State Ex Rel. Counsel for Discipline of Nebraska Supreme Court v. Schmidt

303 Neb. 755, 930 N.W.2d 577
CourtNebraska Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 19, 2019
DocketS-19-226.
StatusPublished

This text of 303 Neb. 755 (State Ex Rel. Counsel for Discipline of Nebraska Supreme Court v. Schmidt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State Ex Rel. Counsel for Discipline of Nebraska Supreme Court v. Schmidt, 303 Neb. 755, 930 N.W.2d 577 (Neb. 2019).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

**755 INTRODUCTION

This case is before the court on the conditional admission filed by Kathleen M. Schmidt, respondent, on May 24, 2018. The court accepts respondent's conditional admission and enters an order of suspension for a period of 1 year, with 2 years of monitored probation following reinstatement.

FACTS

Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in the State of Nebraska on September 18, 1987. At all relevant times, she was engaged in the practice of law in Omaha, Nebraska.

On March 4, 2019, the Counsel for Discipline of the Nebraska Supreme Court filed formal charges against respondent. The formal charges consisted of six counts against respondent. On May 22, the Counsel for Discipline dismissed, without prejudice, count VI of the formal charges. Pursuant to Neb. Ct. R. § 3-302, respondent is under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Inquiry of the Second Judicial District.

**756 The matters alleged in the formal charges were reviewed by the Committee on Inquiry pursuant to Neb. Ct. R. § 3-309(H) (rev. 2011). The committee determined that there are reasonable grounds for discipline of respondent and that a public interest would be served by filing formal charges.

*578 Count I.

Count I of the formal charges states that while representing S.L. in a dissolution of marriage case, respondent failed to follow the discovery rules, which caused the district court to continue a hearing.

The formal charges allege that by her actions, respondent violated her oath of office as an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Nebraska as provided by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 7-104 (Reissue 2012) and Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. §§ 3-503.4(c) (fairness to opposing party), 3-504.4(a) (respect for rights of third persons), and 3-508.4(a) and (d) (rev. 2016) (misconduct).

Count II.

Count II of the formal charges states that while representing L.P., the plaintiff in a dissolution of marriage case, respondent prepared a parenting plan which she submitted to the Douglas County District Court Conciliation and Mediation Services. Respondent did not submit the proposed parenting plan to opposing counsel for her review; rather, she attached the last page of the stipulated order as the last page of the parenting plan, thereby making it appear that the document had been prepared by opposing counsel and approved by the parties and their counsel.

The formal charges allege that by her actions, respondent violated her oath of office as an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Nebraska as provided by § 7-104 and Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. § 3-503.3(a)(1) (rev. 2016) (candor toward tribunal) and § 3-508.4(a), (c), and (d) (misconduct).

**757 Count III.

Count III of the formal charges states that while representing A.K. in a family law matter, respondent misappropriated client funds. On May 11 and 30, 2017, A.K. gave respondent's law firm checks for $1,000 and $650 as advance fee payments, which were deposited into respondent's business account rather than into respondent's client trust account. In June and July, respondent's law firm issued a billing statement to A.K. showing fees and expenses. When A.K.'s case was completed and A.K. was owed a refund of $315 from the initial advance fee payment, respondent issued a refund out of her trust account in that amount. The formal charges allege that respondent used funds belonging to other clients to pay A.K.'s refund. Respondent later deposited $315 of her funds into her trust account to cover the improper withdrawal of funds.

The formal charges allege that by her actions, respondent violated her oath of office as an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Nebraska as provided by § 7-104 and Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. § 3-501.15 (safekeeping property) and § 3-508.4(a) (misconduct).

Count IV.

Count IV of the formal charges states that respondent received an advance fee payment of $2,500 from her client, D.R., and deposited this fee payment into respondent's husband's business account rather than her client trust account. After respondent's law firm issued billing statements to D.R., respondent transferred money from her trust account to her business account and, in doing so, misappropriated D.R.'s funds and used funds belonging to other clients to pay D.R.'s bill. Respondent's husband later reimbursed respondent's client trust account to return D.R.'s misappropriated payment.

The formal charges allege that by her actions, respondent violated her oath of office as an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Nebraska as provided by § 7-104 and §§ 3-501.15 (safekeeping property) and 3-508.4(a) (misconduct).

*579 **758 Count V.

Count V of the formal charges states that while respondent served as a conservator to R.B., she was responsible for making monthly rental payments to pay for R.B.'s self-storage unit. Respondent failed to make timely rental payments four times, and each time, R.B. was charged a late fee of $15, which respondent paid from R.B.'s funds. After an ethics grievance was filed against respondent regarding her untimely payment of R.B.'s rent for the storage unit, respondent reimbursed R.B.'s conservatorship account the sum of $60.

The formal charges allege that by her actions, respondent violated her oath of office as an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Nebraska as provided by § 7-104 and Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. § 3-501.3 (diligence) and § 3-508.4(a) (misconduct).

On May 24, 2019, respondent filed a conditional admission pursuant to Neb. Ct. R. § 3-313(B) of the disciplinary rules, in which she conditionally admitted that she violated her oath of office as an attorney and certain professional conduct rules. In the conditional admission, respondent states she did not knowingly or intentionally violate the rules of professional conduct, but acknowledges and admits that her conduct violated certain rules of professional conduct. Respondent knowingly does not challenge or contest the truth of the matters conditionally asserted and waived all proceedings against her in exchange for agreed-upon discipline.

By way of mitigation, respondent stated that in December 2017, she was diagnosed with an illness which required surgery and extended treatment ending in August 2018. During that time, respondent received mental health treatment, including therapy and medication to help her with the emotional and cognitive aspects of her diagnosis and treatment.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Prososki v. Regan
321 Neb. 38 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 2026)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
303 Neb. 755, 930 N.W.2d 577, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-counsel-for-discipline-of-nebraska-supreme-court-v-schmidt-neb-2019.