State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Lopez Wilson

as Shaleia’s. To the extent that this scenario is likely to recur,
and we hope it does not, the GAL has not demonstrated it will
likely again evade review.
[3] The GAL is frustrated by the fact that DHHS has
obtained its desired outcome through obstinacy and procedural
maneuverings. But such complaints fail to provide an exception
to the mootness doctrine. Shaleia, the party whose interests are
most at stake, asks that we dismiss the appeals. In the absence
of an actual case or controversy requiring judicial resolution,
it is not the function of our court to render a judgment that is
merely advisory.13 We dismiss the appeals as moot.
A ppeAls dismissed.
13 Kuhn v. Wells Fargo Bank of Neb., 278 Neb. 428, 771 N.W.2d 103
(2009).
stAte of NebrAskA ex rel . C ouNsel for disCipliNe
of the NebrAskA supreme C ourt, relAtor , v.
Joseph lopez WilsoN, respoNdeNt.
811 N.W.2d 673
Filed April 6, 2012. 	No. S-10-1246.
1. Disciplinary Proceedings. A proceeding to discipline an attorney is a trial de
novo on the record.
2. Disciplinary Proceedings: Proof. Disciplinary charges against an attorney must
be established by clear and convincing evidence.
3. Disciplinary Proceedings. Violation of a disciplinary rule concerning the prac-
tice of law is a ground for discipline.
4. ____. Each attorney discipline case is evaluated in light of its particular facts and
circumstances, and consideration is given to the attorney’s acts underlying the
events of the case and throughout the proceedings.
5. ____. The Nebraska Supreme Court considers six factors in determining whether
and to what extent discipline should be imposed: (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 gener-
ally, and (6) the offender’s present or future fitness to continue in the practice
of law.
6. ____. The determination of an appropriate penalty to be imposed on an attorney
in a disciplinary proceeding requires the consideration of any aggravating or
mitigating factors.
616 	283 NEBrASkA rEporTS
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
11/01/2026 04:42 AM CST

original action. Judgment of public reprimand.
John 	W. 	Steele, 	Assistant 	Counsel 	for 	Discipline, 	for
relator.
Darnetta L. Sanders, of Sanders Law office, for respondent.
Joseph Lopez Wilson, pro se.
heAviCAN, C.J., Wright, C oNNolly, stephAN, mCC ormACk ,
and miller-lermAN, JJ.
per C uriAm.
INTroDUCTIoN
on December 30, 2010, the Counsel for Discipline of the
Nebraska Supreme Court filed formal charges against Joseph
Lopez Wilson, respondent, alleging that respondent violated
Neb. Ct. r. of prof. Cond. § 3-501.1 (competence) and his oath
of office as an attorney. See Neb. rev. Stat. § 7-104 (reissue
2007). respondent filed an answer to the charges, and a ref-
eree was appointed. In his report and recommendation, the
referee recommended a public reprimand. Neither the Counsel
for Discipline nor respondent filed exceptions to the referee’s
report. The Counsel for Discipline moved for judgment on the
pleadings as to the facts under Neb. Ct. r. § 3-310(L) of the
disciplinary rules. We granted the motion and set the matter
of discipline for oral argument. For the reasons that follow,
we find that respondent should be and hereby is publicly rep-
rimanded. Further, we find that respondent shall be on moni-
tored probation for a period of 2 years, subject to the terms set
forth below.
STATEMENT oF FACTS
respondent was admitted to the practice of law in the State
of Nebraska on September 17, 1986. At all times relevant to
these proceedings, he has practiced in omaha and Bellevue,
Nebraska. respondent has been involved in practicing primar-
ily immigration law for the past 25 years.
The following is a summary of the substance of the referee’s
findings, which the record supports. In April 2009, respondent
was hired by a client to represent him in formal immigration
STATE Ex rEL. CoUNSEL For DIS. v. LopEz WILSoN 	617
Cite as 283 Neb. 616

proceedings and to seek cancellation of removal so the client
could legally stay in the United States. In order to achieve this,
respondent had to file a “Form EoIr-42B” (“Application for
Cancellation of removal and Adjustment of Status for Certain
Nonpermanent residents”) on behalf of the client with a U.S.
immigration court.
on April 14, 2009, a hearing was held before the immi-
gration court. At the hearing, the immigration court directed
respondent to file the form EoIr-42B on or before June 12
in preparation for the next hearing, which was to be held June
23. The immigration court advised respondent that if the form
EoIr-42B was not filed with the immigration court by June
12, the immigration court would deem the client’s claim for
cancellation of removal to be abandoned.
on May 8, 2009, respondent filed the form EoIr-42B
with the Texas Service Center for the U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, which is an administrative agency, and
not a court. respondent failed to file the form EoIr-42B with
the immigration court.
At the hearing on June 23, 2009, the immigration court noted
that the form EoIr-42B was not in the court file and that the
district counsel had not received a copy. Because respondent
failed to file the form EoIr-42B with the immigration court,
the immigration court deemed the client’s claim for cancellation
of removal abandoned. The order granted the client voluntary
departure from the United States, which was conditioned upon
the posting of a $500 bond within 5 days. The order stated in
the alternative that if the client failed to post the required bond,
the grant of voluntary departure would be withdrawn, and he
would be removed from the United States to Mexico.
on June 23, 2009, members of the client’s family obtained
a $500 cashier’s check for the bond. on June 24, respondent’s
staff began preparing the bond application. on June 25, a
member of the client’s family posted the bond with the U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
respondent 	timely 	filed 	an 	appeal 	with 	the 	Board 	of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) on behalf of the client. one of
the appellate rules in immigration court is that a bond receipt
must be filed in the appellate court to fully perfect the appeal.
618 	283 NEBrASkA rEporTS

