State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Chavez

(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 . counSel for diScipline
of the nebraSka Supreme court, relator , v.
bart a. chavez , reSpondent.
812 N.W.2d 282
filed april 6, 2012. 	No. S-11-070.
Original action. Judgment of disbarment.
heavican, c.J., Wright, connolly, Stephan, mccormack ,
and miller-lerman, JJ.
per curiam.
INTRODUCTION
This case is before the court on the voluntary surrender of
license filed by respondent, Bart a. Chavez, on february 22,
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
11/01/2026 04:42 AM CST

2012. The court accepts respondent’s voluntary surrender of his
license and enters an order of disbarment.
STaTeMeNT Of faCTS
Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in the
State of Kansas on april 26, 1991, and in the State of
Nebraska on September 8, 1992. In 1997, respondent sought
and obtained permission to transfer his license in Kansas to
inactive status.
In considering whether to accept respondent’s voluntary sur-
render tendered in the current case, we refer initially to prior
disciplinary matters which are of public record. Respondent
was previously disciplined by this court. State ex rel. Counsel
for Dis. v. Chavez, 279 Neb. 183, 776 N.W.2d 791 (2010).
On July 1, 2009, the Counsel for Discipline of the Nebraska
Supreme Court filed a motion for reciprocal discipline pur-
suant to Neb. Ct. R. § 3-321. On May 4, 2009, respondent
had received a public censure from the U.S. Department of
Justice executive Office for Immigration Review (eOIR) “for
having engaged in contumelious or otherwise obnoxious con-
duct while representing a client before an immigration court.”
Chavez, 279 Neb. at 184, 776 N.W.2d at 792. Respondent had
engaged in three confrontational telephone conversations with
an immigration court administrator using offensive and disre-
spectful language directed at the administrator and the court.
Chavez, supra.
The motion for reciprocal discipline alleged that respond-
ent’s actions resulting in the public censure from the eOIR
constituted a violation of the following provisions of the
Nebraska Rules of Professional Conduct: Neb. Ct. R. of
Prof. Cond. §§ 3-504.4 (respect for rights of third persons)
and 3-508.4 (misconduct). Chavez, supra. On July 1, 2009,
respondent filed a conditional admission under Neb. Ct. R.
§ 3-313, in which he knowingly did not challenge or contest
the facts set forth in the motion for reciprocal discipline and
waived all proceedings against him in connection therewith.
Chavez, supra. Upon due consideration, the court approved
the conditional admission and found that respondent had vio-
lated §§ 3-504.4 and 3-508.4. accordingly, respondent was
624 	283 NeBRaSKa RePORTS

publicly reprimanded and directed to pay all costs in the case.
Chavez, supra.
On July 23, 2010, the office of the Disciplinary administrator
of 	the 	Kansas 	Supreme 	Court 	filed 	a 	formal 	complaint
against respondent alleging violations of the Kansas Rules of
Professional Conduct. In re Chavez, 292 Kan. 45, 251 P.3d
628 (2011). The allegations were based on the same actions of
respondent discussed above that resulted in a public censure
from the eOIR and a public reprimand from the Nebraska
Supreme Court. a hearing was held before a panel of the
Kansas Board for Discipline of attorneys, and the hearing
panel determined that respondent had violated the following
Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct: “3.5(d) (2010 Kan.
Ct. R. annot. 557) (engaging in undignified or discourteous
conduct degrading to a tribunal) and 8.4(d) (2010 Kan. Ct. R.
annot. 603) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the admin-
istration of justice).” In re Chavez, 292 Kan. at 45, 251 P.3d
at 629. On april 11, 2011, the Kansas Supreme Court found
the evidence supported the panel’s determinations and ordered
that respondent be disciplined by public censure and ordered
costs of the proceedings be assessed to respondent. In re
Chavez, supra.
The current case commences on January 25, 2011, on which
date the Committee on Inquiry of the fourth Disciplinary
District filed an application to place respondent on disability
inactive status. Respondent did not object to the application.
On January 27, this court ordered that respondent be placed on
disability inactive status pursuant to Neb. Ct. R. § 3-311 until
further order of the court.
On february 16, 2012, the Counsel for Discipline filed a
motion to appoint a trustee to take custody of the files and
trust account of respondent. On february 23, upon respond-
ent’s request that Subhash Chandra be appointed as trustee,
this court sustained the motion and appointed Chandra as
trustee.
On february 22, 2012, respondent filed a voluntary sur-
render in which he admitted that the Counsel for Discipline
is 	investigating 	a 	number 	of 	grievances 	that 	have 	been
filed against him. Respondent further stated that he freely,
STaTe ex ReL. COUNSeL fOR DIS. v. Chavez 	625
Cite as 283 Neb. 623

