In re Application of Ybarra

application of § 48-191 would contravene the general purpose
of § 48-125, which is to “encourage prompt payment by mak-
ing delay costly if the award has been finally established.”9
Section 48-191 simply provides a practical, uniform stan-
dard for computing time periods under the Nebraska Workers’
Compensation Act.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, we affirm the order denying the award of
waiting-time penalties, attorney fees, and interest.
A ffirmed.
9 Soto v. State, supra note 2, 269 Neb. at 345-46, 693 N.W.2d at 499.
Accord Roth v. Sarpy Cty. Highway Dept., 253 Neb. 703, 572 N.W.2d 786
(1998).
in re A pplicAtion of A nthony ybArrA
for A dmission to the nebrAskA
stAte bAr on exAminAtion.
781 N.W.2d 446
Filed April 23, 2010. 	No. S-34-090002.
1. Rules of the Supreme Court: Attorneys at Law: Appeal and Error. Under
Neb. Ct. R. § 3-115, the Nebraska Supreme Court considers the appeal of an
applicant from a final adverse ruling of the Nebraska State Bar Commission de
novo on the record made at the hearing before the commission.
2. Rules of the Supreme Court: Attorneys at Law: Proof. The Nebraska State
Bar Commission’s rules place on an applicant the burden of proving good
character by producing documentation, reports, and witnesses in support of the
application.
3. Rules of the Supreme Court: Attorneys at Law. The Nebraska Supreme Court
is vested with the sole power to admit persons to the practice of law in this state
and to fix qualifications for admission to the Nebraska bar.
4. Attorneys at Law. Where the record of an applicant for admission to the
Nebraska State Bar demonstrates a significant lack of honesty, trustworthiness,
diligence, or reliability, a basis may exist for denying his or her application.
5. ____. When evidence exists to indicate that an applicant has engaged in conduct
demonstrating a lack of character and fitness, the Nebraska State Bar Commission
must determine whether present character and fitness qualify the applicant for
admission.
758 	279 NeBRASkA RepORTS
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
11/01/2026 04:47 AM CST

Original action. Application denied.
Robert B. Creager, of Anderson, Creager & Wittstruck, p.C.,
for applicant.
Brad 	Roth 	and 	Chris 	F. 	Blomenberg, 	of 	McHenry,
Haszard, Hansen, Roth & Hupp, p.C., for Nebraska State Bar
Comission.
heAvicAn, 	c.J., 	Wright, 	connolly, 	gerrArd, 	stephAn,
mccormAck, and miller-lermAn, JJ.
per curiAm.
I. NATURe OF CASe
Anthony Ybarra appeals the decision of the Nebraska State
Bar Commission (Commission) denying his application to take
the Nebraska bar examination. The Commission determined
that Ybarra did not meet the character and fitness requirements
for admission to the bar. We affirm the Commission’s denial of
Ybarra’s application to take the Nebraska bar examination.
II. BACkGROUND
Ybarra attended Chadron State College and received a bache-
lor’s degree in May 2005. He began law school at the University
of Nebraska in August 2005 and graduated in December 2008.
He applied to take the Nebraska bar examination in February
2009. The Commission scheduled an interview with Ybarra
to address his history of contacts with law enforcement, alle-
gations of domestic abuse, and his credit history. After the
Commission voted to deny his application, Ybarra requested
and the Commission granted a formal hearing. The following
evidence was received at the hearing.
1. A llegAtions AgAinst ybArrA
(a) D.G.
prior to attending law school, Ybarra worked as a police
officer with the Scottsbluff police Department from December
1997 to March 2003. During this time, Ybarra had an intimate
relationship with a woman who will be referred to as “D.G.”
The relationship ended in August 1999. In August 2001, D.G.
twice filed a petition for a protection order against Ybarra. The
IN Re AppLICATION OF YBARRA 	759
Cite as 279 Neb. 758

