State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Samuelson

State of NebraSka ex rel . C ouNSel for D iSCipliNe of
the NebraSka Supreme C ourt, relator , v.
ShaNNoN J. SamuelSoN, reSpoNDeNt.
783 N.W.2d 779
Filed June 25, 2010. 	No. S-09-914.
1. Disciplinary Proceedings. To determine whether and to what extent discipline
should be imposed in a lawyer discipline proceeding, the Nebraska Supreme
Court considers the following factors: (1) the nature of the offense, (2) the need
for deterring others, (3) the maintenance of the reputation of the bar as a whole,
(4) the protection of the public, (5) the attitude of the respondent generally, and
(6) the respondent’s present or future fitness to continue in the practice of law.
2. ____. Each case justifying discipline of an attorney must be evaluated individu-
ally under the particular facts and circumstances of that case.
3. ____. For purposes of determining the proper discipline of an attorney, the
Nebraska Supreme Court considers the attorney’s acts both underlying the events
of the case and throughout the proceeding.
4. ____. The determination of an appropriate penalty to be imposed on an attorney
in a disciplinary proceeding also requires the consideration of any aggravating or
mitigating factors.
5. ____. A pattern of attorney neglect reveals a particular need for a strong sanction
to deter others from similar misconduct, to maintain the reputation of the bar as
a whole, and to protect the public.
6. ____. Absent mitigating circumstances, the appropriate discipline in cases of
misappropriation or commingling of client funds is typically disbarment.
Original action. Judgment of disbarment.
John 	W. 	Steele, 	Assistant 	Counsel 	for 	Discipline, 	for
relator.
No appearance for respondent.
heaviCaN, 	C.J., 	Wright, 	C oNNolly, 	gerrarD, 	StephaN,
mCC ormaCk , and miller-lermaN, JJ.
per C uriam.
NATURE OF CASE
The Counsel for Discipline of the Nebraska Supreme Court
brought this action against attorney Shannon J. Samuelson.
Samuelson failed to respond to the charges. We sustained the
Counsel for Discipline’s motion for judgment on the pleadings
and reserved the issue of the appropriate sanction. We now
order that Samuelson be disbarred.
STATE Ex REl. COUNSEl FOR DiS. v. SAmUElSON 	125
Cite as 280 Neb. 125
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
11/01/2026 04:46 AM CST

BACKGROUND
Samuelson was admitted to the practice of law in the State
of Nebraska on April 25, 2002, and he practiced law in
Hastings, Nebraska. Sometime around June 2009, Samuelson
abandoned his practice and, according to family members,
left the state. His current whereabouts are unknown. We have
since appointed a trustee to inventory Samuelson’s files and
take whatever action is necessary to protect the interests of
Samuelson’s former clients. To this date, the Client Assistance
Fund has received 12 claims totaling $33,000 as a result of
Samuelson’s abandoning his practice. The current action con-
cerns four counts of misconduct stemming from his neglect and
mismanagement of legal matters for four clients during the last
year of his practice.
Count one pertains to Samuelson’s representation of a client
(Client 1), who retained Samuelson to prosecute a divorce and
paid him $1,200. Samuelson filed the complaint for dissolution
and attended a hearing where the property settlement agree-
ment was filed and approved by the district court. Samuelson
was directed to prepare and submit a decree for the court’s
approval, but he failed to do so. Client 1’s divorce was eventu-
ally finalized by the trustee.
Count two stems from Samuelson’s representation of a sec-
ond client (Client 2), who retained Samuelson in September
2008 to represent her in a child custody and child support mod-
ification action. Samuelson filed an answer on Client 2’s behalf
and appeared at a hearing on the same date. Subsequently, the
judge entered a temporary order directing the parties to enter
into mediation and take parenting classes. Samuelson failed to
inform Client 2 of the need to take a parenting class. Client 2
attempted to reach Samuelson for several months and, as spring
approached, was concerned about the fact that the temporary
order had provided for only Thanksgiving and Christmas vaca-
tions, and did not discuss the Easter 2009 holiday. it had been
assumed that a permanent order would have been entered
before then. After being unsuccessful in her attempts to reach
Samuelson by telephone, Client 2 was able to see Samuelson
briefly during an unannounced visit. However, Samuelson told
Client 2 that he was too busy to meet and that he would call.
126 	280 NEBRASKA REpORTS

