State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Thomas

State of NebraSka ex rel . C ouNSel for D iSCipliNe
of the NebraSka Supreme C ourt, relator , v.
bruCe G. thomaS, reSpoNDeNt.
799 N.W.2d 661
Filed April 8, 2011. 	No. S-11-180.
Original action. Judgment of suspension.
heaviCaN, C.J., C oNNolly, G errarD, StephaN, mCC ormaCk,
and miller‑lermaN, JJ.
per C uriam.
INTRODUCTION
Respondent, Bruce G. Thomas, was admitted to the practice
of law in the State of Nebraska on March 22, 1982, after hav-
ing been previously admitted to the practice of law in the State
of Iowa in 1976.
On March 2, 2011, the office of the Counsel for Discipline
of the Nebraska Supreme Court filed a motion for reciprocal
discipline pursuant to Neb. Ct. R. § 3-321 of the disciplinary
rules. The motion stated that on February 18, 2011, the Iowa
Supreme Court suspended the respondent for 60 days com-
mencing February 18.
In its motion for reciprocal discipline, the Counsel for
Discipline moves this court to impose a suspension of 60 days
to run concurrently with the respondent’s Iowa suspension.
On March 2, 2011, respondent filed a conditional admission
under Neb. Ct. R. § 3-313 of the disciplinary rules, 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 in exchange for a stated
form of consent judgment of discipline outlined below. The
motion for reciprocal discipline and the conditional admission
are before the court for rulings. Upon due consideration, the
court approves the conditional admission and grants the motion
for reciprocal discipline.
FACTS
In summary, the decision of the Iowa Supreme Court which
is attached and incorporated into the motion for reciprocal
336 	281 NeBRASkA RepORTS
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
11/01/2026 04:44 AM CST

discipline 	states 	that 	the 	Iowa 	Supreme 	Court 	Attorney
Disciplinary 	Board 	initiated 	a 	disciplinary 	action 	against
respondent in connection with his conduct in representing two
clients in their personal injury claim arising from an automo-
bile accident that occurred in December 2005. Respondent
met with his clients about their claim in March 2006, and he
timely filed a petition in Iowa district court in December 2007.
Respondent, however, failed to timely serve the defendant until
28 days after the deadline for service, and consequently, the
case was later dismissed on June 2, 2008, at which time it was
time barred.
Respondent did not inform his clients about the dismissal
until November 2008, because he was embarrassed by his con-
duct. In an effort not to tell his clients, he avoided calls, and
in September 2008, he informed them that he would “‘get to
the bottom of the matter.’” Respondent defended his failure to
accomplish timely service by confessing that he had been dis-
tracted by the poor health of his elderly mother.
As a result of the dismissal, respondent’s clients lost the
right to pursue a direct claim for their injuries against the
defendant. Respondent suggested that they pursue a malprac-
tice action against him to hold him accountable for his mistake.
Respondent’s clients pursued a malpractice action in June 2009,
with respondent’s insurance carrier. Respondent did not dispute
that the lawsuit was dismissed as a result of his inaction.
In the Iowa disciplinary action, the parties moved to waive
a hearing in this matter and submitted the complaint to the
“Grievance Commission” based on the stipulated facts, stipu-
lated ethical violations, stipulated mitigating and aggravating
factors, and recommended sanctions.
On February 22, 2010, the commission filed findings of
fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations. The com-
mission adopted the parties’ stipulation of facts and adopted
the parties’ stipulation that respondent violated the following
provisions of the Iowa Rules of professional Conduct: 32:1.1
(requiring lawyer to provide competent representation), 32:1.3
(requiring lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and prompt-
ness in representing client), 32:1.4 (requiring lawyer to keep
client informed), 32:3.2 (requiring lawyer to make reasonable
STATe ex Rel. COUNSel FOR DIS. v. ThOMAS 	337
Cite as 281 Neb. 336

