STATE EX REL. COUNSEL FOR DISCIP. v. Sipple
660 N.W.2d 502, 265 Neb. 890 (2003)
Rule of Law:
An attorney's conduct that is abusive to clients, coerces settlement, prejudices a client's ongoing case, threatens criminal prosecution solely for civil advantage, and is aggravated by prior similar misconduct, violates disciplinary rules and the attorney's oath, warranting suspension from the practice of law.
Facts:
- On November 14, 1998, Stanford L. Sipple entered into a fee agreement to represent Brian Husted in a workers' compensation claim against Duncan Aviation.
- Immediately prior to a scheduled trial on March 2, 2001, Sipple failed to convey Brian Husted's settlement demands of $185,000 or $165,000 to Duncan Aviation's attorney, leading to a $150,000 offer which Brian and Cheryl Husted indicated they did not want to accept.
- On March 16, 2001, Sipple became "incensed" when Cheryl Husted requested more time for Brian Husted to review settlement documents, insisting they be executed that same day or he would "nullify" the settlement, and left a threatening phone message for Brian Husted.
- Later on March 16, 2001, Sipple drove to the Husteds' home despite Cheryl Husted's request not to because Brian Husted was ill, and "became abusive" during a confrontation, inquiring if Brian Husted needed a guardian and challenging him to settle "like a man."
- On March 19, 2001, the Husteds terminated Sipple's employment and hired a new attorney to handle Brian Husted's workers' compensation claim.
- After being terminated, Sipple scheduled depositions for the Husteds and served them with requests for admissions, actions the referee described as a "campaign to intimidate" the Husteds to force early payment of his attorney fee.
- On May 2 and May 17, 2001, Sipple contacted Duncan Aviation's workers' compensation lawyer, stating he "did not want [Brian] to receive any more than $150,000 in settlement," and also emailed the workers' compensation judge assigned to Brian Husted's case, impugning Brian Husted's truthfulness.
- Sipple threatened to prosecute Brian Husted for perjury regarding a response to requests for admissions, even though Sipple admitted the statement had no bearing on his claim for an attorney fee.
Procedural Posture:
- The Counsel for Discipline of the Nebraska Supreme Court initiated an action seeking the imposition of discipline against Stanford L. Sipple, a member of the Nebraska State Bar Association.
- On April 30, 2002, a single-count formal charge was filed against Sipple, alleging violations of DR 1-102(A)(1), (5), and (6); DR 7-101(A)(3); and DR 7-105(A).
- On June 7, 2002, Sipple filed an answer to the formal charges, admitting certain allegations but denying that he had violated disciplinary rules or his oath as an attorney.
- On June 12, 2002, the Nebraska Supreme Court appointed a referee to serve in the case.
- On October 4, 2002, a hearing was held before the referee where evidence was adduced and argument was presented.
- On November 8, 2002, the referee filed a report finding by clear and convincing evidence that Sipple had violated DR 1-102(A)(1), (5), and (6), and DR 7-101(A)(3) and DR 7-105(A), and recommended a 1-year suspension, noting Sipple's prior disciplinary history.
- On November 18, 2002, Sipple filed exceptions to the referee's report.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an attorney's conduct that involves pressuring a client to accept a settlement, verbally abusing the client, attempting to prejudice the client's ongoing case with opposing counsel and the court, and threatening criminal charges solely to gain advantage in a fee dispute, constitute a violation of professional disciplinary rules and the attorney's oath, warranting attorney discipline?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, an attorney's conduct involving pressuring a client to accept a settlement, verbally abusing the client, attempting to prejudice the client's ongoing case with opposing counsel and the court, and threatening criminal charges solely to gain advantage in a fee dispute, constitutes a violation of professional disciplinary rules and the attorney's oath, warranting attorney discipline. The Nebraska Supreme Court conducted a de novo review of the record and agreed with the referee's findings that Stanford Sipple violated DR 1-102(A)(1), (5), and (6) (Misconduct), DR 7-101(A)(3) (Prejudice or damage client), and DR 7-105(A) (Threatening criminal prosecution for civil advantage), and further concluded he violated his attorney's oath of office. The Court found overwhelming evidence that Sipple's conduct was abusive and coercive, citing his failure to relay the client's settlement demands, his threatening messages and confrontation of an ill client at home, and his "campaign to intimidate" the Husteds to collect fees, which included contacting opposing counsel to limit Brian Husted's settlement and impugning Brian Husted's truthfulness to the judge. The Court rejected Sipple's First Amendment defense, reaffirming that an attorney's freedom of expression is tempered by professional ethics. It also clarified that an attorney's ethical obligations and the "professional relationship" with a client extend beyond the termination of formal employment, making Sipple's actions after his firing relevant to the disciplinary charges. Sipple's threat of perjury prosecution, despite admitting its irrelevance to his fee claim, was deemed solely to gain a civil advantage. Considering the nature of the offenses, the need for deterrence, the maintenance of the bar's reputation, public protection, and Sipple's two prior reprimands for similar misconduct (including verbally abusive messages over settlement concerns), the Court found the referee's recommended 1-year suspension too lenient. Citing the principle that cumulative acts of misconduct warrant more serious sanctions, the Court imposed a 2-year suspension from the practice of law.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the broad scope of an attorney's ethical obligations, emphasizing that the "professional relationship" with a client extends beyond the formal termination of employment, particularly regarding duties of loyalty and avoiding prejudice. It underscores that an attorney's right to free speech does not immunize them from discipline for unethical conduct and clearly prohibits the use of criminal threats to gain leverage in civil disputes, even when seeking to recover fees. The ruling also highlights that prior disciplinary history, especially for similar conduct, will lead to more severe sanctions for subsequent violations, demonstrating the court's commitment to protecting the public and maintaining the integrity of the legal profession.
