. HALSTEAD Cite as 298 Neb. 149 ANALYSIS [2] 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.3 The first four factors call for a serious sanction in response to Halstead’s actio

2017Counsel for Dis. v. Tighe, 295 Neb. 30 , 886 N.W.2d 530 (2016). - 710 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 296 Nebraska R eports STATE EX REL.

2017Counsel for Dis. v. Tighe, 295 Neb. 30 , 886 N.W.2d 530 (2016). - 710 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 296 Nebraska R eports STATE EX REL.

2017COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. UBBINGA Cite as 295 Neb. 995 To determine whether and to what extent discipline should be imposed in an attorney discipline proceeding, we consider 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 respondent generally, and (6) the respondent’s present or future fitness to continue in the practice of law.

2016Counsel for Dis. v. Hart, 265 Neb. 649 , 658 N.W.2d 632 (2003). 2 State ex rel.

2016Counsel for Dis. v. Hart, 265 Neb. 649 , 658 N.W.2d 632 (2003). 2 State ex rel.

2010Id.

1995NSBA v. Neumeister, 234 Neb. 47 , 449 N.W.2d 17 (1989). *364 CONCLUSION When we balance the need to protect the public, the nature of respondent's offenses, the need for deterring others, and the reputation of the bar as a whole against respondent's interest in preserving his privilege to practice law and all mitigating circumstances, we must conclude that the only appropriate judgment is to suspend respondent from the practice of law effective immediately.

1995NSBA v. Neumeister, 234 Neb. 47 , 449 N.W.2d 17 (1989). *364 CONCLUSION When we balance the need to protect the public, the nature of respondent's offenses, the need for deterring others, and the reputation of the bar as a whole against respondent's interest in preserving his privilege to practice law and all mitigating circumstances, we must conclude that the only appropriate judgment is to suspend respondent from the practice of law effective immediately.