Formal charges were filed against Dazmi H. Castrejon by the Counsel for Discipline of the Nebraska Supreme Court on November 23, 2020, consisting of two counts. Castrejon responded to the charges on January 6, 2021. A referee was appointed, and during the hearing, both parties agreed on the facts, acknowledging that the alleged violations were undisputed, with the only contention being the appropriate disciplinary action.
The referee's report, filed on January 31, 2022, determined that Castrejon violated several provisions of the Nebraska Rules of Professional Conduct, including rules related to fees and accounting, safekeeping client funds, unresponsiveness in disciplinary matters, and general misconduct. Additionally, it was found that she violated her oath as an attorney. The referee recommended a two-year suspension of her law license, followed by probation or supervision.
The relator sought judgment on the pleadings, which was granted, confirming the recommended discipline. Castrejon had been practicing law in Nebraska since January 24, 2011, initially working with another attorney before establishing her own practice. The misconduct involved mismanagement of her Interest on Lawyers Trust Account (IOLTA), failure to provide proper accounting to a former client, and delays in responding to inquiries from the relator. Between January 2017 and September 2019, multiple overdrafts were reported on her IOLTA, prompting the relator to seek explanations and eventually issue a formal grievance after Castrejon's inadequate responses. She claimed that the IOLTA account was meant solely for client funds related to immigration filing fees and indicated personal tax issues as a factor in her financial mismanagement.
The individual expressed a lack of knowledge on how to appropriately handle a situation, leading to panic and avoidance rather than seeking help. To maintain cash flow for their business and payroll amidst potential levies, they deposited funds into their business checking account but transferred money into their IOLTA account for safekeeping, aware this was improper. Although they used the IOLTA account for its intended purpose regarding client fees, they also used it to hold business income, acknowledging the inappropriateness of their actions.
In 2008, the individual co-founded Castrejon, Buenrostro, LLC, intending to phase out Castrejon Law Office, with a partner managing the LLC's accounts while the individual managed the law office's accounts, having no joint access. The IOLTA account for the law office has been closed, and all client fees are now processed through the LLC's IOLTA account, which the individual does not access. Their law practice license was temporarily suspended on March 18, 2020, and the IOLTA account was closed at the same time.
On April 1, 2020, a grievance was filed by a former client regarding a charge of $3,500 for an I-130 immigration application, requesting an accounting and a refund for unused funds, of which only $636 was refunded without an accounting. The individual failed to respond to the grievance and did not update their contact information with the relator or Attorney Services. After multiple attempts to reach the individual, a formal complaint was amended and sent to the new address. Formal charges were filed on November 23, 2020, with the individual answering on January 6, 2021, admitting to using the IOLTA account to shield funds from IRS levies, depositing excess funds, commingling personal and client funds, and failing to provide a complete accounting to the former client or cooperate with the investigation.
During a hearing, the referee found that the individual breached several Nebraska Rules of Professional Conduct, including those concerning fees and accounting, safekeeping funds, unresponsiveness in disciplinary matters, and general misconduct. The only dispute at the hearing was the appropriate disciplinary action.
The referee concluded that the respondent, an attorney in Nebraska, violated her oath of office based on extensive evidence, including exhibits and testimony from her therapist, Morgan Keen Hecht, a licensed mental health practitioner. Hecht provided expert insights on domestic abuse, violence, and coercive control, detailing her treatment of the respondent from December 2020 until the hearing.
Hecht referenced the "Power and Control Wheel of Violence," identifying eight forms of abuse present in the respondent’s relationship with her ex-husband: intimidation, emotional abuse, isolation, minimizing/denying/blaming, using children, male privilege, economic abuse, and coercion/threats. Hecht outlined a history of trauma in the respondent's life, including sexual assault and an abusive marriage starting at age 16, and described escalating abuse leading to a crisis by 2015, including threats against their children.