petitions were denied. In an affidavit in support of one of the
protection orders, D.G. reported incidents of Ybarra’s harass-
ing her.
On April 22, 2001, Ybarra arrested D.G. for driving under
the influence (DUI). According to D.G., Ybarra was sitting in
his patrol car outside a bar when D.G. left the bar. Ybarra fol-
lowed her for more than a mile and turned on his patrol car’s
overhead lights when she stopped at her sister’s house. D.G.
was not concerned at first, because Ybarra had previously
pulled her over on a number of occasions to talk to her and ask
her to go to lunch. Instead, Ybarra administered field sobriety
tests and then arrested D.G. After she posted bond and returned
home at 4 a.m., D.G. found Ybarra waiting for her. Ybarra then
entered her house without permission. She asked him to leave,
indicating that if he did not, she would call the police. Ybarra
said, “‘I am the police’” and left. He subsequently called D.G.
from his patrol car. She told him she had nothing to say and
hung up. D.G. said she believed Ybarra was using his authority
to intimidate her.
Ybarra told a different version of the events of that evening.
Ybarra said he was on patrol when he saw a vehicle make
a wide turn. He followed the vehicle and determined it was
speeding. Ybarra stopped the vehicle and then learned D.G.
was the driver. Ybarra arrested D.G. for DUI and transported
her to a police station. Ybarra said he went to D.G.’s home at
her request to inform her mother that D.G. had been arrested.
He claimed there was a problem with the telephone in the
jail. Ybarra said he went to an automatic teller machine to
get cash for D.G.’s mother to use to post D.G.’s bond. When
he returned, D.G. was present because her bond had already
been posted.
A patrol sergeant with the Scottsbluff police Department
testified that the bar D.G. left before being arrested by Ybarra
was not on Ybarra’s assigned beat on that night. The sergeant
did not think it was feasible for Ybarra to have seen D.G. make
a wide turn from the point where Ybarra said he was parked
at the time. The sergeant said he used the telephone in the jail
that night and had no problems. He said he could not believe
that an officer would actually bond out his own prisoner.
760 	279 NeBRASkA RepORTS

He said there had been several complaints against Ybarra
because Ybarra parked at that bar and followed customers after
they left.
D.G.’s driver’s license was temporarily revoked as a result
of the DUI charge. After an administrative license revoca-
tion hearing, the revocation proceeding was dismissed by the
hearing officer. Ybarra had previously testified in a number of
hearings before the same officer. At Ybarra’s hearing before
the Commission, the revocation hearing officer testified that
Ybarra exercised “horrendous judgment” by going to D.G.’s
mother’s home at 3 a.m. to loan her money to post D.G.’s bond.
The officer stated that Ybarra was not credible at the revocation
hearing. Ybarra had encouraged the officer not to dismiss the
revocation proceeding because it would affect Ybarra’s reputa-
tion and because he thought the dismissal would jeopardize his
credibility as a police officer. The revocation hearing officer
said he thought Ybarra was acting as a “rogue cop” and that
it appeared Ybarra had been scorned and was trying to get
revenge on D.G.
The second incident between Ybarra and D.G. occurred
on July 22, 2001. When D.G. called police to her home for a
domestic dispute, Ybarra was the first officer to arrive. D.G.
said she tried to walk away from Ybarra, but he got in his
patrol car and cut her off by driving in front of her. Ybarra
grabbed her arm and said he wanted to talk, but D.G. refused
and asked to speak to another officer.
D.G. wrote to the Commission to express her concerns about
Ybarra. She stated her belief that the protection orders were
denied because Ybarra was a police officer. She reported to
the chief of police incidents of Ybarra’s contacting her without
permission, but the complaints were initially ignored. D.G.
said she moved out of Nebraska to get away from Ybarra. She
believed Ybarra was dangerous, and she feared he would use
his authority to his advantage if he were granted a license to
practice law.
(b) k.
In December 2002, Ybarra was charged with third degree
sexual assault on the complaint of a woman we will refer to as
IN Re AppLICATION OF YBARRA 	761
Cite as 279 Neb. 758

