State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Glass

- 201 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
320 Nebraska Reports
STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. GLASS
Cite as 320 Neb. 201
State of Nebraska ex rel. Counsel for Discipline
of the Nebraska Supreme Court, relator, v.
Oliver J. Glass, respondent.
___ N.W.3d ___
Filed October 24, 2025. 	No. S-24-166.
1. Disciplinary Proceedings: Appeal and Error. Because attorney disci-
pline cases are original proceedings before the Nebraska Supreme Court,
the court reviews a referee’s recommendations de novo on the record,
reaching a conclusion independent of the referee’s findings.
2. Disciplinary Proceedings. Violation of a disciplinary rule concerning
the practice of law is a ground for discipline.
3. ____. The basic issues in a disciplinary proceeding against an attorney
are whether discipline should be imposed and, if so, the appropriate
discipline under the circumstances.
4. ____. To determine whether and to what extent discipline should be
imposed in an attorney 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.
5. ____. The purpose of a disciplinary proceeding against an attorney is not
so much to punish the attorney as it is to determine whether it is in the
public interest that an attorney be permitted to practice, which question
includes considerations of the protection of the public.
6. Disciplinary Proceedings: Public Officers and Employees. Misconduct
is aggravated when it is committed by an attorney holding elected office.
7. ____. The Nebraska Supreme Court evaluates attorney discipline in light
of the particular facts and circumstances of the case.
Original action. Judgment of disbarment.
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
10/18/2026 01:01 AM CDT

- 202 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
320 Nebraska Reports
STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. GLASS
Cite as 320 Neb. 201
Kent L. Frobish, Assistant Counsel for Discipline, for relator.
Clarence E. Mock, of Johnson & Mock, P.C., L.L.O., for
respondent.
Funke, 	C.J., 	Miller-Lerman, 	Cassel, 	Stacy, 	Papik,
Freudenberg, and Bergevin, JJ.
Per Curiam.
INTRODUCTION
This is an attorney discipline case in which the only ques-
tion before this court is the appropriate sanction. The Counsel
for Discipline of the Nebraska Supreme Court, the relator,
brought formal charges against Oliver J. Glass, the respondent,
based on conduct that included three driving under the influ-
ence (DUI) offenses, stalking his estranged wife’s boyfriend,
and the misuse of his authority as the elected Dodge County
Attorney, which resulted in his federal incarceration for con-
spiracy to deprive a person of his rights under the color of
law. We appointed a referee, who, after an evidentiary hearing,
determined that the respondent violated his oath of office as
an attorney, as set forth in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 7-104 (Reissue
2022), and violated Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. §§ 3-504.4(a)
and 3-505.3, as well as Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. § 3-508.4
(rev. 2016). The referee recommended that the respondent be
disbarred retroactive to the date of his temporary suspension
on February 24, 2021.
We granted the parties’ joint motion for judgment on the
pleadings as to the facts and directed the parties to brief
the issue of discipline. The respondent takes exception to the
recommended disbarment as being excessive and asks that we
impose a period of suspension with credit for his period of
temporary suspension.
Upon our de novo review and for the reasons set forth
herein, we order that the respondent be disbarred from the
practice of law in the State of Nebraska effective retroactively
to July 6, 2024, the date of the respondent’s third DUI offense.

- 203 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
320 Nebraska Reports
STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. GLASS
Cite as 320 Neb. 201
STATEMENT OF FACTS
We granted the parties’ joint motion for judgment on the
pleadings and consider the referee’s factual findings final and
conclusive. Certain facts herein are based on the referee’s
report and evidentiary record.
The respondent was admitted to the practice of law in the
State of Nebraska on April 11, 2006. In 2009, the respondent
married Katie Glass (Katie). Two children were subsequently
born to them. In 2011, the respondent was appointed to
serve as the county attorney of Dodge County, Nebraska.
The respondent was elected as county attorney in 2014 and
reelected in 2018.
On November 16, 2018, Katie filed a “Complaint for
Legal Separation” from the respondent in Dodge County. In
October 2019, Katie met Nathan Schany, and they began dat-
ing in December 2019. On January 3, 2020, Katie filed an
“Amended Complaint for Dissolution of Marriage.” In March
2020, the respondent learned that Katie was dating Schany.
The respondent’s admissions and submitted record establish
that he was under great emotional distress upon learning that
Katie had developed a new relationship and that he began
drinking heavily.
As part of the respondent’s employment as the Dodge
County Attorney, he had access to the Nebraska Criminal
Justice Information System (NCJIS). NCJIS is an internet-
based, law enforcement database that Nebraska criminal jus-
tice professionals can utilize in their official capacities to
search for and view criminal justice and personal informa-
tion of individuals who reside in, are employed in, or have
criminal histories in the State of Nebraska. NCJIS is limited
to official law enforcement purposes, pursuant to the rules
and regulations of the State of Nebraska and the Nebraska
Commission on Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice.
Within minutes after learning that Katie had a new relation-
ship, the respondent logged in to NCJIS and looked up Schany.
The respondent also made calls to several law enforcement

