State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Hutchinson

benefits paid to Murphy. We reject NEBCO’s assignments of
error. Because the district court’s ruling in case No. S-09-691
conforms to the law, we affirm.
CONCLUSION
We conclude in case No. S-09-484 that the district court did
not err when it determined that Murphy was entitled to unem-
ployment benefits because NEBCO had failed to establish that
Murphy’s employment was terminated for misconduct under
§ 48-628(2) and when it accordingly affirmed the appeal tribu-
nal’s decision. We conclude in case No. S-09-691 that the dis-
trict court did not err when it concluded that NEBCO’s account
was chargeable for benefits paid to Murphy and accordingly
affirmed the appeal tribunal’s decision. We therefore affirm the
orders of the district court.
A ffirmed.
StAte of NebrASkA ex rel . C ouNSel for diSCipliNe of
the NebrASkA Supreme C ourt, relAtor , v.
pAulA b. hutChiNSoN, reSpoNdeNt.
784 N.W.2d 893
Filed July 2, 2010. 	No. S-09-805.
1. Disciplinary Proceedings. A proceeding to discipline an attorney is a trial de
novo on the record.
2. ____. The basic issues in a disciplinary proceeding against a lawyer are whether
discipline should be imposed and, if so, the type of discipline appropriate under
the circumstances.
3. ____. With respect to the imposition of attorney discipline in an individual case,
the Nebraska Supreme Court evaluates each attorney disciplinary case in light of
its particular facts and circumstances.
4. ____. To determine whether and to what extent discipline should be imposed in
a lawyer discipline proceeding, the Nebraska Supreme Court considers the fol-
lowing factors: (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 generally, and (6) the offender’s present or
future fitness to continue in the practice of law.
5. ____. The determination of an appropriate penalty to be imposed on an attorney
requires consideration of any aggravating or mitigating factors.
158 	280 NEBrASkA rEpOrTS
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
11/01/2026 04:47 AM CST

6. ____. An attorney’s failure to respond to inquiries and requests for information
from the Counsel for Discipline is a grave matter and a threat to the credibility of
attorney disciplinary proceedings.
Original action. Judgment of suspension.
kent 	L. 	Frobish, Assistant 	Counsel 	for 	Discipline, 	for
relator.
No appearance for respondent.
heAviCAN, 	C.J., 	Wright, 	C oNNolly, 	gerrArd, 	StephAN,
mCC ormACk , and miller-lermAN, JJ.
per C uriAm.
INTrODUCTION
The Counsel for Discipline of the Nebraska Supreme Court
filed formal charges against respondent, paula B. Hutchinson.
In the charges, the Counsel for Discipline alleged that respond-
ent violated her oath of office as an attorney licensed to prac-
tice law in the State of Nebraska and various provisions of the
Nebraska rules of professional Conduct based on her neglect
of client matters. This court granted judgment on the pleadings
as to the facts in the formal charges and set the matter for oral
argument. After reviewing the matter, we find that the proper
sanction is suspension from the practice of law.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
As alleged in the formal charges, respondent was admitted
to the practice of law in the State of Nebraska on September
25, 1991. At the times relevant to this case, respondent was
engaged in the private practice of law with an office located in
Lincoln, Nebraska.
On October 27, 2008, the Counsel for Discipline received
a grievance letter from Dorsey Taylor. Taylor alleged that he
hired respondent to file a petition for writ of certiorari with
the U.S. Supreme Court and paid respondent a fee of $5,000.
Taylor alleged that respondent failed to keep him informed
about his case, failed to file the requested petition, and refused
to refund any portion of his advance fee payment.
STATE Ex rEL. COUNSEL FOr DIS. v. HUTCHINSON 	159
Cite as 280 Neb. 158

After receiving Taylor’s grievance, the Counsel for Discipline
sent two letters to respondent in 2008, one in late October and
the other in mid-November. On November 25, respondent
informed the Counsel for Discipline via telephone that she
would send a written response to Taylor’s grievance within a
week. The Counsel for Discipline did not receive this response
from respondent, and thereafter, it contacted respondent again
on December 16 and received no response. The Counsel for
Discipline also contacted respondent on January 5, February
25, and March 3, 2009. respondent never replied.
On March 19, 2009, the Counsel for Discipline filed an
application with the Nebraska Supreme Court to temporarily
suspend respondent’s license to practice law. This court issued
an order directing respondent to show cause why her license
should not be suspended. The order was mailed to respondent
by certified mail; she either failed or refused to accept the
certified mail. On April 20, respondent was personally served
with a copy of the order to show cause, and on April 27, she
filed a motion for extension of time to respond. In that motion,
she stated that she had been seriously ill from February to
April 2009 and that during her illness, she had contacted her
clients and made necessary arrangements for them. She also
stated that the attorney she had retained to represent her in the
disciplinary matter had recently suffered a heart attack. After
we granted an extension, respondent filed her response to the
motion to show cause on May 11. In this response, respondent
again stated that she had been critically ill and that her attorney
had suffered a heart attack. She also noted that she had spoken
to the Counsel for Discipline and that she planned to submit a
response to Taylor’s complaint “this week.”
The Counsel for Discipline filed a reply to respondent’s
response to the order to show cause on May 21, 2009. In this
filing, the Counsel for Discipline noted that respondent had not
addressed why she had failed to respond to Taylor’s grievance
from November 2008 until February 2009. It also noted that
it had not yet received the promised response to the Taylor
grievance and that on May 15, respondent had notified it that
she was again hospitalized. This court issued an order on
June 4, suspending respondent from the practice of law until
160 	280 NEBrASkA rEpOrTS