“k.” because her last name is not in the record. She worked in
the Scotts Bluff County jail and had a sexual relationship with
Ybarra for about a month in the fall of 2001.
Concerning the incident leading to the criminal charge,
Ybarra stated that he was in the jail after having arrested a
drunk driver. He noticed a pack of cigarettes in the left front
pocket of k.’s shirt. Ybarra said he thought k. had stopped
smoking, so he reached across and grabbed the pack of ciga-
rettes out of the pocket. Ybarra told k. he would get rid of
the cigarettes.
A few weeks later, Ybarra was informed that he was being
investigated for a sexual assault on k. He was subsequently
charged with third degree sexual assault and found not guilty
by a jury. Ybarra was scheduled to appear before the Scottsbluff
City Council to respond to the accusation, but he decided to
resign from his position as a police officer rather than make a
public record about the incident.
(c) T.W.
T.W., an attorney in the Scotts Bluff County Attorney’s
office, dated Ybarra from September 2001 until October 2004.
In November 2004, she requested a protection order against
him. T.W. said that after she attempted to end the relationship,
Ybarra’s behavior escalated from emotional abuse and manipu-
lation to stalking. She alleged that his behavior had become
increasingly abusive, harassing, and inappropriate at both her
home and her office and that she had serious concerns for her
physical safety.
In T.W.’s affidavit in support of the protection order, she
alleged that she had learned that Ybarra had been unfaith-
ful and had been dating another woman for 6 months. T.W.
decided she no longer wanted to speak to Ybarra. Ybarra called
T.W.’s home and office telephones incessantly and left mes-
sages with office assistants. At one time, Ybarra called T.W.’s
office and said that he had an emergency and that T.W. needed
to contact him immediately. She did not return the telephone
call. T.W. felt it necessary to leave the courthouse or arrange to
work outside the office when Ybarra said he was coming to see
her there. When T.W. returned to her private office, she found
762 	279 NeBRASkA RepORTS

notes from him, including one that said, “I love you! [T.W.]”
T.W. said she was forced to have security escorts from her
office to her car. After Ybarra sent T.W. an e-mail stating that
the relationship was over, Ybarra continued to call her home at
all hours of the day and night.
The protection order was granted for 1 year. After it was
issued, Ybarra came to T.W.’s office, claiming he needed
to discuss child support matters. She was forced to remain
in her office while security personnel ensured he had left
the building.
In a letter to the Commission, T.W. stated that Ybarra had a
history of “abuse, manipulation, violence and predatory behav-
ior that is a serious risk for any vulnerable person, especially
any female, who may come into contact with him. . . . There is
no regret, no remorse and absolutely no change in his personal
character or behavior.”
The victim and witness assistance director for the Scotts
Bluff County Attorney’s office wrote to the Commission to
oppose Ybarra’s admission to the bar. The director stated he
had assisted three women who were granted domestic abuse
protection orders against Ybarra. The director said one of the
most disturbing experiences was when Ybarra violated a pro-
tection order by making excuses to be in the building where
T.W. worked. The director said Ybarra had no regard for the
law and felt he was above it.
Ybarra stated that he dated T.W. for 3 years and that the
relationship began to deteriorate when he moved to Chadron
to attend college. He began a new relationship after he had not
heard from T.W. for a time. Ybarra claimed T.W. called him
at 1 or 2 a.m. and said she was in Chadron and wanted to see
him. He went to her hotel room, where they talked for about
an hour. Initially, she would not let him leave. The next day,
they had breakfast and eventually had sexual relations. When
Ybarra’s new girlfriend, A.S., came to the room, T.W. became
upset and left. Ybarra claimed T.W. continuously called him at
home and at work. Ybarra said he tried to avoid her calls but
eventually agreed to meet her at a city park.
When they met, T.W. was crying and upset about Ybarra’s
seeing another woman. Ybarra claimed that T.W. said she was
IN Re AppLICATION OF YBARRA 	763
Cite as 279 Neb. 758