- 204 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
320 Nebraska Reports
STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. GLASS
Cite as 320 Neb. 201
officers to discuss Schany, and they then researched Schany
on NCJIS. Beginning on March 6, 2020, the respondent and
two other employees of the Dodge County Attorney’s office,
acting at the respondent’s direction, used their official cre-
dentials to access the NCJIS database and view information
related to Schany, including vehicle registration data and
other personal information. This was done on approximately
15 different occasions.
On March 11, 2020, and into March 12, the respondent
transmitted multiple Facebook and text message communica-
tions to Schany, which contained intimidating and threaten-
ing language. In these messages, the respondent referred to
Schany as “faggot,” “[p]ussy,” “stupid bitch,” and “slightly
restarted [sic].” These messages included references regard-
ing Schany’s residence and vehicle that the respondent had
obtained from NCJIS.
The respondent used the information that he and two of
his employees had obtained from NCJIS to surveil Katie and
Schany and to drive by Schany’s residence. The respondent
took photographs of Katie’s vehicle at Schany’s residence.
On March 23, 2020, the respondent was arrested and charged
with DUI, first offense, in Dodge County, in case No. CR
20-545. On March 24, the respondent admitted himself to
Valley Hope in O’Neill, Nebraska, for inpatient alcohol treat-
ment. He completed the program on April 15 and returned to
his home in Fremont, Nebraska.
While 	the 	respondent 	was 	in 	substance 	abuse 	treat-
ment at Valley Hope, he called an employee of the Dodge
County Attorney’s office and asked that employee to drive
by Katie’s residence and Schany’s residence and to let him
know if they were together. The respondent also directed
the employee to pull Schany’s information from NCJIS for
the respondent’s use.
In August 2020, the respondent admitted to the relator
that he had (1) relapsed twice in June and again on July 3 by
consuming alcohol, (2) purchased alcohol on August 8 but

- 205 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
320 Nebraska Reports
STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. GLASS
Cite as 320 Neb. 201
claimed he did not consume it, and (3) purchased alcohol on
August 11 and consumed some of the alcohol.
First DUI Offense: Case No. CR 20-545.
On August 17, 2020, the respondent was convicted of DUI,
first offense, and was sentenced to 15 months’ probation.
On September 19, 2020, the respondent tested positive for
alcohol through the ignition interlock device in his vehicle
and admitted to his probation officer that he had drunk mouth-
wash. On January 12, 2021, the respondent tested positive
for alcohol during a urine screen by probation. He admitted
to his probation officer that he had consumed alcohol the
night before. The respondent also admitted to his probation
officer that he had consumed alcohol in November 2020. On
May 3, 2021, the respondent was convicted of violating his
probation, and the probation order was extended for an addi-
tional 18 months.
Second DUI Offense: Case No. CR 21-537.
On 	January 	28, 	2021, 	while 	still 	on 	probation, 	the
respondent, who was intoxicated, arrived at Katie’s residence
to pick up his children. Katie called the respondent’s proba-
tion officer, and the respondent drove off. Later that day,
the respondent was administered a preliminary breath test
at his home and tested positive for alcohol. The respondent
was arrested and convicted of an amended charge of DUI,
first offense, and was sentenced to 18 months’ probation.
Thereafter, the DUI convictions in cases Nos. CR 20-545 and
CR 21-537 were treated identically, and the respondent was
released from probation in both cases on November 4, 2022.
Temporary Suspension of License to Practice Law.
As a result of the respondent’s DUI convictions and his
subsequent probation violation, the relator sought the tempo-
rary suspension of the respondent’s license to practice law in
Nebraska. On February 24, 2021, we temporarily suspended