Client 2 never heard from Samuelson again. Samuelson did not
advise either Client 2 or the district court that he was with-
drawing from her case.
Count three involves Samuelson’s representation of a third
client (Client 3) in two pending cases—a domestic abuse
protection order and a dissolution of marriage. Client 3 gave
Samuelson $4,500 on march 12, 2009, as an advance payment.
Samuelson cashed the check, but did not place any part of it
into his trust account. Samuelson met with Client 3 several
times to discuss the cases, and Samuelson reviewed a stipula-
tion for temporary custody sent by the spouse’s attorney. But,
after that, Client 3 was never again able to get in touch with
Samuelson. Samuelson did not seek leave to withdraw from
the cases and did not notify Client 3 that he was no longer
representing him. None of the unearned fees were returned to
Client 3.
Finally, count four concerns Samuelson’s representation of
a fourth client (Client 4), who paid Samuelson $5,000 in
advanced fees to prosecute an action for dissolution of mar-
riage. Samuelson cashed the check but did not deposit the
funds into his trust account. Samuelson filed a complaint and
appeared at first to be providing competent representation by
filing motions and attending hearings on temporary allowances
and an application for a domestic relations protection order.
in June 2009, however, Samuelson disappeared. He did not
notify the court or Client 4 that he would no longer be handling
the case.
Samuelson’s actions in handling the legal matters of these
four clients violated the following provisions of the Nebraska
Rules of professional Conduct: Neb. Ct. R. of prof. Cond.
§§ 3-501.3 (duty to act with reasonable diligence), 3-501.4
(duty to properly communicate with client), 3-501.15 (duty
to 	maintain 	trust 	account 	and 	safekeeping 	of 	property),
3-501.16 (duty to protect client’s interests when terminat-
ing representation), and 3-508.4 (duty to follow Rules of
professional Conduct).
ANAlYSiS
[1] Having granted judgment on the pleadings, the sole issue
before us is the appropriate discipline. Neb. Ct. R. § 3-304
STATE Ex REl. COUNSEl FOR DiS. v. SAmUElSON 	127
Cite as 280 Neb. 125

provides that the following may be considered as discipline for
attorney misconduct:
(A) misconduct shall be grounds for:
(1) Disbarment by the Court; or
(2) Suspension by the Court; or
(3) probation by the Court in lieu of or subsequent to
suspension, on such terms as the Court may designate; or
(4) Censure and reprimand by the Court; or
(5) Temporary suspension by the Court; or
(6) private reprimand by the Committee on inquiry or
Disciplinary Review Board.
(B) The Court may, in its discretion, impose one or
more of the disciplinary sanctions set forth above.
To determine the appropriate discipline in Samuelson’s disci-
pline proceeding, we consider the following factors: (1) the
nature of the offense, (2) the need for deterring others, (3)
the maintenance of the reputation of the bar as a whole, (4)
the protection of the public, (5) the attitude of Samuelson gen-
erally, and (6) Samuelson’s present or future fitness to continue
in the practice of law.1
[2-4] Each case justifying discipline of an attorney must be
evaluated individually under the particular facts and circum-
stances of that case.2 For purposes of determining the proper
discipline of an attorney, this court considers the attorney’s
acts both underlying the events of the case and throughout
the proceeding.3 The determination of an appropriate penalty
to be imposed on an attorney in a disciplinary proceeding
also requires the consideration of any aggravating or mitigat-
ing factors.4
[5] 	We 	have 	previously 	disbarred 	attorneys 	who, 	like
Samuelson, neglected their clients’ cases and failed to coop-
erate with the Counsel for Discipline during the disciplinary
1 See State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Smith, 278 Neb. 899, 775 N.W.2d 192
(2009).
2 See State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Wintroub, 277 Neb. 787, 765 N.W.2d
482 (2009).
3 Id.
4 Id.
128 	280 NEBRASKA REpORTS

proceedings.5 in particular, a pattern of attorney neglect reveals
a particular need for a strong sanction to deter others from
similar misconduct, to maintain the reputation of the bar as a
whole, and to protect the public.6
[6] And, in this case, Samuelson not only neglected and
ultimately abandoned the legal matters of his clients, but
he also mismanaged their funds. We have said that, absent
mitigating circumstances, the appropriate discipline in cases
of misappropriation or commingling of client funds is typi-
cally disbarment.7
Because Samuelson neither responded to the Counsel for
Discipline nor filed a pleading, we have no basis for consid-
ering any factors that mitigate in Samuelson’s favor. instead,
these failures to cooperate with the Counsel for Discipline and
respond to the charges at any point during this disciplinary
process indicate a disrespect for this court’s disciplinary juris-
diction.8 The record shows that Samuelson is either unable or
unwilling to respond to the charges and that, through a pattern
of neglect of his clients and mismanagement of client funds, he
is not fit to practice law.
CONClUSiON
We order that Samuelson be disbarred from the practice of
law in the State of Nebraska, effective immediately.
JuDgmeNt of DiSbarmeNt.
5 See, e.g., State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Coe, 271 Neb. 319, 710 N.W.2d
863 (2006); State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Hart, 270 Neb. 768, 708
N.W.2d 606 (2005); State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Jones, 270 Neb. 471,
704 N.W.2d 216 (2005).
6 See State ex rel. NSBA v. Johnston, 251 Neb. 468, 558 N.W.2d 53 (1997).
7 State ex rel. Counsel for Discipline v. Jones, supra note 5; State ex rel.
Counsel for Dis. v. Gilroy, 270 Neb. 339, 701 N.W.2d 837 (2005).
8 See State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Smith, supra note 1.
STATE Ex REl. COUNSEl FOR DiS. v. SAmUElSON 	129
Cite as 280 Neb. 125