going to drive her car off the road and that she began stabbing
her wrist with a sharp object on her keyring. When he grabbed
her to try to stop her, she pulled away and ran. Ybarra apolo-
gized and told T.W. he still loved her. They agreed to meet
several weeks later, but at that time, T.W. refused to speak to
Ybarra. T.W. was then granted the protection order.
(d) A.S.
A.S. began dating Ybarra at Chadron State College. Later,
while both were attending the University of Nebraska College
of Law, A.S. was granted a domestic abuse protection order
against Ybarra. In her supporting affidavit, dated August 1,
2007, A.S. stated that in May, Ybarra found her asleep “next to
a male friend.” She awoke when Ybarra began stroking her leg.
She and Ybarra went into the hallway of the apartment, and
Ybarra said he would leave her alone for good if she would
have sex with him. When she refused, Ybarra bent A.S. over
a staircase and proceeded to touch her vagina and then pen-
etrated her with his penis even though she asked him to stop.
She did not report the incident to authorities.
In June 2007, A.S. came home to find Ybarra waiting for her.
She was wearing a male friend’s T-shirt and shorts, and Ybarra
demanded that she take them off. When she did not remove the
clothes, Ybarra cut them off with scissors. She began to scream
and cry, and Ybarra placed his hands over her nose and mouth
to muffle her cries. He then pinned her to the ground until she
calmed down and stopped screaming. He prevented her from
getting up and threatened to kill her. He said that he did not
care if he went to prison and that it would be her fault if he
never saw his children again.
On July 29, 2007, A.S. arrived home to find Ybarra in her
apartment. To get him out of the apartment, she took him for
a drive. He asked her to pull over so they could have sex. A.S.
refused, but Ybarra began to grab her breasts. He then tried to
grab her face and forcibly kissed her, biting her lip. When she
pushed him away with her right arm, Ybarra punched her in the
upper arm.
Around August 1, 2007, A.S. reported that Ybarra had entered
her apartment without her permission and left flowers and
764 	279 NeBRASkA RepORTS

stuffed animals for her. No forced entry was found, and A.S.
told police that Ybarra may have had a key to her apartment
made without her permission. She believed he had previously
entered her apartment and ejaculated on the bedspread.
The protection order was issued on August 1, 2007, and
within hours of its issuance, Ybarra arrived at A.S.’ residence
with a copy of the order in his hand. On August 2, Ybarra
was charged with third degree domestic assault, violation of a
domestic abuse protection order, and trespassing. Ybarra entered
into a plea agreement and was found guilty of first-offense vio-
lation of a protection order and first degree criminal trespass.
The third degree domestic assault charge was dismissed. He
was fined $25. Ybarra completed a 24-week domestic violence
intervention program upon the advice of his attorney.
Ybarra’s version of events differed. He stated that A.S.
attempted to commit suicide when he broke off the relation-
ship. He did not report the suicide attempt because he was
concerned it would affect A.S.’ ability to finish law school or
take the bar examination. Ybarra said A.S. hurt her lip when
they were attempting to kiss in the car and bumped into each
other. When they returned to her apartment, they fought, and
Ybarra grabbed A.S. by the arms because she was swinging at
him. Ybarra denied the other incidents.
At the time the protection order was issued, A.S. was work-
ing for the Attorney General’s office. An investigator for the
office wrote to the Commission asking it to deny Ybarra’s
application. The investigator said he was involved in the investi-
gation of an alleged domestic assault by Ybarra on A.S. That
investigation “uncovered a significant history of abhorrent
behavior toward women” by Ybarra, including when he was
working as a law enforcement officer.
2. other evidence
At the hearing, Ybarra introduced evidence to support his
application, including a letter from the mother of a woman he
had dated since July 2008; a letter from the mother of one of
his children; a letter from an attorney who employed Ybarra
as a law clerk and who had offered him a position after he
passes the bar examination; a letter from the child support
IN Re AppLICATION OF YBARRA 	765
Cite as 279 Neb. 758

