Another Omaha Lawyer Enhances the Image of the Profession

I feel slightly bad for this attorney, but since this is not the first time he has been in trouble, I feel more concern for the public at large. When Mr. Gleason was previously disciplined for misappropriation of client funds, he was given a very rare exception to the usual rule of automatice disbarment. The Nebraska Supreme Court felt that his psychological condition warranted special treatment. The opinion from 1995 (248 Neb. 1003, for those of you who want to look it up) doesn't state much he took in that case, but attorneys in Nebraska routinely lose their licenses for taking less than $1,000. It's sad to see one of the Supreme Court's few cases of leniency come back to bite them, and all of us.

In addition to the Omaha World-Herald article, KETV had two stories on the incident providing fresh detail: here and here. Of particular note is that he may owe clients more than $60,000. The worst part about this is that this will make it harder for other attorneys to show mitigating circumstances why they should not be disbarred in the future, even though some may actually be deserving of a second chance.

Some key sections from the 1995 Opinion:

First, there is no question that misappropriation of client funds, as one of the most serious violations of duty an attorney owes to clients, the public, and the courts, typically warrants disbarment....

[R]espondent is unique to this court in that he was undergoing treatment for his psychological problems before the Counsel for Discipline contacted him with the informal complaint. Respondent suffered from certain well-defined psychological problems, and those problems led to the complaint. There can be no implication that he sought treatment for his behavior in order to find some excuse to use in this proceeding....

Respondent has shown both remorse and a resolve to deter any possible infractions in the future....At every stage of this disciplinary process, respondent was unanimously found to be deserving of leniency.

Sixth, as to respondent's fitness to practice law, no client ever suffered any monetary loss [NOT TRUE NOW], and all clients were represented professionally and zealously. As to respondent's fitness to practice in the future, both physicians who testified stated that respondent was reacting favorably to treatment and that respondent was fit to practice law.

Finally, there are several major mitigating factors to beconsidered in this case: respondent's dual psychological illnesses and the fact that treatment of the conditions preceded the complaint.

Respondent's active involvement in the betterment of the legal profession, the affirmations of character on his behalf, the current medical treatment of respondent, and his resolve to continue such treatment should also be considered.

The unique nature of respondent's cooperation is another important mitigating factor. It is solely by virtue of respondent's testimony that we became aware of the information which led to the formal charge that respondent was out of trust. Had respondent not disclosed this information or been uncooperative, we do not know if the Counsel for Discipline would have had enough information to pursue formal out-of-trust disciplinary charges. We are dealing with an ethical system, the success of which depends largely upon voluntary compliance. We hesitate to set a precedent which would chill future respondents' cooperation.

The nature of depression and the psychiatrist-assisted potential for cure are mitigating factors in Nebraska disciplinary proceedings.

We affirm that in virtually all future cases of misappropriation, disbarment will be the only appropriate discipline unless it appears that the misconduct resulted from nothing more than mere negligence. While avoiding a per se rule,we acknowledge our prior decisions and will regard a lesser sanction only when extraordinary mitigating factors are present. This court has found such factors in the past and may find other factors in the future. However, mitigating factors will only overcome the presumption of disbarment if they are extraordinary and, when aggravating circumstances are present, substantially outweigh those circumstances as well.

CONCLUSION

When we balance the need to protect the public, the nature of respondent's offenses, the need for deterring others, and the reputation of the bar as a whole against respondent's interest in preserving his privilege to practice law and all mitigating circumstances, we must conclude that the only appropriate judgmentis to suspend respondent from the practice of law effective immediately.

Judgment of suspension.