efforts to expedite litigation), 32:7.1(a) (finding misconduct
for lawyer to engage in false or misleading communication
related to lawyer services), 32:8.4(a) (finding misconduct to
violate disciplinary rule), and 32:8.4(d) (finding misconduct to
engage in conduct that is prejudicial to administration of jus-
tice). The commission also found that respondent violated rule
32:8.4(c) (finding misconduct to engage in conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation). The commis-
sion recommended a 6-month suspension from the practice of
law and recommended that, as a condition to reinstatement,
respondent be required to demonstrate that he had adopted
office practices and policies consistent with preventing further
neglect of deadlines and ensuring more prompt and direct cli-
ent communication.
Respondent 	appealed 	the 	commission 	report. The 	Iowa
Supreme Court issued an order in the case and concluded that
respondent’s conduct violated rules 32:1.3, 32:1.4, 32:8.4(d),
and 32:8.4(c). The Iowa Supreme Court declined to address the
commission’s conclusion that respondent violated rules 32:1.1
and 32:8.4(a) and concluded that respondent did not violate
rule 32:7.1(a). The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the aggravat-
ing and mitigating facts and suspended respondent’s license to
practice law with no possibility of reinstatement for 60 days
from the date of the filing of the opinion, which was February
18, 2011.
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
338 	281 NeBRASkA RepORTS

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.
For purposes of § 3-313, we read formal charges to include
a motion for reciprocal discipline. See State ex rel. Counsel
for Dis. v. Chavez, 279 Neb. 183, 776 N.W.2d 791 (2010).
pursuant to his conditional admission, respondent knowingly
does not challenge the allegations in the motion for recipro-
cal discipline conditioned on the receipt of the following
discipline: that respondent be suspended from the practice of
law in Nebraska for a period of 60 days effective February
18, 2011, the date of the Iowa suspension, and that he be
automatically reinstated to the practice of law in the State
of Nebraska on the day after the 60-day suspension period
expires, provided that he has paid all costs assessed against
him herein.
pursuant to § 3-313 of the disciplinary rules, and given the
conditional admission, we find that respondent knowingly does
not challenge or contest the facts contained in the motion for
reciprocal discipline, which we now deem to be established
facts. We further find that respondent violated the Nebraska
Rules of professional Conduct that are comparable to the
rules he violated in Iowa, to wit: requiring a lawyer to act
with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a
client, requiring a lawyer to keep clients informed, engaging
in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice,
and engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit,
or misrepresentation. Respondent has waived all additional
proceedings against him in connection herewith, and upon
due consideration, the court approves the conditional admis-
sion, grants the motion for reciprocal discipline, and enters the
orders as indicated below.
CONClUSION
The motion for reciprocal discipline is granted, and the
conditional admission is approved. Based on the conditional
STATe ex Rel. COUNSel FOR DIS. v. ThOMAS 	339
Cite as 281 Neb. 336

admission of respondent, the recommendation of the Counsel
for Discipline, and our independent review of the record, we
find by clear and convincing evidence that respondent has
violated the Nebraska Rules of professional Conduct that are
comparable to the rules respondent violated in Iowa and that
respondent should be and hereby is suspended from the prac-
tice of law in Nebraska for 60 days applied retroactively to
February 18, 2011, the date of discipline in Iowa. Respondent
shall comply with Neb. Ct. R. § 3-316 of the disciplinary rules,
and upon failure to do so, he shall be subject to punishment
for contempt of this court. Respondent shall be eligible to be
reinstated to the practice of law in the State of Nebraska on the
day after the 60-day suspension period expires, provided that
respondent has paid all 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) of the disciplinary rules within
60 days after an order imposing costs and expenses, if any, is
entered by the court. In order to effectuate reinstatement, rela-
tor and respondent are ordered to submit a proposed order of
reinstatement, signed by both parties, stating that respondent
has complied with § 3-316 of the disciplinary rules and paid all
costs and expenses, and that the parties are in agreement that
reinstatement is therefore warranted.
JuDGmeNt of SuSpeNSioN.
WriGht, J., not participating.
State of NebraSka ex rel . C ouNSel for D iSCipliNe
of the NebraSka Supreme C ourt, relator , v.
barbara a. ferGuSoN, reSpoNDeNt.
795 N.W.2d 291
Filed April 8, 2011. 	No. S-11-227.
Original action. Judgment of disbarment.
heaviCaN, C.J., C oNNolly, G errarD, StephaN, mCC ormaCk,
and miller‑lermaN, JJ.
340 	281 NeBRASkA RepORTS