Background
Ryan C. McCarty was admitted to practice law in Nebraska in September 2020 and also held a Missouri bar license. On July 22, 2025, the Missouri Supreme Court found that McCarty violated Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct 4-1.9(c)(1) and (c)(2) — rules governing an attorney’s duties of confidentiality to former clients. Specifically, Missouri found that McCarty disclosed confidential information related to his former client’s representation to the public and others, used that information to the client’s disadvantage, and did so without the client’s informed consent and when the information was not generally known. Missouri imposed an indefinite suspension with no eligibility for reinstatement for one year from July 22, 2025.
Following the Missouri discipline, Nebraska’s Counsel for Discipline moved for reciprocal discipline under Neb. Ct. R. § 3-321, asserting that the Missouri rules violated were substantively equivalent to Nebraska Rules of Professional Conduct §§ 3-501.6(a) and 3-501.9(c)(1) and (2). The relator requested imposition of identical discipline — a one-year suspension. McCarty, by contrast, urged the court to decline to impose any discipline at all, arguing against the reciprocal finding. After briefing and oral argument, the Nebraska Supreme Court considered the appropriate sanction independently.
The Court’s Holding
The Nebraska Supreme Court granted the motion for reciprocal discipline but declined to impose the identical suspension ordered by Missouri. Instead, the court placed McCarty on probation in lieu of suspension, upon conditions. The court reaffirmed that in a reciprocal discipline proceeding, a sister state’s judicial determination of misconduct is generally conclusive proof of guilt not subject to relitigation — and it rejected McCarty’s attempt to relitigate the Missouri findings. However, the court exercised its independent authority to assess the appropriate Nebraska sanction.
The court identified four reasons for imposing a lesser sanction than Missouri’s suspension. First, McCarty had been on inactive status with the Nebraska bar since May 2023, meaning he was already precluded from practicing law in Nebraska and the public was already protected. Second, the discipline was based solely on reciprocity and there was no evidence of misconduct occurring in or related to Nebraska, nor any failure to timely notify the Counsel for Discipline of the Missouri order. Third, the record showed no other disciplinary complaints or proceedings, making this an isolated incident — a recognized mitigating factor. Fourth, probation better allows the court to assess McCarty’s fitness for reinstatement to active status under conditions existing at that future time.
The terms of probation bar McCarty from practicing law in Nebraska and require him to comply with all professional conduct rules in any jurisdiction during the probationary period. Before reinstatement to active Nebraska membership, McCarty must submit to a character and fitness review before the Nebraska State Bar Commission, pay associated fees and investigation costs, and affirmatively demonstrate fitness to practice. Probation continues until he successfully obtains reinstatement to active membership.
Key Takeaways
- In reciprocal discipline proceedings, Nebraska treats a sister state’s misconduct finding as conclusive — attorneys cannot relitigate the underlying guilt in Nebraska courts.
- Nebraska retains independent authority to impose greater or lesser discipline than the originating jurisdiction, and will weigh mitigating factors such as inactive membership status, absence of Nebraska-related misconduct, and lack of a disciplinary history.
- An attorney’s inactive bar status in Nebraska can factor into the sanction calculus, as it already limits the attorney’s ability to practice and thus limits the risk to the public.
- Reinstatement from probation requires a character and fitness review — not merely payment of fees — when the underlying discipline involved a breach of client confidentiality.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that Nebraska’s reciprocal discipline framework is not a rubber stamp of another state’s sanction. While the fact of misconduct travels across state lines, the appropriate punishment is independently calibrated to Nebraska’s circumstances, including whether the attorney is actively practicing in the state and whether the misconduct had any Nebraska nexus. Attorneys facing multi-jurisdictional discipline should understand that each state conducts its own sanction analysis and that mitigating factors — particularly inactive status and a clean disciplinary record elsewhere — can meaningfully reduce the sanction imposed.
The case also highlights the serious consequences of breaching former-client confidentiality. Disclosing or using a former client’s confidential information without consent — even after the representation ends — can trigger discipline across every jurisdiction where the attorney is licensed, underscoring that the duty of confidentiality survives the termination of the attorney-client relationship.