Board of Bar Examiners v. J.E.G. ( 2015 )

2015 WI 71SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2013AP1769-D & 2014XX817-BA
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Jordan E. Gall, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Complainant,
v.
Jordan E. Gall,
Respondent.
In the Matter of the Conditional Admission of
J.E.G.:
Board of Bar Examiners,
Complainant,
v.
J. E. G.,
Respondent.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GALL
OPINION FILED: July 9, 2015
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
CONCURRED:
DISSENTED:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS:
2015 WI 71NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2013AP1769-D
No. 2014XX817-BA
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Jordan E. Gall, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Complainant,
v.
Jordan E. Gall,
Respondent. FILED
JUL 9, 2015
In the Matter of the Conditional Admission of Diane M. Fremgen
J.E.G.: Clerk of Supreme Court
Board of Bar Examiners,
Complainant,
v.
J. E. G.,
Respondent.
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney publicly
reprimanded and motion denied.
No. 2013AP1769-D
No. 2014XX817-BA
¶1 PER CURIAM. In this reciprocal discipline matter, we
consider whether we should publicly reprimand Attorney Jordan E.
Gall as discipline reciprocal to that imposed by the Supreme
Court of Minnesota. We also address a motion filed by the Board
of Bar Examiners (BBE) asking this court to issue an order
directing Attorney Gall to show cause why his license to
practice law in Wisconsin should not be suspended for his
alleged willful failure to comply with the conditions set forth
in the Consent Agreement for Conditional Admission dated
August 29, 2011, and a motion to seal all filings related to the
conditional admission motion.
¶2 After reviewing these matters, and in light of
Attorney Gall's failure to respond to our order to show cause,
we conclude that Attorney Gall should be publicly reprimanded in
this state for the misconduct that has already resulted in a
public reprimand in Minnesota. We further conclude, however, in
light of the manner in which the Supreme Court of Minnesota
addressed Attorney Gall's disciplinary case, that there is no
need to issue an order to show cause to Attorney Gall regarding
his conditional admission in this state. We therefore deny the
BBE's motion requesting such an order. We also deny the BBE's
motion to seal all filings regarding the conditional admission,
determining that the interweaving of the disciplinary matter and
the conditional admission matter require public disclosure of
the fact of Attorney Gall's conditional admission to the
practice of law in this state.
2
No. 2013AP1769-D
No. 2014XX817-BA
¶3 Attorney Gall was admitted to the practice of law in
this state in September 2011. In March 2011 Attorney Gall had
been conditionally admitted to the practice of law in Minnesota.
At the time of the Minnesota public reprimand, the Minnesota
disciplinary documents indicate that he was practicing law in
Plymouth, Minnesota. The most recent address that Attorney Gall
has provided to the State Bar of Wisconsin is a law firm in
Minneapolis.
¶4 Attorney Gall has not previously been the subject of
professional discipline in Wisconsin. His license to practice
law in this state, however, is currently subject to
administrative suspensions for failure to pay bar dues and
assessments, for noncompliance with his obligation to report his
attendance at continuing legal education, and for failure to
file an annual trust account certification.
¶5 In the disciplinary proceeding, the Office of Lawyer
Regulation (OLR) filed a complaint, an order to answer, and a
motion requesting that this court issue an order directing
Attorney Gall to inform the court in writing of any claim,
predicated upon the grounds set forth in Supreme Court Rule
(SCR) 22.22(3),1 that the imposition of discipline identical to
1
SCR 22.22(3) provides as follows:
The supreme court shall impose the identical
discipline or license suspension unless one or more of
the following is present:
(continued)
3
No. 2013AP1769-D
No. 2014XX817-BA
that previously imposed in Minnesota would be unwarranted, and
of the factual basis for any such claim. The OLR was unable to
serve a copy of the complaint and order to answer personally on
Attorney Gall. Ultimately, it accomplished service on Attorney
Gall by sending by certified mail an authenticated copy of the
complaint and order to answer to the most recent address that
Attorney Gall had provided to the State Bar of Wisconsin,
pursuant to SCR 22.13(1). The court then granted the OLR's
motion and issued the requested order to show cause. Attorney
Gall did not respond to the order to show cause. He also has
not filed an answer or other response to the OLR's complaint.
¶6 The facts set forth below are taken from both the
OLR's complaint and the BBE's motion. Attorney Gall has not
disputed the facts set forth in either the complaint or the
motion.
