State of Nebraska ex rel. Counsel for Discipline of the Nebraska Supreme Court, relator.
Martin J. Troshynski, respondent.
Original action. Judgment of suspension.
Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, and
March 15, 2017, formal charges containing one count were
filed by the office of the Counsel for Discipline of the
Nebraska Supreme Court, relator, against respondent, Martin
J. Troshynski. Respondent filed an answer to the charges on
July 19. A referee was appointed on September 5. On November
8, relator filed amended formal charges after obtaining leave
of this court to do so. The referee conducted a hearing on
referee filed a report on January 9, 2018. With respect to
the charges, the referee concluded that through
respondent's conduct, he had breached the following
provisions of the Nebraska Court Rules of Professional
Conduct: Neb. Ct. R of Prof. Cond. §§ 3-501.3
(diligence), 3-501.4(a)(3) and (4) (communication), 3-503.4
(fairness to opposing party and counsel), 3-508.1(b)
(responding to bar admission and disciplinary matters), and
3-508.4(a) and (d) (conduct prejudicial to administration of
justice) (rev. 2016). The referee further [300 Neb. 764]
found that respondent had violated his oath of office as an
attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Nebraska.
See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 7-104 (Reissue 2012). With respect
to the discipline to be imposed, the referee recommended
suspension of respondent's license to practice law for a
period of 45 days, with a period of supervision of 2 years
upon readmission. Respondent agreed to the proposed sanction.
Neither relator nor respondent filed exceptions to the
referee's report. Relator filed a motion for judgment on
the pleadings under Neb. Ct. R. § 3-310(L) (rev. 2014)
of the disciplinary rules. Respondent did not respond to the
motion. We grant the motion for judgment on the pleadings and
impose discipline as indicated below.
was admitted to the practice of law in the State of Nebraska
on September 14, 1990. At all times relevant to these
proceedings, he has practiced in North Platte, Nebraska.
substance of the referee's findings may be summarized as
follows: respondent has been practicing for 27 years, is
currently a solo practitioner, and his current law practice
involves criminal defense and general practice. The
violations arise from respondent's conduct with respect
to two cases.
and G.D. 's Case.
April 2010, T.W. and G.D. retained respondent to represent
them in matters arising from their injuries from an
automobile collision, and in 2013, respondent filed a
complaint in the district court for Lincoln County on their
behalf. In the course of that suit, the defendants served
discovery requests to respondent in December 2013, but
respondent did not provide the requested documents in 2014 or
most of 2015, despite three motions to compel discovery
relating to that 2013 request. On August 13, 2015, respondent
failed to appear at a hearing and the district court ordered
him to provide the requested documents or the case would be
dismissed. Respondent failed to comply with the court's
order, and the case was dismissed [300 Neb. 765] without
prejudice on September 3, 2015. Respondent did not notify his
clients. T.W. and G.D. learned of the dismissal from another
source and not from respondent. After respondent filed a
series of motions attempting to reinstate the case, T.W. and
G.D.'s lawsuit was ultimately dismissed.
relator twice requested respondent's client files
regarding T.W. and G.D, respondent failed to respond for
approximately 4 months.
retained respondent to represent her in a personal injury
case arising out of a 2006 automobile collision. Respondent
filed a complaint in the case in the district court for
Lincoln County in January 2010. On October 21, the defendants
sent a discovery request to respondent. On July 16, 2012,
respondent filed a stipulation to continue the matter in
which the parties agreed that additional time was needed to
conduct discovery. On February 5, 2013, the court dismissed
the case for lack of prosecution. Respondent was able to
reinstate the case, but continued to fail to respond to
discovery. The case was dismissed again without prejudice
after respondent failed to file a response to the court's