State of Nebraska ex rel. Counsel for Discipline of the Nebraska Supreme Court, relator,
Kathleen M. Schmidt, respondent. 303 Neb. 755
Original action. Judgment of suspension.
Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, Papik,
and Freudenberg, JJ.
case is before the court on the conditional admission filed
by Kathleen M. Schmidt, respondent, on May 24, 2018. The
court accepts respondent's conditional admission and
enters an order of suspension for a period of 1 year, with 2
years of monitored probation following reinstatement.
was admitted to the practice of law in the State of Nebraska
on September 18, 1987. At all relevant times, she was engaged
in the practice of law in Omaha, Nebraska.
March 4, 2019, the Counsel for Discipline of the Nebraska
Supreme Court filed formal charges against respondent. The
formal charges consisted of six counts against respondent. On
May 22, the Counsel for Discipline dismissed, without
prejudice, count VI of the formal charges. Pursuant to Neb.
Ct. R. § 3-302, respondent is under the jurisdiction of
the Committee on Inquiry of the Second Judicial District.
Neb. 756] The matters alleged in the formal charges were
reviewed by the Committee on Inquiry pursuant to Neb. Ct. R.
§ 3-309(H) (rev. 2011). The committee determined that
there are reasonable grounds for discipline of respondent and
that a public interest would be served by filing formal
of the formal charges states that while representing S.L. in
a dissolution of marriage case, respondent failed to follow
the discovery rules, which caused the district court to
continue a hearing.
formal charges allege that by her actions, respondent
violated her oath of office as an attorney licensed to
practice law in the State of Nebraska as provided by Neb.
Rev. Stat. § 7-104 (Reissue 2012) and Neb. Ct. R. of
Prof. Cond. §§ 3-503.4(c) (fairness to opposing
party), 3-504.4(a) (respect for rights of third persons), and
3-508.4(a) and (d) (rev. 2016) (misconduct).
II of the formal charges states that while representing L.R,
the plaintiff in a dissolution of marriage case, respondent
prepared a parenting plan which she submitted to the Douglas
County District Court Conciliation and Mediation Services.
Respondent did not submit the proposed parenting plan to
opposing counsel for her review; rather, she attached the
last page of the stipulated order as the last page of the
parenting plan, ...