- 206 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
320 Nebraska Reports
STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. GLASS
Cite as 320 Neb. 201
the respondent’s license to practice law. The order of tempo-
rary suspension remains in effect.
On March 1, 2021, the respondent resigned his position as
the Dodge County Attorney.
Federal Charges and Conviction.
On September 24, 2021, the respondent was indicted in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska on two felony
counts of cyberstalking. The respondent ultimately entered into
a plea agreement wherein the prosecutor reduced the charges
to one misdemeanor count of conspiracy to deprive a person
of his or her rights under color of law. On February 21, 2023,
the respondent was sentenced to a 9-month prison term to be
followed by a period of supervised release for 1 year. The
respondent served his prison sentence and began his term of
supervision on October 25.
Third DUI Offense: Case No. CR 24-9041.
The respondent’s most recent DUI offense took place on
July 6, 2024, after he attended a wedding reception in Lincoln,
Nebraska. He reconnected with some old friends at the recep-
tion and relapsed. He chose to attempt to drive home to
Fremont, but his vehicle became disabled, and law enforce-
ment arrived at the scene. The respondent was arrested, and
on August 16 was charged in the Lancaster County Court
with DUI, third offense. The respondent entered a guilty
plea, and on October 25, he was sentenced to 30 days in jail
and 36 months’ probation and ordered to pay a fine. He was
ordered to, inter alia, apply for and maintain an ignition inter-
lock permit for 5 years, after a 45-day period of no driving.
Additionally, the court ordered the respondent to attend two
Alcoholics Anonymous meetings per week for the duration of
his probation. The respondent began serving his jail sentence
on November 1 and, according to the record, is projected to
remain sentenced to probation until October 2027.
As a result of the respondent’s DUI arrest in Lancaster
County, Nebraska, he was charged in his federal case with

- 207 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
320 Nebraska Reports
STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. GLASS
Cite as 320 Neb. 201
violating the terms of his supervised release. On December 4,
2024, the respondent admitted that he had violated a manda-
tory condition of the terms of his supervised release, and the
federal court sentenced the respondent to 6 months’ supervi-
sion commencing on December 4.
Formal Charges and Referee’s Recommendation.
On December 6, 2024, the respondent was formally charged
with violations of the Nebraska Rules of Professional Conduct
and his oath of office as an attorney. On December 10, the
respondent filed his answer to the amended formal charges
and admitted the facts above. The respondent admitted that he
violated his oath of office as an attorney licensed to practice
law in the State of Nebraska as provided by § 7-104 of the
Nebraska Revised Statutes, as well as § 3-505.3 (responsi-
bilities regarding nonlawyer assistants) and § 3-508.4(a) and
(d) (misconduct) of the rules of professional conduct. The
respondent denied the remaining allegations. The respondent
has no previous disciplinary violations.
We appointed a referee to conduct an evidentiary hearing.
The referee’s report, issued on February 11, 2025, found that
the allegations contained in the amended formal charges have
been proved by clear and convincing evidence. The referee
found that the respondent violated his oath of office as an attor-
ney, as well as §§ 3-504.4(a), 3-505.3, and 3-508.4(a), (b), (c),
and (d) of the Nebraska Rules of Professional Conduct. The
referee recommended that the respondent be disbarred from
the practice of law retroactive to the date of the respondent’s
temporary suspension on February 24, 2021. He recommended
disbarment in this case because “[the respondent’s] conduct
was clearly contrary to the reputation of the bar as a whole and
the protection of the public.” The referee emphasized the “need
to deter other attorneys from engaging in the same or similar
conduct, especially government lawyers whose improper con-
duct is more likely to tarnish the entire system of justice and
erode public trust.”