further order of the court. respondent never filed a response to
Taylor’s grievance.
On March 26 and April 2, 2009, the Counsel for Discipline
received 	additional 	grievance 	letters 	from 	clients 	alleging
that respondent had neglected their cases. The Counsel for
Discipline served notice of the grievances on respondent, but
she failed to respond. On May 21, the Counsel for Discipline
received a grievance letter from an attorney alleging that
respondent had previously represented his client in a criminal
case and that although he had made repeated attempts to secure
the client’s file from respondent, she had failed and refused to
respond. The Counsel for Discipline served notice of this griev-
ance on respondent, but she failed to respond.
The Counsel for Discipline alleges that respondent’s con-
duct constitutes a violation of her oath of office as an attorney
licensed to practice law in the State of Nebraska and viola-
tions of the following provisions of the Nebraska rules of
professional Conduct: Neb. Ct. r. of prof. Cond. §§ 3-501.3
(diligence), 3-501.4 (communications), 3-501.5 (fees), and
3-508.4 (misconduct).
ANALYSIS
[1,2] A proceeding to discipline an attorney is a trial de
novo on the record.1 The basic issues in a disciplinary proceed-
ing against a lawyer are whether discipline should be imposed
and, if so, the type of discipline appropriate under the circum-
stances.2 In the instant case, this court granted the Counsel for
Discipline’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the
facts; therefore, the only issue before us is the type of disci-
pline to be imposed.
Neb. Ct. r. § 3-304 provides that the following may be con-
sidered as discipline for attorney misconduct:
(A) Misconduct shall be grounds for:
(1) Disbarment by the Court; or
1 State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Tarvin, 279 Neb. 399, 777 N.W.2d 841
(2010); State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Smith, 275 Neb. 230, 745 N.W.2d
891 (2008).
2 Id.
STATE Ex rEL. COUNSEL FOr DIS. v. HUTCHINSON 	161
Cite as 280 Neb. 158

(2) Suspension by the Court; or
(3) probation by the Court in lieu of or subsequent to
suspension, on such terms as the Court may designate; or
(4) Censure and reprimand by the Court; or
(5) Temporary suspension by the Court; or
(6) private reprimand by the Committee on Inquiry or
Disciplinary review Board.
(B) The Court may, in its discretion, impose one or
more of the disciplinary sanctions set forth above.
[3-5] With respect to the imposition of attorney discipline in
an individual case, we evaluate each attorney disciplinary case
in light of its particular facts and circumstances.3 To determine
whether and to what extent discipline should be imposed in a
lawyer discipline proceeding, this court considers the following
factors: (1) the nature of the offense, (2) the need for deter-
ring 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 generally, and (6) the offender’s present or future
fitness to continue in the practice of law.4 We have also noted
that the determination of an appropriate penalty to be imposed
on an attorney requires consideration of any aggravating or
mitigating factors.5
Here, respondent did not respond to the charges filed against
her and has failed to present any evidence of mitigating cir-
cumstances. She has no history of prior disciplinary actions.
In a similar case,6 we suspended an attorney for a minimum
of 1 year. That attorney, like respondent, had neglected sev-
eral client matters and had refused to comply and respond to
inquiries from the Counsel for Discipline. The attorney had no
record of prior disciplinary matters, and the neglect did not
involve misuse of client funds.
3 State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Tarvin, supra note 1; State ex rel. Counsel
for Dis. v. Wintroub, 277 Neb. 787, 765 N.W.2d 482 (2009).
4 Id.
5 State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Tarvin, supra note 1; State ex rel. Counsel
for Dis. v. Wickenkamp, 277 Neb. 16, 759 N.W.2d 492 (2009).
6 State ex rel. NSBA v. Rothery, 260 Neb. 762, 619 N.W.2d 590 (2000).
162 	280 NEBrASkA rEpOrTS

[6] We view an attorney’s failure to respond to inquiries and
requests for information from the Counsel for Discipline as a
grave matter and as a threat to the credibility of attorney disci-
plinary proceedings.7 respondent’s failure to reply to repeated
inquiries from the Counsel for Discipline demonstrates nothing
less than a total disrespect for our disciplinary jurisdiction and
a lack of concern for the protection of the public, the profes-
sion, and the administration of justice.8
In light of the foregoing precedent and the particular facts of
this case, and with no mitigating circumstances apparent from
the pleadings, we find and hereby order that respondent should
be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in the State
of Nebraska, with a minimum suspension of 2 years, effective
on June 3, 2009, the date of our order of temporary suspen-
sion. Any application for reinstatement filed by respondent
after the minimum suspension period shall include a showing
which demonstrates her fitness to practice law. respondent is
directed to comply with Neb. Ct. r. § 3-316 and to pay costs
and expenses of these proceedings.
JudgmeNt of SuSpeNSioN.
7 Id.
8 See id.
STrAUB v. CITY OF SCOTTSBLUFF 	163
Cite as 280 Neb. 163
robert A. StrAub, Appellee , v. C ity of SCottSbluff,
A politiCAl SubdiviSioN, ANd leAgue ASSoCiAtioN
of riSk mANAgemeNt, AppellANtS.
784 N.W.2d 886
Filed July 2, 2010. 	No. S-09-1121.
1. Workers’ Compensation: Appeal and Error. On appellate review, the factual
findings made by the trial judge of the Workers’ Compensation Court have the
effect of a jury verdict and will not be disturbed unless clearly wrong.
2. ____: ____. In workers’ compensation cases, an appellate court is obligated to
make its own determinations regarding questions of law.
3. Workers’ Compensation. The dual purpose rule provides that if an employee is
injured in an accident while on a trip which serves both a business purpose and
a personal purpose, the injuries are compensable as arising out of the course and