specialist in the Scotts Bluff County Attorney’s office, who
indicated that Ybarra was current in his child support obliga-
tions; a letter from the dean of students at the University of
Nebraska-Lincoln, who stated that Ybarra fulfilled the obliga-
tions attached to his student judicial sanctions; and letters of
appreciation for his work as a police officer in Scottsbluff.
Ybarra denied the allegations of all four women as recounted
above, except the violation of the protection order.
3. commission’s Action
After the hearing, the Commission notified Ybarra that it
had denied his request to sit for the bar examination. The
Commission’s decision was based on the admission require-
ments for the practice of law and the standard of character and
fitness.1 Section 3-103 provides:
An attorney should be one whose record of conduct
justifies the trust of clients, adversaries, courts, and others
with respect to the professional duties owed to them. A
record manifesting a significant deficiency by an appli-
cant in one or more of the following essential eligibility
requirements for the practice of law may constitute a
basis for denial of admission. In addition to the admis-
sion requirements otherwise established by these rules,
the essential eligibility requirements for admission to the
practice of law in Nebraska are:
(A) The ability to conduct oneself with a high degree of
honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness in all professional
relationships and with respect to all legal obligations;
(B) The ability to conduct oneself diligently and reli-
ably in fulfilling all obligations to clients, attorneys,
courts, and others;
(C) The ability to conduct oneself with respect for and
in accordance with the law and the Nebraska Rules of
professional Conduct;
(D) The ability to communicate clearly with clients,
attorneys, courts, and others;
1 See Neb. Ct. R. § 3-103.
766 	279 NeBRASkA RepORTS

(e) The ability to reason, analyze, and recall complex
factual information and to integrate such information with
complex legal theories;
(F) The ability to exercise good judgment in conduct-
ing one’s professional business;
(G) The ability to avoid acts that exhibit disregard for
the health, safety, and welfare of others;
(H) The ability to use honesty and good judgment
in financial dealings on behalf of oneself, clients, and
others;
(I) The ability to comply with deadlines and time
constraints;
(J) The ability to conduct oneself professionally and
in a manner that engenders respect for the law and the
profession.
The Commission specifically cited subsections (A), (C),
(F), (G), (H), and (J), and Ybarra has appealed from the
Commission’s decision.
III. ASSIGNMeNT OF eRROR
Ybarra contends the Commission erred in failing to find that
the evidence established that Ybarra met the standard of char-
acter and fitness to sit for the state bar examination.
IV. STANDARD OF ReVIeW
[1] Under Neb. Ct. R. § 3-115, the Nebraska Supreme Court
considers the appeal of an applicant from a final adverse ruling
of the Commission de novo on the record made at the hearing
before the Commission.2
V. ANALYSIS
The record supports the Commission’s denial of Ybarra’s
application to take the Nebraska bar examination. Ybarra
exhibited abusive behavior toward four women with whom he
had previous relationships. In each case, the version of events
provided by the woman describes Ybarra’s actions toward her
as intimidating, violent, assaultive, unlawful, perverted, and
demonstrating an abuse of his authority. In each instance,
2 In re Application of Hartmann, 276 Neb. 775, 757 N.W.2d 355 (2008).
IN Re AppLICATION OF YBARRA 	767
Cite as 279 Neb. 758

Ybarra provides an explanation differing from that given by
the woman.
In the DUI incident with D.G., Ybarra followed her from a
bar and then stopped her for DUI. He was waiting at her home
when she arrived after posting bond. Ybarra claimed he did
not know D.G. was the driver until after he stopped the car for
making a wide turn and speeding, and he claimed D.G. asked
him to contact her mother about bond. In the domestic dispute
incident, Ybarra was the first officer to arrive, even though he
knew from the address that it was D.G.’s home. Ybarra appar-
ently saw no conflict in answering a police call about a domes-
tic matter at the home of a former girlfriend.
The record contains no statement from k. about the incident
in which Ybarra touched her. Ybarra stated that he reached into
k.’s shirt pocket to take away her cigarettes, but he was eventu-
ally charged with third degree sexual assault for his actions. He
resigned from the police department rather than face a public
hearing into the matter.
T.W. obtained a protection order against Ybarra for his
harassing and inappropriate behavior after she ended their
relationship. T.W. said Ybarra continuously called her at home
and at the office even after she told him she no longer wanted
to speak to him. T.W. said she was forced to change the locks
on her home and to get security escorts from her office to her
car. Ybarra claimed that T.W. called him at home and at work
and that she was upset when he began a new relationship. He
alleged that he continued to call T.W. because he was con-
cerned for her safety after she made suicidal statements.
A.S. also obtained a protection order against Ybarra after
their relationship ended. She reported incidents of physical vio-
lence, including forcible sex. She believed Ybarra had entered
her apartment without her permission and ejaculated on her
bedspread. Ybarra claimed that he was concerned about A.S.’
safety because she was suicidal. He denied the incidents of
physical contact, except that he grabbed her by the arms when
she was swinging at him.
The incidents with the four women span a time period of
over 6 years and occurred in several locations. However, there
is a pattern in Ybarra’s behavior which appeared to intensify
768 	279 NeBRASkA RepORTS

