Appeal of Lane

• Citation: 544 N.W.2d 367,249 Neb. 499
• Decision Date: 08 March 1996
• Docket Number: No. S-34-950002,S-34-950002
• Parties: In re Appeal of Gary M. LANE for Admission to the Nebraska State Bar Association. Gary M. LANE, Appellant, v. BAR COMMISSION OF THE NEBRASKA STATE BAR ASSOCIATION, Appellee.
• Court: Supreme Court of Nebraska

Page 367

544 N.W.2d 367

249 Neb. 499

In re Appeal of Gary M. LANE for Admission to the Nebraska State Bar Association.

Gary M. LANE, Appellant, v. BAR COMMISSION OF THE NEBRASKA STATE BAR ASSOCIATION, Appellee.

No. S-34-950002.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

March 8, 1996.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Rules of the Supreme Court: Attorneys at Law: Appeal and Error. Under Neb.Ct.R. for Adm. of Attys. 15 (rev.1992), the Nebraska Supreme Court reviews determinations made by the Nebraska State Bar Commission de novo on the record, reaching a conclusion independent of the findings of the referee; provided, however, that where credible evidence is in conflict on a material issue of fact, the court considers and may give weight to the fact that the referee heard and observed the witnesses and accepted one version of the facts rather than another.

2. Rules of the Supreme Court: Attorneys at Law: Time. Under Neb.Ct.R. for Adm. of Attys. 3 (see appendix A), 9, and 10 (rev.1992), the Nebraska State Bar Commission is empowered to continue investigations into an applicant's character and fitness between the time the applicant has taken the bar examination and such time as the applicant has taken the oath of admission.

3. Attorneys at Law. Hostile, threatening, and disruptive conduct reflects on an attorney's honesty, trustworthiness, diligence, and reliability.

4. Attorneys at Law. It is not necessary that an applicant for admission to the Nebraska State Bar Association have had an intent to deceive in order to be found to have lacked candor in filling out an application.

5. Attorneys at Law. False, misleading, or evasive answers to bar application questions may be grounds for finding a lack of requisite character and fitness.

6. Rules of the Supreme Court: Attorneys at Law: Appeal and Error. The reasons set forth in the written statement for appealing from a determination of the Nebraska State Bar Commission filed under Neb.Ct.R. for Adm. of Attys. 15 (rev.1992) serve the same function as assignments of error in a brief, namely, to advise the Nebraska Supreme Court as the reviewing court of the issues to be decided, in the sense that the court is informed of the legal bases upon which the contentions to be considered are grounded.

7. Rules of the Supreme Court: Attorneys at Law: Appeal and Error. Reasons which are set forth in a written statement filed under Neb.Ct.R. for Adm. of Attys. 15 (rev.1992) for appealing a denial of admission to the Nebraska State Bar Association, but which are not argued, will not be considered.

No appearance for appellant.

Denzel R. Busick, of Luebs, Leininger, Smith, Busick & Johnson, Grand Island, for appellee.

WHITE, C.J., and CAPORALE, FAHRNBRUCH, LANPHIER, WRIGHT, and CONNOLLY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to Neb.Ct.R. for Adm. of Attys. 15 (rev.1992), the applicant-appellant, Gary M. Lane, challenges the decision of the respondent-appellee, the bar commission of the Nebraska State Bar Association, to deny his application for readmission to the Nebraska bar through membership in the association.

SCOPE OF REVIEW

In attorney discipline cases, we review recommendations de novo on the record, reaching a conclusion independent of the findings of the referee; provided, however, that where credible evidence is in conflict on a material issue of fact, we consider and may give weight to the fact that the referee heard and observed the witnesses and accepted one version of the facts rather than another. State ex rel. NSBA v. Woodard, 249 Neb. 40, 541 N.W.2d 53 (1995); State ex rel. NSBA v. Ogborn, 248 Neb. 767, 539 N.W.2d 628 (1995). Under rule 15 we also so review a determination of the bar commission.

FACTS

At various times Lane was admitted to the bars of Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Texas, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. He permitted the Nebraska membership obtained in 1978 to lapse, and in 1994 when he again applied for admission to the Nebraska bar, he no longer held membership in the Iowa bar.

Noting that Lane had failed to list in his application any employment from October 1990 through October 1994, the association's admissions clerk, Jim L. Henshaw, wrote for an explanation. Lane responded by letter that he was unemployed during that period of time. However, in a later letter to the association's executive director, James Sajevic, Lane admitted that he had been employed in temporary jobs during the questioned period of time.

