State of Nebraska ex rel. Counsel for Discipline of the Nebraska Supreme Court, relator.
Theodore D. Fraizer, respondent.
action. Judgment of public reprimand.
Heavican, C.J., Wright, Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy. Kelch,
and Funke, JJ.
case is before the court on the conditional admission filed
by Theodore D. Fraizer, respondent, on May 25, 2017. The
court accepts respondent's conditional admission and
enters an order of public reprimand.
was admitted to the practice of law in the State of Nebraska
on September 12, 1979. At all relevant times, he was engaged
in the practice of law in Lincoln, Nebraska.
April 25, 2017, the Counsel for Discipline of the Nebraska
Supreme Court filed formal charges against respondent. The
formal charges consist of one count against respondent
arising from his appointment as successor trustee of a trust
created from the assets of the estate of Martin Buschkamp.
The formal charges state that on May 3, 2006, Martin
Buschkamp died. Respondent filed an estate [297 Neb. 497]
proceeding in the county court for Lancaster County.
Nebraska, on May 12. The Buschkamp estate was closed in May
2009, and the remaining assets were transferred to the Martin
Buschkamp Trust ("Buschkamp Trust"). In August
2013, respondent accepted an appointment as successor trustee
of the Buschkamp Trust.
point, a beneficiary of the Buschkamp Trust filed a grievance
against respondent with the Council for Discipline alleging
that respondent failed to timely conclude all matters related
to the Buschkamp Trust and failed to make a timely
distribution of its remaining assets. In his response to the
grievance, respondent acknowledged that he had not been
diligent in finalizing the Buschkamp Trust matters, and he
stated, "[The beneficiary] is correct that I have let
the remaining aspects of the matter linger too long. . .
." He stated that he would be responsible for any
interest or penalties.
ultimately completed the matters related to the Buschkamp
estate and the Buschkamp Trust. All funds were distributed to
formal charges allege that by his actions, respondent
violated his oath of office as an attorney, Neb. Rev. Stat.
§ 7-104 (Reissue 2012), and Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond.
§§ 3-501.3 (diligence) and 3-508.4 (misconduct).
25, 2017, respondent filed a conditional admission pursuant
to Neb. Ct. R. § 3-313(B) of the disciplinary rules, in
which he conditionally admitted that he violated his oath of
office as an attorney and professional conduct rules
§§ 3-501.3 and 3-508.4(a). In the conditional
admission, respondent knowingly does not challenge or contest
the truth of the matters conditionally asserted and waived
all proceedings against him in exchange for a public
proposed conditional admission included a declaration by the
Counsel for Discipline, stating that respondent's
proposed discipline is appropriate and consistent with [297
Neb. 498] sanctions ...