knowingly, and voluntarily chose not to contest the truth of
the allegations being made against him in the current case. he
further stated that he freely, knowingly, and voluntarily sur-
rendered his privilege to practice law in the State of Nebraska.
Respondent further stated that he freely, knowingly, and vol-
untarily waived his right to notice, appearance, or hearing
prior to the entry of an order of disbarment and consented to
the entry of an immediate order of disbarment.
aNaLYSIS
Neb. Ct. R. § 3-315 of the disciplinary rules provides in
pertinent part:
(a) Once a Grievance, a Complaint, or a formal Charge
has been filed, suggested, or indicated against a member,
the member may voluntarily surrender his or her license.
(1) The voluntary surrender of license shall state in
writing that the member knowingly admits or knowingly
does not challenge or contest the truth of the suggested
or indicated Grievance, Complaint, or formal Charge
and waives all proceedings against him or her in connec-
tion therewith.
Pursuant to § 3-315 of the disciplinary rules, we find that
respondent has voluntarily surrendered his license to practice
law and knowingly does not challenge or contest the truth
of the allegations made against him. further, respondent has
waived all proceedings against him in connection therewith.
We further find that respondent has consented to the entry of
an order of disbarment.
CONCLUSION
Upon due consideration of the court file in this matter, the
court finds that respondent has stated that he freely, knowingly,
and voluntarily admits that he does not contest the allegations
being made against him. The court accepts respondent’s volun-
tary surrender of his license to practice law, finds that respond-
ent should be disbarred, and hereby orders him disbarred from
the practice of law in the State of Nebraska, effective imme-
diately. Respondent shall forthwith comply with all terms of
Neb. Ct. R. § 3-316 of the disciplinary rules, and upon failure
626 	283 NeBRaSKa RePORTS

to do so, he shall be subject to punishment for contempt of
this court. accordingly, respondent is directed to pay costs
and expenses in accordance with Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 7-114 and
7-115 (Reissue 2007) and Neb. Ct. R. §§ 3-310(P) 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 diSbarment.
State of nebraSka ex rel . counSel for diScipline
of the nebraSka Supreme court, relator , v.
Jeremy r. Shirk , alSo knoWn aS Jeremy r.
muckey-Shirk , reSpondent.
810 N.W.2d 749
filed april 6, 2012. 	No. S-12-012.
Original action. Judgment of disbarment.
heavican, c.J., Wright, connolly, Stephan, mccormack ,
and miller-lerman, JJ.
per curiam.
INTRODUCTION
This case is before the court on the voluntary surrender
of license filed by respondent, Jeremy R. Shirk, also known
as Jeremy R. Muckey-Shirk, on January 9, 2012. The court
accepts respondent’s voluntary surrender of his license and
enters an order of disbarment.
STaTeMeNT Of faCTS
Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in the State
of Nebraska on June 16, 2010. On January 9, 2012, respond-
ent filed a voluntary surrender in which he admitted that the
Counsel for Discipline of the State of Nebraska is investigat-
ing three grievances that have been filed against him alleging
that respondent has neglected the affairs of various clients.
Respondent further stated that he freely, knowingly, and vol-
untarily chose not to contest the truth of the allegations being
STaTe ex ReL. COUNSeL fOR DIS. v. ShIRK 	627
Cite as 283 Neb. 627