The commission then received information indicating that Lane had exhibited threatening, confrontational, obnoxious, and paranoid behavior. Henshaw wrote Lane requesting his appearance before the commission. Lane appeared, and the commission thereafter advised him that it would continue its background investigation, but that pending the results thereof, he would be permitted to sit for the February 1995 bar examination if he desired to do so. Lane took the examination and was notified that he had passed and that the commission was continuing its investigation.

After the investigation was concluded, the commission advised Lane's attorney by letter that it had concluded Lane lacked the current character and fitness required for admission to the Nebraska bar. The reasons for the denial of admission were stated to be:

1. Evidence of hostile, threatening, and disruptive interactions with individuals since ... Lane has resided in Nebraska.

2. Lack of candor in completing his application for admission to the bar, including an incomplete disclosure of past employment and an incomplete disclosure of previous bar admissions.

Lane then wrote the commission requesting a hearing pursuant to Neb.Ct.R. for Adm. of Attys. 10 (rev.1992). Lane's attorney later requested that the commission furnish him with a bill of particulars regarding the reasons for the denial of admission. The commission wrote Lane's attorney that the reasons supporting its decision were:

1. Lack of candor in completing the application for admission to the Bar.

A. The application was received on October 31, 1994. Question 2 inquired as to whether he had ever applied for admission to the Bar of any state or applied to take the Bar examination of any state. If so, he was to state the date of the application, the jurisdiction to which he applied, the outcome of the application, and the dates of admission in each jurisdiction. On January 27, 1995, he appeared at a hearing before the Commission and disclosed for the first time that he had been previously admitted in Nebraska and Iowa.

B. In his Application received on October 31, 1994, he was asked to respond to questions ... 7 and 8 relating to past employment. The response was to include temporary or part-time employment for the past 10 years. He did not list any employment since October of 1990. A specific inquiry was made of this matter by letter of November 22, 1994, from Jim L. Henshaw. He responded by letter of November 23, 1994, that he had been unemployed from October of 1990 to the date of his letter. It was not until a letter dated April 11, 1995, to Mr. Sajevic that he admitted to such temporary employment. No details were given. Our investigation has found that he had been employed for temporary employment in March and April, 1993, for Manpower and Apple One Employment.

C. In his Application received October 31, 1994, Question 11 asked if any civil actions or judgments had ever been filed against him. He indicated that such actions or judgments were in existence. He did not attach NSBC Form 3 to the Application. It was not until the hearing of January 27, 1995, that this matter was explained.

2. Evidence of Hostile, threatening, and disruptive interaction with individuals since he resided in Nebraska which reflect upon his character and fitness to practice.

A. At the hearing on January 27, 1995, he discussed his attempts to volunteer at the Creighton Legal Clinic. Catherine Mahern, the Director of the Clinic, has indicated that she and Connie Kearney had a meeting with him to discuss his role in the Clinic. At this meeting in September or October of 1994, it was reported that he was hostile and threatening. The next day, Catherine Mahern asked him to leave the Clinic and not return. He was again threatening, hostile and rude.

B. On or about January 19, 1995, he was in attendance at a BAR-BRI Review at Creighton University. Apparently, he could not locate his keys and began accusing other attendees of taking his keys. Kay Strong was one of the individuals accused. He also accused Corby Gary and threatened to fight him. He also indicated to Mr. Gary that he would find out where he lived. As a result, he was asked to not participate in the BAR-BRI Review. An arrangement was made whereby he could review the tapes of the sessions by himself. Thomp Pattermann and Laura Pattermann were also witnesses to other disruptive behavior at the review sessions before he was asked to leave. Robert J. Launbenthal, an active member of the Nebraska and Iowa Bars, observed him making inappropriate and demeaning statements to a security guard at Creighton C. Shortly after his dismissal from the BAR-BRI Review, he spoke by telephone with Kay Coffey and Cindy Lilleoien of NCLE by telephone [sic]. He was rude and threatening to both of the NCLE employees. There apparently had been a controversy regarding whether audiotapes or videotapes would be supplied.

Law School during the early days of the BAR-BRI Review.

A hearing was then held by the commission, which Lane attended with his attorney. Through his attorney, Lane was permitted to cross-examine witnesses testifying before the commission and to present his own witnesses and evidence, and he himself testified. The commission found there was no evidence to support the assertion that Lane had been rude or threatening toward employees of the NCLE and that he had substantially complied with question 11 on the application by listing a civil judgment against him on his bankruptcy schedules that had been...