In re Application of Hartmann

CONCLUSION
Our de novo review of the record made at the district court
establishes that Morgan was not being illegally detained by the
Veselys and that it is in the best interests of the minor child,
Morgan, to remain in the care of the Veselys. Accordingly, we
reverse the order of the district court which issued the writ of
habeas corpus and we hereby order that Morgan be returned
to the Veselys, pending the initiation and resolution of adop-
tion proceedings.
reverSed With direCtioNS.
iN re A ppliCAtioN of dAvid v. hArtmANN for A dmiSSioN
to the NebrASkA StAte bAr oN exAmiNAtioN.
757 N.W.2d 355
Filed November 21, 2008. 	No. S-34-070006.
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. 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.
3. ____: ____. The Nebraska Supreme Court has delegated administrative responsi-
bility for bar admissions solely to the Nebraska State Bar Commission.
4. Attorneys at Law: Proof. The applicant for admission to the Nebraska State Bar
bears the burden of proving good character by producing documentation, reports,
and witnesses in support of the application.
5. 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.
6. ____. When evidence exists to indicate that an applicant has engaged in conduct
demonstrating a lack of character and fitness in the past, the Nebraska State Bar
Commission must determine whether present character and fitness qualify the
applicant for admission.
Original action. Application granted.
Sean J. Brennan for applicant.
IN rE APPLICATION OF hArTMANN 	775
Cite as 276 Neb. 775
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
11/01/2026 04:53 AM CST

Brad 	roth 	and 	Chris 	F. 	Blomenberg, 	of 	Mchenry,
haszard, hansen, roth & hupp, P.C., for Nebraska State
Bar Commission.
heAviCAN, C.J., Wright, C oNNolly, gerrArd, StephAN, and
mCC ormACk , JJ.
per C uriAm.
INTrODUCTION
David V. hartmann appeals the decision of the Nebraska
State Bar Commission (Commission) denying his application
to sit for the July 2007 Nebraska bar examination. hartmann
previously applied to sit for the July 2004 examination. That
application was denied, and this court addressed hartmann’s
appeal of that decision in 2005.1 In that case, as well as in this
one, the Commission determined that hartmann did not have
the requisite fitness and character to be admitted to the bar.
hartmann claims that he has presented sufficient evidence on
this occasion to demonstrate that he has the necessary character
and fitness. We agree with hartmann and grant his application
to sit for the bar examination.
BACKGrOUND
hartmann originally applied to sit for the bar examination
in 2002. In his application, hartmann disclosed his complete
criminal history, including a 2002 charge of third degree
sexual assault. The sexual assault charge was based on alle-
gations made by his then 15-year-old niece. The Commission
allowed hartmann to sit for the July 2002 bar examination,
but withheld approval of hartmann’s application on character
and fitness grounds until further investigation could be com-
pleted. hartmann then failed the 2002 bar examination and
reapplied to sit for the 2004 examination. The Commission
denied hartmann’s application based on a lack of character
and fitness, focusing specifically on the allegations made
by his niece. This court accepted the Commission’s recom-
mendation and denied hartmann’s application based on a
1 In re Application of Hartmann, 270 Neb. 628, 705 N.W.2d 443 (2005).
776 	276 NEBrASKA rEPOrTS

number of factors,2 including hartmann’s relatively recent
inappropriate behavior with his niece. We also considered an
incident in which hartmann wrote an inappropriate letter to
a 14-year-old female student whom he had taught a number
of years before, and hartmann’s two arrests for driving under
the influence of alcohol, which led to two convictions for
reckless driving.
This court cited the testimony of Dr. robert D. Larson, a
psychologist whom hartmann had seen for a total of eight
sessions at the time of the first hearing. Dr. Larson testified
that he had concerns regarding hartmann’s ability to handle
stress in an appropriate manner. Dr. Larson also testified that
he could not state with a reasonable degree of certainty that
hartmann’s problems had been resolved. Further, the serious-
ness and recency of the behavior cast doubt on hartmann’s
ability to conduct himself appropriately and there was “insuf-
ficient evidence of rehabilitation to safely predict that the
pattern of behavior [would] not recur.”3 For those reasons, we
determined the record did not sufficiently demonstrate that
hartmann’s psychological issues were resolved, or if such reso-
lution was even possible.4
hartmann then applied to sit for the July 2007 bar examina-
tion. The Commission once again denied his application, and
hartmann appealed. At a hearing held on October 17, 2007,
Dr. Larson testified that he had revised hartmann’s diagnosis
from adjustment disorder with depressed mood, major depres-
sive disorder, and personality disorder not otherwise specified
to major depressive disorder. Dr. Larson stated that he and
hartmann had addressed hartmann’s use of inappropriate cop-
ing mechanisms and had worked on finding other ways to com-
bat stress. Dr. Larson also testified that hartmann had success-
fully completed counseling and that in Dr. Larson’s opinion,
to a reasonable degree of psychological certainty, hartmann
would not present a risk to future clients.
2 Id.
3 Id. at 640, 705 N.W.2d at 451.
4 Id.
IN rE APPLICATION OF hArTMANN 	777
Cite as 276 Neb. 775