- 208 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
320 Nebraska Reports
STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. GLASS
Cite as 320 Neb. 201
The referee examined the evidence that showed that the
respondent was under great emotional distress upon the breakup
of his marriage and upon learning Katie was engaged in a new
relationship. The respondent began drinking heavily, which
contributed to his descent into self-destructive behavior.
The referee found that in addition to the respondent’s DUI
offenses, he seriously violated the use of his authority as an
elected Dodge County Attorney. The referee quoted the gov-
ernment’s brief in the respondent’s federal case, in which the
government argued that the respondent’s admitted conduct
was a “sort of weaponization of law enforcement and criminal
investigations for personal benefit” and that it “undermines
the respect for the law.” On this offense, the respondent was
ultimately sentenced to 9 months’ imprisonment, followed
by 1 year of supervised release. The referee emphasized that
improper conduct on the part of a government attorney is more
likely to harm the entire system of government in terms of
public trust.
The 	referee 	found 	mitigating 	factors, 	including 	the
respondent’s cooperation with the relator and the fact that
the respondent does not have a previous disciplinary history.
The respondent fully admits his problem with alcohol and has
undertaken both inpatient and outpatient treatment programs
to address it. However, the referee noted that “[u]nfortunately,
[the respondent’s] efforts towards long-term sobriety, to date,
have largely been unproductive as he has suffered several
relapses. His road to recovery and long-term sobriety has
been difficult.”
The referee also reviewed letters of support and testimony
on behalf of the respondent that described the respondent’s
work ethic as “exceptional” and opined that he is competent
and could return to the practice of law within the rules of
professional conduct. The letters attest to the respondent’s
good character. However, most of the letters are dated prior
to or just after the respondent’s most recent and third DUI

- 209 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
320 Nebraska Reports
STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. GLASS
Cite as 320 Neb. 201
offense that occurred on July 6, 2024, and make no mention
of the offense.
Judgment on the Pleadings.
On March 3, 2025, we granted the motion for judgment on
the pleadings as to the facts, but not the recommended dis-
ciplinary sanction. Thus, it is undisputed that the respondent
violated his oath of office as an attorney licensed to practice
law in the State of Nebraska as provided in § 7-104, as well as
the provisions of the Nebraska Rules of Professional Conduct
§§ 3-504.4(a), 3-505.3, and 3-508.4(a), (b), (c), and (d), as set
forth in the amended formal charges.
We directed the parties to brief the issue of discipline.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
The respondent takes exception to the referee’s recom-
mended sanction but does not challenge the truth of the ref-
eree’s findings.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[1] Because attorney discipline cases are original proceed-
ings before this court, we review a referee’s recommendations
de novo on the record, reaching a conclusion independent of
the referee’s findings. State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Miller,
316 Neb. 899, 7 N.W.3d 642 (2024).
ANALYSIS
We previously granted judgment on the pleadings as to the
facts. The respondent does not challenge the truth of the refer-
ee’s findings of fact. Based on the foregoing, we find that the
facts establish misconduct. The respondent violated his oath
of office as an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of
Nebraska as provided in § 7-104 and the following provisions
of the Nebraska Rules of Professional Conduct: §§ 3-504.4(a),
3-505.3, and 3-508.4(a), (b), (c), and (d). We limit the remain-
der of our discussion to the appropriate discipline.

- 210 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
320 Nebraska Reports
STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. GLASS
Cite as 320 Neb. 201
[2,3] Violation of a disciplinary rule concerning the prac-
tice of law is a ground for discipline. State ex rel. Counsel
for Dis. v. Miller, supra. The basic issues in a disciplinary
proceeding against an attorney are whether discipline should
be imposed and, if so, the appropriate discipline under the cir-
cumstances. Id. Neb. Ct. R. § 3-304 of the disciplinary rules
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.
See, also, Neb. Ct. R. § 3-310(N) (rev. 2023).
Relevant Factors.
[4,5] To 	determine 	whether 	and 	to 	what 	extent 	disci-
pline should be imposed in an attorney discipline proceed-
ing, 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 the respondent generally, and
(6) the respondent’s present or future fitness to continue in the
practice of law. State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Miller, supra.
The purpose of a disciplinary proceeding against an attorney
is not so much to punish the attorney as it is to determine
whether it is in the public interest that an attorney be permit-
ted to practice, which question includes considerations of the
protection of the public. Id.

