State Ex Rel. Counsel for Discipline of the Neb. Supreme Court v. Cullan , 916 N.W.2d 730 ( 2018 )


Menu:
  • Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
    www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
    08/31/2018 09:09 AM CDT
    - 948 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    300 Nebraska R eports
    STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. CULLAN
    Cite as 
    300 Neb. 948
    State     of   Nebraska ex rel. Counsel for Discipline
    of the     Nebraska Supreme Court, relator,
    v. Joseph P. Cullan, respondent.
    ___ N.W.2d ___
    Filed August 31, 2018.   No. S-18-441.
    Original action. Judgment of public reprimand.
    Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, and
    Papik, JJ.
    Per Curiam.
    INTRODUCTION
    On May 2, 2018, the Iowa Supreme Court filed an order
    of public reprimand of the respondent, Joseph P. Cullan. The
    Counsel for Discipline of the Nebraska Supreme Court, the
    relator, filed a motion for reciprocal discipline against the
    respondent. We grant the motion for reciprocal discipline and
    impose the same discipline as the Iowa Supreme Court.
    FACTS
    The respondent was admitted to the practice of law in the
    State of Nebraska on July 1, 2001. The respondent is also a
    member of the state bars of California and Arizona.
    On May 2, 2018, the Iowa Supreme Court, through the Iowa
    Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board, issued an order of
    public reprimand of the respondent in case No. 18-0434. The
    respondent’s case before the Iowa attorney disciplinary board
    generally involved representing in an application for admission
    pro hac vice that he had not been sanctioned in the past. In
    - 949 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    300 Nebraska R eports
    STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. CULLAN
    Cite as 
    300 Neb. 948
    fact, the respondent had recently been sanctioned in two cases
    in the district court for Douglas County, Nebraska.
    On May 4, 2018, the relator filed a motion for reciprocal
    discipline pursuant to Neb. Ct. R. § 3-321 of the discipli­
    nary rules.
    ANALYSIS
    The basic issues in a disciplinary proceeding against an
    attorney are whether discipline should be imposed and, if so,
    the type of discipline appropriate under the circumstances.
    State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Murphy, 
    283 Neb. 982
    , 
    814 N.W.2d 107
    (2012). In a reciprocal discipline proceeding, a
    judicial determination of attorney misconduct in one jurisdic-
    tion is generally conclusive proof of guilt and is not subject to
    relitigation in the second jurisdiction. 
    Id. Neb. Ct.
    R. § 3-304
    of the disciplinary rules provides that the following may be
    considered as discipline for attorney misconduct:
    (A) Misconduct shall be grounds for:
    (1) Disbarment by the Court; or
    (2) Suspension by the Court; or
    (3) Probation by the Court in lieu of or subsequent to
    suspension, on such terms as the Court may designate; or
    (4) Censure and reprimand by the Court; or
    (5) Temporary suspension by the Court; or
    (6) Private reprimand by the Committee on Inquiry or
    Disciplinary Review Board.
    (B) The Court may, in its discretion, impose one or
    more of the disciplinary sanctions set forth above.
    Section 3-321 of the disciplinary rules provides in part:
    (A) Upon being disciplined in another jurisdiction, a
    member shall promptly inform the Counsel for Discipline
    of the discipline imposed. Upon receipt by the Court of
    appropriate notice that a member has been disciplined in
    another jurisdiction, the Court may enter an order impos-
    ing the identical discipline, or greater or lesser discipline
    as the Court deems appropriate, or, in its discretion,
    - 950 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    300 Nebraska R eports
    STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. CULLAN
    Cite as 
    300 Neb. 948
    suspend the member pending the imposition of final dis-
    cipline in such other jurisdiction.
    In imposing attorney discipline, we evaluate each case in light
    of its particular facts and circumstances. State ex rel. Counsel
    for Dis. v. 
    Murphy, supra
    .
    Upon due consideration of the record, and the facts as deter-
    mined by the Iowa attorney disciplinary board, we determine
    that public reprimand is appropriate. Our record includes a
    notice of the findings of the Iowa attorney disciplinary board
    which found that the respondent’s “lack of care . . . went
    beyond mere negligence.” We take the determination of mis-
    conduct as found in the Iowa public reprimand to be estab-
    lished herein. Accordingly, we grant the motion for reciprocal
    discipline and enter an order of public reprimand.
    CONCLUSION
    The motion for reciprocal discipline is granted. The respond­
    ent is publicly reprimanded. The respondent is directed to pay
    costs and expenses in accordance with Neb. Ct. R. §§ 3-310(P)
    (rev. 2014) and 3-323 of the disciplinary rules within 60 days
    after an order imposing costs and expenses, if any, is entered
    by the court.
    Judgment of public reprimand.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: S-18-441.

Citation Numbers: 300 Neb. 948, 916 N.W.2d 730

Judges: Per Curiam

Filed Date: 8/31/2018

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024