State ex rel. Counsel for Discipline of the Neb. Supreme Court v. Huston, 262 Neb. 481

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court disciplined attorney Tedd C. Huston for misconduct arising from his representation of an estate. The court found that he charged an excessive fee, deposited unearned fees into his operating account rather than a trust account, delayed distributions to beneficiaries, and made misrepresentations during the disciplinary investigation. The court imposed a six-month suspension from the practice of law and assessed costs against him.

Holdings

1. The formal charges were established by clear and convincing evidence, and Huston violated DR 1-102(A)(1), (4), and (5), DR 2-106, DR 9-102(A), and his attorney's oath of office.
2. Huston's collection of a $9,500 fee for the McCallister estate violated DR 2-106 because the fee was excessive under the parties' fee agreement and the work performed.
3. Huston violated DR 9-102(A) by depositing unearned attorney fees into his personal operating account rather than his trust account.
4. Huston violated DR 1-102(A)(5) by unnecessarily delaying payments to estate beneficiaries and violated DR 1-102(A)(4) by making an untrue statement about the fee agreement and failing to provide the complete estate file during the disciplinary investigation.
5. A six-month suspension from the practice of law was appropriate, notwithstanding the general presumption of disbarment for misappropriation or commingling, because extraordinary mitigating circumstances overcame that presumption in this isolated incident.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the referee's findings established by clear and convincing evidence that Huston violated the Nebraska disciplinary rules and his attorney's oath.
2. Whether Huston's collection of $9,500 in fees from the McCallister estate constituted an excessive fee.
3. Whether Huston's deposit of unearned attorney fees into his operating account violated the rule governing preservation of client funds.
4. Whether Huston's delay in distributing estate assets was prejudicial to the administration of justice.
5. What disciplinary sanction was appropriate given the misconduct and mitigating circumstances.

Disposition

other