State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Martin

- 724 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
317 Nebraska Reports
STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. MARTIN
Cite as 317 Neb. 724
State of Nebraska ex rel. Counsel for Discipline,
relator, v. Craig M. Martin, respondent.
___ N.W.3d ___
Filed September 20, 2024. 	No. S-23-982.
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. ____. When an attorney fails to respond to disciplinary complaints and
ignores requests for information from the office of the Counsel for
Discipline of the Nebraska Supreme Court, it indicates a disrespect for
the Supreme Court’s disciplinary jurisdiction and a lack of concern for
protecting the public, the profession, and the administration of justice.
Original action. Judgment of disbarment.
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
10/14/2026 08:26 AM CDT

- 725 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
317 Nebraska Reports
STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. MARTIN
Cite as 317 Neb. 724
Kent L. Frobish, Assistant Counsel for Discipline, for relator.
Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke,
Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.
Per Curiam.
INTRODUCTION
This is an attorney discipline case in which the only ques-
tion before this court is the appropriate discipline. The Counsel
for Discipline of the Nebraska Supreme Court, the relator,
brought formal charges against Craig M. Martin, the respond-
ent, because the respondent had misappropriated $137,248.67
in funds belonging to a client. We granted judgment on the
pleadings as to the facts and reserved the issue of the appropri-
ate discipline. We now order that the respondent be disbarred.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The facts alleged in the formal charges are uncontested. The
respondent was admitted to the practice of law in Nebraska
on April 11, 2011. The respondent’s license to practice law
has been administratively suspended since June 18, 2024,
because he failed to satisfy mandatory continuing legal edu-
cation reporting requirements, see Neb. Ct. R. §§ 3-401.10
(rev. 2018) and 3-401.11 (rev. 2021), and failed to pay the
annual licensing assessment for 2024 pursuant to Neb. Ct. R.
§ 3-803 (rev. 2022). At all times relevant to these proceed-
ings, the respondent was engaged in the practice of law in
Papillion, Nebraska.
The present charges arise from the respondent’s misap-
propriation of client funds. In August 2022, a client hired the
respondent to represent him in a divorce proceeding in the
district court for Sarpy County, Nebraska, case No. CI 22-842.
In November 2022, pursuant to a stipulation with the other
party in his case, the respondent’s client agreed to sell certain
real estate. The net proceeds of the sale would be held in the
respondent’s trust account until the division and ownership of
those proceeds was determined. As agreed, $137,248.67 was

- 726 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
317 Nebraska Reports
STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. MARTIN
Cite as 317 Neb. 724
deposited into the client trust account of the law firm where the
respondent was employed.
On or about March 1, 2023, the respondent left the law
firm and opened his own law practice. The client elected to go
with the respondent to his solo practice, and consequently, the
client’s files and trust account funds were transferred to the
respondent. A trust account check for $137,248.67 was issued
and deposited into the respondent’s trust account.
From March 14 to May 17, 2023, the respondent misappro-
priated all of the client’s funds without the client’s knowledge
or consent.
On 	November 	29, 	2023, 	the 	respondent 	was 	formally
charged with violations of the Nebraska Rules of Professional
Conduct and his oath of office as an attorney, Neb. Rev. Stat.
§ 7-104 (Reissue 2022). After unsuccessful attempts to serve
the respondent, he was served by publication. He failed to
file an answer to the formal charges, so on March 25, 2024,
the relator filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The
respondent did not file any response.
On May 29, 2024, we granted the relator’s motion for judg-
ment on the pleadings as to the facts and reserved the issue of
the disciplinary sanction. We directed the parties to brief the
issue of discipline. The relator contends that the respondent
should be disbarred. The respondent failed to timely file a brief
despite an extension by this court.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
The only question before this court is the appropriate
discipline.
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).

- 727 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
317 Nebraska Reports
STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. MARTIN
Cite as 317 Neb. 724
ANALYSIS
Because the respondent did not answer the formal charges,
this court granted the relator’s motion for judgment on the
pleadings as to the facts. Based on the foregoing, we find
that the facts establish misconduct. Having concluded that
the respondent violated the Nebraska Rules of Professional
Conduct and his oath of office as attorney, § 7-104, we must
determine the appropriate sanction.
The respondent violated his oath of office as an attorney
licensed to practice law in the State of Nebraska as pro-
vided in § 7-104 and the provisions of the Nebraska Rules
of Professional Conduct on safekeeping property, Neb. Ct.
R. of Prof. Cond. § 3-501.15(a), (d), and (e) and on mis-
conduct, Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. § 3-508.4(a) through (c)
(rev. 2016).
[2,3] Violation of a disciplinary rule concerning the practice
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 circumstances.
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).

- 728 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
317 Nebraska Reports
STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. MARTIN
Cite as 317 Neb. 724
[4,5] To determine whether and to what extent discipline
should be imposed in an attorney discipline 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 pub-
lic, (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 pur-
pose 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. Id.
The facts established by our order that granted judgment on
the pleadings show that the respondent misappropriated a sig-
nificant amount of client funds from his trust account, directly
harming his client and the reputation of the bar. He continues
to fail to comply with efforts by the office of the Counsel
for Discipline to investigate the allegations against him and
has not complied with licensing fees and mandatory attorney
reporting requirements. We are unable to acknowledge mitigat-
ing factors because we lack any record on that question.
[6] We are troubled by the respondent’s failure to respond
to the relator. Failing to participate in the disciplinary process
is a very serious matter. State ex rel. State ex rel. Counsel for
Dis. v. Nelson, 311 Neb. 251, 971 N.W.2d 777 (2022). When
an attorney fails to respond to disciplinary complaints and
ignores requests for information from the office of the Counsel
for Discipline of the Nebraska Supreme Court, it indicates a
disrespect for the Supreme Court’s disciplinary jurisdiction
and a lack of concern for protecting the public, the profession,
and the administration of justice. See id.
In light of the particular facts and circumstances in this case
that have been established, we determine that the appropriate
discipline in this matter is disbarment.

- 729 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
317 Nebraska Reports
STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DIS. v. MARTIN
Cite as 317 Neb. 724
CONCLUSION
It is the judgment of this court that the respondent be dis-
barred from the practice of law in the State of Nebraska effec-
tive immediately. The respondent is directed to comply with
Neb. Ct. R. § 3-316 (rev. 2014), and upon failure to do so, he
shall be subject 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), as well as § 3-310(P) and Neb. Ct. R. § 3-323 of the
disciplinary rules within 60 days after an order imposing costs
and expenses, if any, is entered by the court.
Judgment of disbarment.