Financial difficulties after the husband’s business failure and the respondent's inability to manage her finances contributed to her isolation and lack of support. Following a violent incident in 2019, the respondent fled with her younger daughter, leading to her husband’s abandonment, which she described as a significant loss. This left her devastated, nonfunctional, and ultimately resulted in losing her law license. Hecht diagnosed her with PTSD and major depressive disorder, stating that such conditions would impair her ability to function as a lawyer. Hecht recommended continued therapy for at least a year after the hearing and noted the respondent's awareness that her actions leading to formal charges were unethical.
The referee found the respondent to be intelligent and ethical, with the ability to uphold high ethical standards. The referee deemed both the respondent's and Hecht's testimonies as truthful and accurate. Notably, the respondent experienced significant mental and emotional distress, which persisted throughout the conduct leading to the formal charges. The referee highlighted "extraordinary circumstances" and recommended a two-year suspension of the respondent's law license, with credit for the time already served since surrendering her license. The suspension could allow for a return to practice at the Supreme Court's discretion.
Mitigating factors included the respondent being a domestic violence victim, which contributed to her trauma and mental health issues. The referee acknowledged her commitment to professional mental health treatment and her resilience, having managed severe abuse while pursuing her education and raising two children. The recommendation also included completing current treatment and ongoing therapy.
The document outlines the standard of review for attorney discipline cases, noting that decisions are made de novo based on the record, requiring clear and convincing evidence for charges to be sustained. The referee's findings confirmed violations of multiple disciplinary rules and the attorney's oath. The court's discretion in imposing various types of disciplinary actions is also discussed, emphasizing the need to consider the specific facts and circumstances of each case. The joint motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, establishing grounds for the disciplinary action recommended by the referee.
Determining the appropriate discipline for an attorney involves evaluating the attorney's actions related to the case, along with aggravating and mitigating factors. The court considers factors such as the nature of the offense, deterrence, the reputation of the bar, public protection, the offender's attitude, and their current or future fitness to practice law. In this case, misconduct includes the improper deposit of personal funds into an IOLTA account to evade IRS levy, failure to respond to investigations, and neglecting to account for client funds. Mishandling trust accounts is viewed as a serious violation, generally warranting disbarment unless extraordinary mitigating circumstances exist.
The burden of proving mitigating factors lies with the attorney. In this instance, the referee acknowledged the respondent’s medical improvements, suggesting a low likelihood of repeat misconduct. Testimonies highlighted her success in therapy and commitment to ethical conduct. Despite her significant mental health challenges, the referee concluded that the respondent could regain her fitness to practice. No prior disciplinary issues were reported, and support letters praised her work ethic and advocacy.
Importantly, the document notes a lack of prior consideration for how domestic violence victimization may mitigate attorney disciplinary actions. It references the establishment of resources for legal professionals facing intimate partner violence and highlights the creation of the Safe and Healthy Families Court in Lancaster County, emphasizing a growing recognition of domestic violence issues within the legal profession.
The document addresses the implications of intimate partner violence in attorney disciplinary proceedings, highlighting that such circumstances can serve as mitigating factors. Notable cases are cited, including *In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Dornay*, where intimate partner violence was acknowledged as significant but not exculpatory, and several Oklahoma cases that recognized domestic abuse as a contributor to attorneys' misconduct due to emotional distress. A Georgia case further exemplified this by linking an attorney's financial misconduct to the psychological impact of an abusive relationship.
Specific to the case at hand, Castrejon's medical evidence indicated significant mental and emotional trauma from domestic violence, which contributed to her misconduct. The court noted her commitment to ongoing treatment and deemed the likelihood of future misconduct low. The referee recommended a 2-year suspension; however, the court ultimately imposed a 30-month suspension retroactive to March 18, 2020, recognizing extraordinary mitigating factors.
Upon completion of the suspension, Castrejon may apply for reinstatement, contingent upon compliance with established rules and the absence of further disciplinary violations. The reinstatement process includes a 2-year monitored probation with specific conditions: continued therapy, supervision by an approved attorney, a prohibition on solo practice, restrictions on trust account management, and mandatory additional coursework in accounting. The court found that Castrejon violated multiple professional conduct rules and imposed the suspension and probation accordingly.