After the client’s family posted the bond, respondent failed to
obtain the bond receipt from the client’s family or to ensure
that the client’s family filed the bond receipt. Therefore, the
bond receipt was filed late with the appellate court. Based on
the lack of proof of timely payment, the BIA vacated the grant
of voluntary departure and ordered that the client be removed
from the United States to Mexico pursuant to the immigration
court’s alternate order of removal.
A new lawyer for respondent’s client attempted to avoid
the client’s removal by filing a motion to reopen the case,
which was denied. Accordingly, the client was ordered to leave
the United States. For completeness, we note that the client
appeared at the disciplinary hearing in this case, but was not
called to testify.
on December 30, 2010, the Counsel for Discipline filed for-
mal charges alleging respondent violated his oath of office as an
attorney and conduct rule § 3-501.1 (competence). respondent
filed his answer, and a referee was appointed. on May 13,
2011, respondent submitted a conditional admission, which
was rejected by this court. on June 23, a hearing was held
before the referee, at which respondent testified.
In his report filed July 11, 2011, the referee found that
respondent violated conduct rule § 3-501.1 (competence), as
well as his oath of office as an attorney. The referee noted in
his report that respondent fully cooperated with the Counsel
for Discipline during the course of the disciplinary proceedings
and that respondent had rearranged his office procedures to
ensure in the future that immigration filings are done properly.
The referee noted the severe nature of missed filing deadlines
in the area of immigration law. The referee stated that because
respondent has practiced primarily immigration law for 25
years, respondent knew or should have known about the seri-
ousness of missing deadlines. As an aggravating factor, the
referee noted that respondent has had two previous disciplinary
matters. one matter resulted in a 2-year suspension from the
practice of law for hostile, threatening, and disruptive conduct
directed toward a client. See State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v.
Lopez Wilson, 262 Neb. 653, 634 N.W.2d 467 (2001). The
other matter resulted in a private reprimand for the failure to
STATE Ex rEL. CoUNSEL For DIS. v. LopEz WILSoN 	619
Cite as 283 Neb. 616

timely and properly file the form EoIr-42B with the immigra-
tion court, a failure he has repeated and which gives rise to
the present case. The referee stated that he did not question
respondent’s present or future fitness to continue with immi-
gration law. As for the discipline imposed, the referee recom-
mended a public reprimand. No exceptions were taken to the
referee’s report.
The relator filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings
as to the facts under § 3-310(L) of the disciplinary rules. on
September 30, 2011, this court granted the motion for judgment
on the pleadings as to the facts and set the matter of discipline
for oral argument. on February 15, 2012, this court entered an
order for the parties to submit a proposed monitored probation
plan. on March 5, the Counsel for Discipline and respondent
moved the court to accept their jointly submitted proposed pro-
bation plan, the terms of which are set forth below.
ANALYSIS
[1-3] A proceeding to discipline an attorney is a trial de
novo on the record. State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Bouda,
282 Neb. 902, 806 N.W.2d 879 (2011). Disciplinary charges
against an attorney must be established by clear and convinc-
ing evidence. State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Carter, 282 Neb.
596, 808 N.W.2d 342 (2011). Violation of a disciplinary rule
concerning the practice of law is a ground for discipline. State
ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Wintroub, 281 Neb. 957, 800 N.W.2d
269 (2011).
Because the motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the
facts was granted, the only issue before us is the appropriate
discipline. See Bouda, supra. In attorney discipline cases, the
basic issues are whether discipline should be imposed and, if
so, the type of discipline under the circumstances. Id.
[4-6] This court evaluates each attorney discipline case in
light of its particular facts and circumstances, and consid-
ers the attorney’s acts underlying the events of the case and
throughout the proceedings. Bouda, supra. We consider six
factors in determining whether and to what extent discipline
should be imposed: (1) the nature of the offense, (2) the need
for deterring others, (3) the maintenance of the reputation of
620 	283 NEBrASkA rEporTS