over time. All of the incidents involved women with whom
Ybarra had an intimate relationship.
The primary purposes of character and fitness screening
before admission to the bar of Nebraska are to [en]sure
the protection of the public and to safeguard the justice
system. . . . The public is adequately protected only by
a system that evaluates character and fitness as those
elements relate to the practice of law. The public inter-
est requires that the public be secure in its expectation
that those who are admitted to the bar are worthy of
the trust and confidence clients may reasonably place in
their attorneys.3
[2,3] The Commission’s rules “place on the applicant the
burden of proving good character by producing documenta-
tion, reports, and witnesses in support of the application.”4
The Nebraska Supreme Court is vested with the sole power
to admit persons to the practice of law in this state and to fix
qualifications for admission to the Nebraska bar.5 Neb. Rev.
Stat. § 7-102(1) (Reissue 2007) provides: “No person shall
be admitted . . . unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the
Supreme Court that such person is of good moral character.”
This court has delegated administrative responsibility for bar
admissions solely to the Commission.6
[4,5] Where the record of an applicant for admission to the
Nebraska State Bar demonstrates a significant lack of honesty,
trustworthiness, diligence, or reliability, a basis may exist for
denying his or her application.7 When evidence exists to indi-
cate that an applicant has engaged in conduct demonstrating a
lack of character and fitness, the Commission must determine
whether present character and fitness qualify the applicant
for admission.8
3 Neb. Ct. R. § 3-101 et seq., appendix A.
4 Id. See, also, In re Application of Hartmann, supra note 2.
5 In re Application of Hartmann, supra note 2.
6 Id.
7 Id.
8 Id.
IN Re AppLICATION OF YBARRA 	769
Cite as 279 Neb. 758

“The ultimate test of present moral character, applica-
ble to original admissions to the Bar, is whether, viewing
the applicant’s character in the period subsequent to his
misconduct, he has so convincingly rehabilitated himself
that it is proper that he become a member of a profession
which must stand free from all suspicion. . . . That the
absence of good moral character in the past is secondary
to the existence of good moral character in the present is a
cardinal principle in considering applications for original
admission to the Bar.”9
In another bar admission case, we noted that the applicant
had been involved in three serious incidents involving “‘“abu-
sive, disruptive, hostile, intemperate, intimidating, irrespon-
sible, threatening, [and] turbulent behavior”’” and that such
behavior is a proper basis for the denial of admission to the
bar.10 While two of the incidents had occurred 9 years earlier,
the most recent had taken place while the applicant was a first-
year law student. We concluded that the Commission did not
err in determining that the applicant, who had been allowed
to take the bar examination, should not be admitted to the
bar association.11
Ybarra has demonstrated a pattern of behavior involving for-
mer female acquaintances. The incidents included in the record
took place between 2001 and 2007. Two took place while he
was a police officer. In the arrest of D.G., Ybarra continued to
perform the DUI investigation even after he learned her iden-
tity; he obtained money to pay her bond, an action that was
deemed inappropriate by a patrol sergeant with the Scottsbluff
police Department; he arrested someone with whom he had a
previous sexual relationship, a violation of the police depart-
ment’s conflict of interest policy; and he arrested D.G. after
9 In re Application of Majorek, 244 Neb. 595, 605, 508 N.W.2d 275, 282
(1993), quoting In re Application of Allan S., 282 Md. 683, 387 A.2d 271
(1978).
10 In re Application of Antonini, 272 Neb. 985, 993-94, 726 N.W.2d 151, 157
(2007), quoting In re Application of Silva, 266 Neb. 419, 665 N.W.2d 592
(2003).
11 In re Application of Antonini, supra note 10.
770 	279 NeBRASkA RepORTS