hartmann also testified. In his testimony, hartmann indi-
cated that he was currently in a long-term relationship with
an adult female. he stated that he was sober and would not
drink alcohol again, that touching his niece’s leg was inappro-
priate, and that he felt a great deal of remorse for those actions.
hartmann also denied that he had sexually assaulted his niece
at any point in the past and stated that he felt it was “very sad
that some sort of campaign . . . was launched against [him].”
hartmann produced a number of letters written by friends, fam-
ily members, and coworkers in support of his admission to the
bar. After the hearing on hartmann’s appeal, the Commission
decided to deny hartmann’s application.
ASSIGNMENT OF ErrOr
hartmann assigns that the Commission erred when it deter-
mined that he had not met his burden in showing that he has
the requisite character and fitness to be admitted to the bar.
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.5
ANALYSIS
[2,3] This court is vested with the sole power to admit per-
sons to the practice of law in this state and to fix qualifications
for admission to the Nebraska bar.6 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 dele-
gated administrative responsibility for bar admissions solely to
the Commission.7
Neb. Ct. r. § 3-103, which governs the admission of attor-
neys, describes the applicable standards for character and fit-
ness of attorneys as follows:
5 In re Application of Antonini, 272 Neb. 985, 726 N.W.2d 151 (2007).
6 In re Application of Hartmann, supra note 1.
7 See id.
778 	276 NEBrASKA rEPOrTS

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. . . . [T]he essential eligibil-
ity 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;
. . . .
(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;
. . . .
(J) The ability to conduct oneself professionally and
in a manner that engenders respect for the law and the
profession.
[4-6] The applicant for admission bears the burden of prov-
ing good character by producing documentation, reports, and
witnesses in support of the application.8 Where the record of
an applicant for admission to the bar demonstrates a significant
lack of honesty, trustworthiness, diligence, or reliability, a basis
may exist for denying his or her application.9 When evidence
exists to indicate that an applicant has engaged in conduct
demonstrating a lack of character and fitness in the past, the
8 Id.; In re Application of Silva, 266 Neb. 419, 665 N.W.2d 592 (2003).
9 See In re Application of Roseberry, 270 Neb. 508, 704 N.W.2d 229
(2005).
IN rE APPLICATION OF hArTMANN 	779
Cite as 276 Neb. 775

Commission must determine whether present character and fit-
ness qualify the applicant for admission.10
Although the Commission has good reason to be reluctant
to grant hartmann’s application, the record before us indicates
that hartmann complied with the conditions set forth in our
prior opinion. As noted, we denied hartmann’s application
for admission to the bar based on his history of alcohol abuse
and inappropriate conduct with underage girls, including his
niece.11 There was also a lack of evidence of rehabilitation in
the record at the time.12 We cited the fact that hartmann was
still undergoing treatment and stated that the record did “not
afford a sufficient basis for predicting when, if, or how” resolu-
tion of his psychological condition would occur.13 Our previous
opinion suggested that hartmann would be eligible to sit for
the bar examination if he could sufficiently demonstrate that he
had resolved his psychological condition.
The record shows that since our denial of hartmann’s pre-
vious application, he completed counseling and is taking anti-
depressant medication. Testimony from Dr. Larson indicated
that hartmann was unlikely to repeat his inappropriate behav-
ior. hartmann has expressed remorse for the behavior that led
to the criminal charges, although he also expressed resentment
against his niece and her immediate family for what he insists
are false allegations of other conduct which have never resulted
in criminal prosecution. hartmann presented a substantial num-
ber of letters in support of his application from those who know
him through his employment in the military, in his construction
job, and through his volunteer work.
hartmann 	presented 	community 	involvement 	affidavits
regarding cleanup efforts following a tornado which struck
hallam, Nebraska, Meals on Wheels, and the National Audubon
Society. he reenlisted in the Nebraska Army National Guard
after he had reached the 20-year retirement mark, and he
10 See In re Application of Hartmann, supra note 1.
11 Id.
12 Id.
13 Id. at 640, 705 N.W.2d at 451.
780 	276 NEBrASKA rEPOrTS

also served in Iraq in 2003. According to letters sent to the
Commission by members of hartmann’s military unit, hartmann
is highly regarded by those with whom he has served.
To the extent the previous denial of hartmann’s applica-
tion was based on a lack of rehabilitation, we conclude that
hartmann has overcome that obstacle. As noted, according to
Dr. Larson, hartmann has successfully completed counseling
and is continuing on antidepressant medication for his psycho-
logical condition. Although the Commission’s reluctance to
grant hartmann’s application to sit for the bar is understand-
able, the record appears to demonstrate that hartmann has ful-
filled the conditions set forth in our prior opinion. When asked
if he perceived hartmann “to represent a risk of engaging in a
pattern of . . . inappropriate behavior in the future,” Dr. Larson
responded that he did “not see that as likely.”
hartmann’s rehabilitation, combined with the cited evidence
demonstrating character and fitness, is persuasive, and nothing
in the record appears to contradict the evidence hartmann pre-
sented. We accordingly grant hartmann’s application to sit for
the Nebraska bar examination.
CONCLUSION
Because hartmann presented sufficient evidence that he
has resolved his psychological condition and has been reha-
bilitated as required by our earlier opinion, and because no
evidence to the contrary can be found in the record, we
now grant hartmann’s application to sit for the Nebraska bar
examination.
A ppliCAtioN grANted .
miller-lermAN, J., participating on briefs.
IN rE APPLICATION OF hArTMANN 	781
Cite as 276 Neb. 775