Nebraska advaNce sheets 312 285 NEBRASKA REPORTS
Original action. Judgment of public reprimand.
heavicaN, c.J., Wright, coNNolly, stephaN, mccormack, miller-lermaN, and cassel JJ.
The Counsel for Discipline of the Nebraska Supreme Court, relator, has filed a motion for reciprocal discipline against Philip M. Kleinsmith, respondent. We grant the motion for reciprocal discipline and impose the same discipline as the Arizona Supreme Court, which is a public reprimand and 1 year's probation effective March 20, 2012.
Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in the State of Nebraska on August 14, 1989. Respondent was also admitted to the practice of law in the State of Arizona and numerous other jurisdictions. On March 20, 2012, the Arizona Supreme Court issued an order which publicly reprimanded respondent and placed him on probation for a period of 1 year. The order was based on an "Agreement for Discipline by Consent," which generally stipulates to respondent's having filed improper arbitration certificates in numerous cases. This discipline was not self-reported by respondent as required by Neb. Ct. R. § 3-321. The Counsel for Discipline learned of the discipline imposed by the Arizona Supreme Court when it received a copy of an order of reciprocal discipline from the State of Utah.
On December 12, 2012, the Counsel for Discipline filed a motion for reciprocal discipline pursuant to § 3-321 of the disciplinary rules. On December 19, we entered an order to show cause as to why we should not impose reciprocal discipline. On December 31, respondent responded to the order to show cause in which he consents to an order imposing identical discipline, or greater or lesser discipline, as we deem proper. The Counsel for Discipline did not respond to the order to show cause.
The basic issues in a disciplinary proceeding against an attorney are whether discipline should be imposed and, if so, the type of discipline appropriate under the circumstances. State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Underhill, ante p. 85, ___ N.W.2d ___ (2013). In a reciprocal discipline proceeding, a judicial determination of attorney misconduct in one jurisdiction is generally conclusive proof of guilt and is not subject to relitigation in the second jurisdiction. Id. Based on the record before us, we find that respondent is guilty of misconduct.
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) Disbarrment by the ...