- 211 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
320 Nebraska Reports
STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. GLASS
Cite as 320 Neb. 201
With respect to the imposition of attorney discipline, each
attorney discipline case must be evaluated in light of its
particular facts and circumstances. Id. For purposes of deter-
mining the proper discipline of an attorney, we consider the
attorney’s actions both underlying the events of the case and
throughout the proceeding, as well as any aggravating or
mitigating factors. Id. The propriety of a sanction must be
considered with reference to the sanctions imposed in prior
similar cases. Id.
[6] We have explained that the conduct of a government
attorney is “required to be more circumspect than that of a
private lawyer.” State ex rel. NSBA v. Douglas, 227 Neb. 1,
62, 416 N.W.2d 515, 550 (1987). Government attorneys are
invested with the public trust and are more visible to the pub-
lic. Id. Lawyers holding public office assume legal responsi-
bilities going beyond those of other citizens. § 3-508.4, com-
ment 5. Thus, we have found that misconduct is aggravated
when it is committed by an attorney holding elected office.
See State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Council, 289 Neb. 33, 853
N.W.2d 844 (2014).
In this case, the respondent committed multiple violations
of the disciplinary rules, violated federal and state law, and
abused his elected office as a county attorney. The respondent’s
misconduct not only affected Katie, Schany, and his children,
but also endangered public confidence in the legal profession
and the justice system. His criminal cases generated negative
publicity that affected the reputation of the bar and the crimi-
nal justice system.
We note that the respondent has no previous disciplinary
history. The referee’s report details the respondent’s struggles
with alcohol use and mental health and his actions to rehabili-
tate himself and pursue treatments. Nonetheless, as the report
notes, the respondent has faced a “difficult” road to sobriety,
including a recent relapse and conviction for a third DUI
offense while he was still on federal probation and during the
pendency of these disciplinary proceedings.

- 212 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
320 Nebraska Reports
STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. GLASS
Cite as 320 Neb. 201
In light of the particular facts and circumstances in this par-
ticular case set forth in detail above, and taking into account
aggravating and mitigating factors, we disbar the respondent
from the practice of law, effective beginning from the date of
his most recent DUI offense on July 6, 2024.
Retroactivity of Sanction.
The referee recommended that the respondent be disbarred
from the practice of law with an effective date retroactive to
the date of his temporary suspension, February 24, 2021. The
respondent also argues that any discipline he receives should
be retroactively applied, as in several other disciplinary cases.
See, State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Vanderford, 317 Neb.
771, 12 N.W.3d 219 (2024); State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v.
Castrejon, 311 Neb. 560, 973 N.W.2d 701 (2022); State ex rel.
Counsel for Dis. v. Council, supra; State ex rel. Counsel for
Dis. v. Finney, 276 Neb. 914, 758 N.W.2d 622 (2008); State ex
rel. NSBA v. Miller, 225 Neb. 261, 404 N.W.2d 40 (1987). The
relator notes that in other cases, we imposed a sanction effec-
tive immediately and did not credit the attorney for temporary
suspension. See, State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Campbell,
318 Neb. 23, 13 N.W.3d 97 (2024); State ex rel. Counsel for
Dis. v. Gage, 316 Neb. 443, 4 N.W.3d 885 (2024); State ex
rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Nelson, 311 Neb. 251, 971 N.W.2d 777
(2022); State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Jorgenson, 302 Neb.
188, 922 N.W.2d 753 (2019).
[7] In our de novo review, we evaluate attorney discipline
in light of the particular facts and circumstances of the case.
See State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Miller, 316 Neb. 899, 7
N.W.3d 642 (2024). In this case, where the respondent com-
mitted cumulative violations of the disciplinary rules, violated
his federal probation, and committed a third DUI offense
while these proceedings were pending, the facts do not sup-
port a credit for the period of temporary suspension during
which the respondent’s misconduct continued. We note in
particular that as a result of his third DUI offense, according

- 213 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
320 Nebraska Reports
STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. GLASS
Cite as 320 Neb. 201
to the record, it is projected that the respondent will remain on
probation until October 2027. The facts do not give us confi-
dence in the respondent’s responsible practice of law, nor are
the facts compatible with retroactivity back to February 2021.
We take this opportunity to clarify that there is no presump-
tion that an attorney who receives a disciplinary sanction will
receive credit for time during which the attorney is suspended
or during the investigations and pendency of the disciplinary
proceedings. If an application for reinstatement is made at
least 5 years after the final order of disbarment in an attorney
discipline case, there is no presumption that an application for
reinstatement from an order of disbarment will be granted. See
§ 3-310(T) through (V).
CONCLUSION
It is the judgment of this court that the respondent be
disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Nebraska,
effective from the date he committed his third DUI offense on
July 6, 2024.
The respondent is directed to comply with Neb. Ct. R.
§ 3-316 (rev. 2014), and upon failure to do so, he shall be sub-
ject to punishment for contempt of this court. The respondent
is further directed to pay costs and expenses in accordance
with Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 7-114 and 7-115 (Reissue 2022) and
§ 3-310(P) and Neb. Ct. R. § 3-323(B) of the disciplinary rules
within 60 days after an order imposing costs and expenses, if
any, is entered by the court.
Judgment of disbarment.