State ex rel. Counsel for Discipline of the Neb. Supreme Court v. Castrejon
Citation | 311 Neb. 560,973 N.W.2d 701 |
Decision Date | 13 May 2022 |
Docket Number | S-20-825. |
Parties | STATE of Nebraska EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DISCIPLINE OF the NEBRASKA SUPREME COURT, relator, v. Dazmi H. CASTREJON, respondent. |
Court | Supreme Court of Nebraska |
On November 23, 2020, formal charges containing two counts were filed by the office of the Counsel for Discipline of the Nebraska Supreme Court, the relator, against Dazmi H. Castrejon, the respondent. The respondent filed an answer to the formal charges on January 6, 2021. This court appointed a referee who conducted a hearing. At the hearing, the parties offered a joint statement of facts and agreed on the record that the violations alleged in the formal charges were not disputed and that the only contested issue was appropriate discipline.
The referee filed a report on January 31, 2022. With respect to the allegations contained in the formal charges, the referee concluded that the respondent's conduct breached the following provisions of the Nebraska Rules of Professional Conduct: Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. §§ 3-501.5(a) (fees and accounting), 3-501.15 (safekeeping funds), 3-508.1(b) ( ), and 3-508.4(a) to (c) (rev. 2016) (misconduct). The referee further found that the respondent had violated her oath of office as an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Nebraska. See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 7-104 (Reissue 2012). With respect to the discipline to be imposed, the referee recommended suspension of the respondent's license to practice law for a period of 2 years, followed by a period of probation or supervision. The relator moved for judgment on the pleadings under Neb. Ct. R. § 3-310(L) (rev. 2019) of the disciplinary rules. We grant the motion for judgment on the pleadings and impose discipline as indicated below.
The respondent was admitted to the practice of law in the State of Nebraska on January 24, 2011. The respondent worked for another attorney for approximately 2 years after her admission to practice, and thereafter, she maintained her own law practice as a solo practitioner under the name "Castrejon Law Office." Beginning in 2018, the respondent practiced with another attorney, Erika Buenrostro, as a firm entitled "Castrejon & Buenrostro, LLC." At all times relevant to these proceedings, she had engaged in the practice of law in Omaha, Nebraska.
The violations arise from the respondent's improprieties in managing her Interest on Lawyers Trust Account (IOLTA), her failure to provide an adequate accounting for fees to a former client, and her delays in responding to inquiries from the relator relating to these matters.
Between January 2017 and September 2019, the relator received four separate overdraft notifications regarding the respondent's IOLTA. With each overdraft, the relator asked the respondent for an explanation, and in September 2019, the relator subpoenaed the respondent's bank record for her Castrejon Law Office IOLTA. After the respondent failed to adequately respond to the relator's requests for explanations regarding the transfers of money from her business and personal checking accounts into her Castrejon Law Office IOLTA, the relator upgraded the matter to a formal grievance. The respondent submitted a written response to the formal grievance as follows:
On March 18, 2020, we temporarily suspended the respondent's license to practice law. The respondent's IOLTA was also closed in March 2020.
On April 1, 2020, the relator received a written grievance from a former client of the respondent, alleging that the respondent had charged $3,500 for assistance with an "I-130" immigration-related application, that the former client had requested an accounting of services and a refund of any unused funds, and that the client received a refund of $636 without an accounting of work done. The respondent failed to respond to the former client, to the grievance letter, and to a formal complaint to the respondent's last known address. The respondent had not reported to the relator or "Attorney Services" of a change in her mailing address or contact information. After several attempts to contact the respondent, the relator amended the formal complaint and sent the new complaint to the respondent's updated address.
Formal charges were filed on November 23, 2020, and on January 6, 2021, the respondent filed an answer. She admitted that she used her IOLTA to shield money from the Internal Revenue Service's levy attempts, placing client money at risk for seizure; that she deposited funds into the Castrejon Law Office IOLTA greater than necessary to pay bank service charges on that account; that she deposited funds that were not connected with the representation of a client; and that she commingled her funds with client funds. With respect to the former client, she admitted that she failed to provide a full accounting of services she had provided. She admitted that she failed to cooperate with the formal investigation and did not provide any of the requested information to the relator.
The referee held a hearing at which the respondent testified and evidence was adduced. The parties stipulated to a joint statement of facts, in which the respondent admitted the formal charges and allegations of her actions and misconduct as proved. The only contested issue at the hearing was the question of appropriate discipline. In the January 31, 2022, report, the referee found that by clear and convincing evidence, through the respondent's conduct, the respondent had breached provisions of the Nebraska Rules of Professional Conduct as follows: §§ 3-501.5(a) (fees and accounting), 3-501.15 (safekeeping funds), 3-508.1(b) ( ), and 3-508.4(a) to (c) (misconduct). The referee further found that with regard to each of the counts enumerated above, the respondent had violated her oath of office as an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Nebraska. See § 7-104.
The record upon which the referee found violations was based on extensive exhibits and testimony from the respondent and her therapist. Morgan Keen Hecht, a licensed independent mental health practitioner and licensed certified social worker, offered expert testimony concerning domestic abuse, domestic violence, and coercive control, and she described her treatment of the respondent from December 2020 to the time of the hearing. Hecht and the respondent had met on average twice per month. Hecht testified to the "Power and Control Wheel of Violence," which addresses both physical and sexual violence and is divided into eight criteria and is applicable regardless of the gender of the person exercising power and control. Hecht testified that all of the following indicia were present with the respondent's relationship with her ex-husband: (1) using intimidation; (2) using emotional abuse; (3) using isolation; (4) minimizing, denying, or blaming; (5) using children; (6) using male privilege; (7) using economic abuse; and (8) using coercion and threats. Hecht related a series of traumas the respondent had experienced over the course of her life starting in her childhood, which traumas included sexual assault and her marriage to her abusive husband at age 16. The respondent gave birth to her older daughter when the respondent was 17 years old. The respondent's ex-husband became increasingly abusive, and the escalating demands began to overwhelm the respondent "to the point of being actually immobilized at some point and not able to use what we know are the intellectual and emotional capacity that she actually has." This was exacerbated when the ex-husband became physically violent toward the couple's older daughter, and the respondent was alerted that he might be...
To continue reading
Request your trial