State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Chavez

Because the Siegels stayed the judicial sale of their prop-
erty, their claims relating to TILA violations were waived.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s confirmation of the
judicial sale.
A ffirmed.
STATe ex reL. counSeL for dIS. v. chAvez 	183
cite as 279 neb. 183
StAte of NebrASkA ex rel . C ouNSel for diSCipliNe
of the NebrASkA Supreme C ourt, relAtor ,
v. bArt A. C hAvez , reSpoNdeNt.
776 n.W.2d 791
filed January 8, 2010. 	no. S-09-643.
original action. Judgment of public reprimand.
heAviCAN, 	C.J., 	Wright, 	C oNNolly, 	gerrArd, 	StephAN,
mCC ormACk , and miller-lermAN, JJ.
per C uriAm.
InTroducTIon
respondent, Bart A. chavez, was admitted to the prac-
tice of law in the State of nebraska on September 8, 1992,
after having been previously admitted to the practice of law
in the State of Kansas. respondent is also admitted to the
practice of law before the u.S. immigration courts and the
Board of Immigration Appeals. At all times relevant, respond-
ent was engaged in the private practice of law in omaha,
nebraska, with the primary focus of his practice being immi-
gration matters.
on July 1, 2009, the office for the counsel for discipline of
the nebraska Supreme court filed a motion for reciprocal dis-
cipline pursuant to neb. ct. r. § 3-321. The motion stated that
on August 21, 2008, the bar counsel for the u.S. department
of Justice executive office for Immigration review (eoIr)
filed a notice of intent to discipline respondent. In April 2009,
respondent and the eoIr entered into a settlement agreement
agreeing to resolve the disciplinary allegations against respond-
ent. on May 4, 2009, respondent received a public censure
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
11/01/2026 04:48 AM CST

from the eoIr for having engaged in contumelious or other-
wise obnoxious conduct while representing a client before an
immigration court.
In its motion for reciprocal discipline, the counsel for
discipline alleges that the conduct described in the eoIr’s
notice of intent to discipline 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). Therefore,
the counsel for discipline asked this court to impose an appro-
priate disciplinary sanction.
on July 1, 2009, respondent filed a conditional admission
under neb. ct. r. § 3-313, in which he knowingly did not chal-
lenge or contest the facts set forth in the motion for reciprocal
discipline and waived all proceedings against him in connec-
tion therewith in exchange for a stated form of consent judg-
ment of discipline outlined below. upon due consideration, the
court approves the conditional admission.
fAcTS
In summary, the notice of intent to discipline filed by the
bar counsel for the eoIr stated that on July 13, 2006, respond-
ent entered his appearance as counsel of record for Sindiso
Luphahla in the “Matter of Sindiso Luphahla, A 98 495 843,”
a case before the elizabeth, new Jersey, immigration court.
The matter was transferred to the dallas, Texas, immigration
court, where respondent entered an appearance as counsel
of record.
on July 19, 2007, Luphahla filed a motion for continu-
ance with the dallas court stating that respondent was “not
able to come to court” for a hearing on August 3. on July 21,
immigration Judge deitrich h. Sims issued an order denying
Luphahla’s motion stating that insufficient grounds existed for
continuing the case.
on July 23, 2007, respondent filed a motion to withdraw as
counsel in the Luphahla matter. Judge Sims entered an order
denying respondent’s motion to withdraw on July 24. respondent
filed a second motion to withdraw on July 30. Immigration
Judge James A. nugent denied the second motion.
184 	279 neBrASKA rePorTS

At the request of Judge nugent, dallas immigration court
administrator Barbara Baker called respondent to inform him
of the denial of his request to withdraw. According to the
allegations in the motion for reciprocal discipline, respondent
became very upset and angry with Baker and engaged in a
confrontational conversation with her using offensive language
directed at Baker, Judge Sims, and the court. Toward the end
of the call, respondent then asked Baker to relay his request for
the hearing with Judge nugent on August 3, 2007, to be held
telephonically.
Baker informed Judge nugent of respondent’s request for a
telephonic hearing, at which time Judge nugent orally denied
the request. Baker called respondent to inform him of Judge
nugent’s denial, and respondent engaged in a second confron-
tational conversation with Baker, again using offensive lan-
guage directed at Baker and the court.
on August 1, 2007, respondent called the court and asked
for Baker and engaged in a third confrontational conversation
with Baker using offensive and disrespectful language directed
at Baker and the court. respondent failed to appear at the
August 3 hearing.
In the motion for reciprocal discipline, the counsel for
discipline alleges that the conduct described in the eoIr’s
notice of intent to discipline constituted a violation of §§ 3-504.4
and 3-508.4.
AnALYSIS
Section 3-313 provides in pertinent part:
(B) At any time after the clerk has entered a formal
charge against a respondent on the docket of the court,
the respondent may file with the clerk a conditional
admission of the formal charge in exchange for a stated
form of consent judgment of discipline as to all or part of
the formal charge pending against him or her as deter-
mined to be appropriate by the counsel for discipline
or any member appointed to prosecute on behalf of the
counsel for discipline; such conditional admission is
subject to approval by the court. The conditional admis-
sion shall include a written statement that the respondent
STATe ex reL. counSeL for dIS. v. chAvez 	185
cite as 279 neb. 183

knowingly admits or knowingly does not challenge or
contest the truth of the matter or matters conditionally
admitted and waives all proceedings against him or her in
connection therewith. If a tendered conditional admission
is not finally approved as above provided, it may not be
used as evidence against the respondent in any way.
Pursuant to his conditional admission, respondent knowingly
does not challenge the allegations in the motion for reciprocal
discipline conditioned on the receipt of the following disci-
pline: that respondent be publicly reprimanded and that he pay
all costs in this case.
Pursuant to § 3-313, and given the conditional admission, we
find that respondent knowingly does not challenge or contest
the motion for reciprocal discipline, which we now deem to be
established facts, and we further find that respondent violated
§§ 3-504.4 and 3-508.4. respondent has waived all additional
proceedings against him in connection herewith, and upon due
consideration, the court approves the conditional admission and
enters the orders as indicated below.
concLuSIon
Based on the conditional admission of respondent, the rec-
ommendation of the counsel for discipline, and our indepen-
dent review of the record, we find by clear and convincing evi-
dence that respondent has violated §§ 3-504.4 and 3-508.4 and
that respondent should be and hereby is publicly reprimanded.
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(B) within 60 days after
an order imposing costs and expenses, if any, is entered by
the court.
JudgmeNt of publiC reprimANd.
186 	279 neBrASKA rePorTS