State ex rel. Counsel for Discipline of the Neb. Supreme Court v. Schild
| Decision Date | 14 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. S-20-368.,S-20-368. |
| Citation | 947 N.W.2d 561,306 Neb. 849 |
| Parties | STATE of Nebraska EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DISCIPLINE OF the NEBRASKA SUPREME COURT, relator, v. Christine M. SCHILD, respondent. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
The State Bar of Arizona entered a "Final Judgment and Order" regarding the respondent, Christine M. Schild, on April 17, 2020. The Counsel for Discipline of the Nebraska Supreme Court, the relator, filed a motion for reciprocal discipline against the respondent. We grant the motion for reciprocal discipline and impose a suspension of 6 months and 1 day.
The respondent was admitted to the practice of law in the State of Nebraska in 1983, in Minnesota in 1985, in Florida in 1990, and in Arizona in 1994. From 1994 to 2014, the respondent only actively engaged in the practice of law in Arizona. In 1994, she retired due to a disability and changed her status to inactive in these jurisdictions.
On April 17, 2020, the State Bar of Arizona issued an order entered on the consent of the parties that found that the respondent violated the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct.
The order suspended the respondent from the practice of law for 6 months and 1 day, effective April 17. The respondent conditionally admitted that she violated the "Arizona Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct (Rule 42)," specifically "ER 3.3" (candor toward the tribunal), "ER 5.5" (unauthorized practice of law), "ER 8.1" (bar admissions and disciplinary matters), and "ER 8.4(c) ... and (e)" (misconduct), as well as " Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court (Rule 41 )," including subsection (c) () and subsection (g) (unprofessional conduct). The charges arose from the respondent's unauthorized practice of law, subsequent lie that she did not represent clients, and other related behavior.
On May 14, 2020, the relator filed a motion for reciprocal discipline pursuant to Neb. Ct. R. § 3-321 of the disciplinary rules. The motion stated that the above-cited Arizona Supreme Court rules are in sum and substance the equivalent of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 7-104 (Reissue 2012) and Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. §§ 3-503.3 (rev. 2016), 3-505.5 (rev. 2012), and 3-508.4 (rev. 2016), as well as the "lawyer's responsibilities" identified in the preamble of the Nebraska Rules of Professional Conduct.
This court filed an order to show cause as to why it should not impose reciprocal discipline. On May 26, 2020, the relator filed a response that requested reciprocal discipline of a period of suspension without specification. On May 29, the respondent filed a response in which she requested that this court impose identical discipline to that imposed in Arizona.
The basic issues in a disciplinary proceeding against an attorney are whether discipline should be imposed and, if so, the type of discipline appropriate under the circumstances. State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Murphy , 283 Neb. 982, 814 N.W.2d 107 (2012). In a reciprocal discipline proceeding, a judicial determination of attorney misconduct in one jurisdiction is generally conclusive proof of guilt and is not subject to relitigation in the second jurisdiction. Id. Neb. Ct. R. § 3-304 of the disciplinary rules provides that the following may be considered as discipline for attorney misconduct:
Section 3-321 of the disciplinary rules provides in part:
(A) Upon being disciplined in another jurisdiction, a member shall promptly inform the Counsel for Discipline of the discipline imposed. Upon receipt by the Court of appropriate notice that a member has been disciplined in another jurisdiction, the Court may enter an order imposing the identical discipline, or greater or lesser discipline as the Court deems appropriate, or, in its discretion, suspend the member pending the imposition of final discipline in...
To continue reading
Request your trial