the bar as a whole, (4) the protection of the public, (5) the
attitude of the offender generally, and (6) the offender’s pres-
ent or future fitness to continue in the practice of law. Id.
The determination of an appropriate penalty to be imposed
on an attorney in a disciplinary proceeding requires the con-
sideration of any aggravating or mitigating factors. State ex
rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Seyler, ante p. 401, 809 N.W.2d 766
(2012). We have considered prior discipline including repri-
mands as aggravators. State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Nich,
279 Neb. 533, 780 N.W.2d 638 (2010). We have often said
that because cumulative acts of attorney misconduct are dis-
tinguishable from isolated incidents, they justify more serious
sanctions. Bouda, supra.
The evidence presented in this case establishes that respond-
ent failed to timely file the form EoIr-42B with the immigra-
tion court and the bond receipt with the BIA on behalf of his
client. The harshness of missed deadlines in the area of immi-
gration law was known or should have been known to respond-
ent, because he has practiced immigration law for 25 years.
respondent’s failure demonstrated a lack of competence with
regard to the matter involved in the representation of his client.
Additionally, respondent has had two previous disciplinary mat-
ters, one which resulted in a 2-year suspension and the other
which resulted in a private reprimand arising from this same
issue. However, we note as mitigating factors that respondent
has fully cooperated with the Counsel for Discipline during the
disciplinary proceedings and has taken steps to ensure future
immigration filings are done properly.
We have considered the record, the findings which have
been established by clear and convincing evidence, and the
applicable law. Upon due consideration, the court finds that
respondent should be and hereby is publicly reprimanded.
Further, the court finds that respondent shall be placed on pro-
bation for a period of 2 years. The court accepts the parties’
jointly proposed monitored probation plan. respondent’s moni-
tored probation is therefore subject to the following terms:
(1) respondent will initially be monitored by Darnetta L.
Sanders, a Nebraska attorney, who has agreed to abide by the
terms of this probation plan, including that she will report
STATE Ex rEL. CoUNSEL For DIS. v. LopEz WILSoN 	621
Cite as 283 Neb. 616

any violations of this probation plan or the Nebraska rules of
professional Conduct to the Counsel for Discipline;
(2) respondent freely, knowingly, and specifically waives
any attorney-client privilege between himself and his moni-
toring attorney, and respondent agrees to obtain a waiver of
attorney-client privilege by a client only to the extent necessary
to permit the monitoring attorney to access the case file;
(3) respondent will provide his monitoring attorney with
a monthly list of cases for which respondent is then currently
responsible, said list to include the following information for
each case:
(a) the date the attorney-client relationship began;
(b) the general type of case (i.e., immigration, divorce, adop-
tion, probate, contract, real estate, civil litigation, criminal);
(c) the date of last contact with the client;
(d) the last type and date of work completed on the file
(pleadings, correspondence, document preparation, discovery,
court hearing);
(e) the next type of work and date the work should be com-
pleted on the case;
(f) any applicable statute of limitations and its date; and
(g) the identification of all funds received from the clients
to be paid over to the government as bonds or filing fees (e.g.,
asylum, cancellation of removal).
(4) respondent will reconcile his trust account within 7 work-
ing days of receiving the bank statement for his trust account
and shall furnish a copy of the reconciliation to his monitoring
attorney within 3 days of completing the reconciliation;
(5) During the period of his monitored probation, respond-
ent will have written fee agreements with all clients and,
if it is an immigration matter, then the fee agreement shall
specifically set forth the form of relief that respondent is
attempting to achieve for the client (e.g., asylum, cancellation
of removal);
(6) respondent will provide the monitoring attorney with
copies of all contingency fee agreements and settlement sheets
during the term of probation. Included with the settlement
sheets shall be copies of all trust account checks written to or
for the benefit of the identified client;
622 	283 NEBrASkA rEporTS

(7) The monitoring attorney shall submit a quarterly compli-
ance report to the Counsel for Discipline;
(8) respondent will review with the monitoring attorney
respondent’s office practices, and respondent will continue to
work to develop efficient office procedures that protect the
clients’ interests; and
(9) respondent agrees not to violate the Nebraska rules of
professional Conduct.
CoNCLUSIoN
We find that respondent violated conduct rule § 3-501.1 and
his oath of office as an attorney. See § 7-104. It is the judg-
ment of this court that respondent should be and hereby is pub-
licly reprimanded. It is the further judgment of this court that
respondent shall be placed on monitored probation for a period
of 2 years, subject to the terms set forth above. respondent is
directed to pay costs and expenses in accordance with Neb.
rev. Stat. § 7-114 (reissue 2007), as well as § 3-310(p) and
Neb. Ct. r. § 3-323 within 60 days after an order imposing
costs and expenses, if any, is entered by this court.
JudgmeNt of publiC reprimANd.
STATE Ex rEL. CoUNSEL For DIS. v. CHAVEz 	623
Cite as 283 Neb. 623
stAte of NebrAskA ex rel . C ouNsel for disCipliNe
of the NebrAskA supreme C ourt, relAtor , v.
bArt A. C hAvez , respoNdeNt.
812 N.W.2d 282
Filed April 6, 2012. 	No. S-11-070.
original action. Judgment of disbarment.
heAviCAN, C.J., Wright, C oNNolly, stephAN, mCC ormACk ,
and miller-lermAN, JJ.
per C uriAm.
INTroDUCTIoN
This case is before the court on the voluntary surrender of
license filed by respondent, Bart A. Chavez, on February 22,