she left a bar that was not on Ybarra’s beat. The administra-
tive license revocation hearing officer believed that Ybarra had
acted as a “rogue cop” and found that Ybarra’s testimony was
not credible.
The record includes little detail about the incident with k.,
the jail employee, but Ybarra’s actions were serious enough to
warrant a charge of third degree sexual assault. He was found
not guilty by a jury, but he later resigned from his job as a
police officer rather than appear at a public hearing before the
city council.
Two of the women, T.W. and A.S., obtained protection orders
against Ybarra. Ybarra’s behavior toward T.W. was increasingly
harassing: He continually called her at home and at work,
left notes in her private office, and visited her uninvited at
the office, leading T.W. to express concern about her physi-
cal safety.
Ybarra’s actions escalated and became more physical as
time passed, becoming more inappropriate after he began law
school. It was alleged that Ybarra physically restrained A.S.,
cut off her clothes, hit her on the arm, bit her on the lip, and
sexually assaulted her. even after being served with a protec-
tion order, Ybarra’s first response to that order was to go to
A.S.’ apartment to confront her. Ybarra denies any misbehavior
on his part. He even claims two of the women were suicidal
over the end of their relationships with him.
The record shows a pattern of improper behavior on the
part of Ybarra—four women made claims of assault against
Ybarra or sought protection orders against him. In each of the
cases, Ybarra denies any wrongdoing and attempts to blame
the woman, claiming she was either lying or suicidal, that she
was harassing him, or that he was trying to protect her. By his
denial, Ybarra takes no responsibility for any of the behavior
and shows no remorse for his actions. Indeed, he does not
appear to believe that his behavior has been inappropriate.
The only evidence Ybarra presented to suggest that he
acknowledges or admits to any problems is his completion of
a 24-week domestic violence program, which he undertook
on the advice of his attorney. However, Ybarra never admit-
ted that any of the allegations by the four women had a basis
IN Re AppLICATION OF YBARRA 	771
Cite as 279 Neb. 758

in fact. He has not suggested that he has been rehabilitated.
While Ybarra has not been charged criminally or convicted
of these alleged assaults, the allegations suggest a pattern of
conduct toward four different women that is totally unaccept-
able behavior.
The Commission specifically cited subsections (A), (C),
(F), (G), (H), and (J) of § 3-103 as the basis for its decision to
deny Ybarra’s application to sit for the bar examination. The
Commission thus found Ybarra lacked the ability to demon-
strate honesty and integrity; to act in accordance with the law
and the rules of ethics; to exercise good judgment; to avoid
acts that show disregard for the health, safety, and welfare
of others; and to conduct himself professionally. The record
shows a history of behavior which is abusive, violent, hostile,
intimidating, threatening, assaultive, unlawful, and perverted.
The record shows that Ybarra does not meet the standards of
character required to be admitted to the bar.
VI. CONCLUSION
Ybarra’s behavior demonstrates a pattern of abhorrent
behavior toward women. Three women in the past 9 years
have sought protection orders against him. He has not admit-
ted that his behavior is inappropriate and has not demon-
strated any remorse. The Commission was correct in deter-
mining that Ybarra does not meet the standards of character
required for admission to the bar and that he should not
be allowed to take the state bar examination. We affirm
the Commission’s denial of Ybarra’s application to take the
Nebraska bar examination.
A pplicAtion denied.
772 	279 NeBRASkA RepORTS