¶7 The OLR's complaint alleges that on May 16, 2013, the
Supreme Court of Minnesota publicly reprimanded Attorney Gall.
The OLR attached copies of the Minnesota order, the petition for
(a) The procedure in the other jurisdiction was
so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to
constitute a deprivation of due process.
(b) There was such an infirmity of proof
establishing the misconduct or medical incapacity that
the supreme court could not accept as final the
conclusion in respect to the misconduct or medical
incapacity.
(c) The misconduct justifies substantially
different discipline in this state.
4
No. 2013AP1769-D
No. 2014XX817-BA
disciplinary action, and Attorney Gall's stipulation, in which
he unconditionally admitted the allegations of the petition for
disciplinary action and agreed to request the imposition of a
public reprimand.
¶8 The facts underlying Attorney Gall's public reprimand
involved his failure to comply with the Consent Agreement for
Conditional Admission to the practice of law in Minnesota (the
Minnesota Agreement) and his false statements to the Minnesota
lawyer regulatory authorities.
¶9 Specifically, the Minnesota Agreement, which Attorney
Gall executed with the Minnesota Board of Law Examiners (MBLE)
in March 2011, contained a requirement that Attorney Gall comply
with the conditions of probation imposed in November 2010 as a
result of a conviction for Fourth Degree Driving While
Intoxicated. One of those conditions was a requirement that for
a period of two years Attorney Gall would have no driver's
license violations. The Minnesota Agreement also required
Attorney Gall to submit quarterly reports detailing his
compliance with all of the terms and conditions of that
agreement, as well as to submit narrative statements detailing
the steps he was taking to support his decision to abstain from
alcohol. The Minnesota Complaint provided that it would be in
effect for a period of two years (until March 2013). The
agreement also stated, however, that if a complaint was filed
with the Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility
during the term of the agreement, then the period of conditional
5
No. 2013AP1769-D
No. 2014XX817-BA
admission would be extended until the disposition of that
complaint. Once Attorney Gall signed the Minnesota Agreement,
he was admitted to the practice of law in that state.
¶10 The BBE's motion alleges that Attorney Gall signed a
similar Consent Agreement for Conditional Admission (the
Wisconsin Agreement) in August 2011. The Wisconsin Agreement
provided that its duration would be coterminous with the
Minnesota Agreement, but that the period of conditional
admission in this state could be extended under SCR 40.075(6)
and (8). In addition to requiring Attorney Gall to obey all
laws and rules governing the active practice of law, the
Wisconsin Agreement also mandated that Attorney Gall comply with
all of the terms and conditions of the Minnesota Agreement.
¶11 Contrary to Attorney Gall's probation and his
conditional admission agreements in both states, he was cited
for 11 traffic violations in the period from June 2011 to
September 2012. Among those traffic violations were two
instances of failing to obey a traffic sign, three speeding
citations, one instance of illegal or improper passing, and
three occasions on which Attorney Gall was found to be driving
after the suspension of his driver's license. He failed to
report any of these infractions to the MBLE, which constituted a
violation of his conditional admission consent agreements. In
addition, Attorney Gall also violated the Minnesota Agreement
and applicable ethics rules by submitting multiple quarterly
6
No. 2013AP1769-D
No. 2014XX817-BA
reports falsely stating that he had abided by all laws and was
in compliance with the conditions of his criminal probation.
¶12 On the basis of the stipulation of facts executed by
Attorney Gall, the Supreme Court of Minnesota issued an order
publicly reprimanding him and placing him on disciplinary
probation for a period of two years with a number of conditions.
In re Disciplinary Action Against Gall, 830 N.W.2d 441 (Minn.
2013). Those conditions included maintaining complete
abstinence from alcohol and other non-prescription, mood-
altering chemicals, submitting to random urinalysis screenings,
and abiding by all laws. The Supreme Court of Minnesota's
order, however, did not contain any provisions regarding the
extension of the Minnesota Agreement or regarding the authority
of the MBLE to extend the agreement, which would have expired,
according to its terms, at the conclusion of the Minnesota
disciplinary proceeding.
¶13 Under SCR 22.22(3), this court shall impose the
identical discipline imposed by the other jurisdiction unless
one or more of three exceptions are present. The first two
exceptions involve situations where the disciplinary proceeding
in the other jurisdiction deprived the respondent attorney of
due process or suffered from a lack of proof. SCR 22.22(3)(a)-
(b). The third exception to the imposition of reciprocal
discipline applies where the misconduct justifies substantially
different discipline in Wisconsin. SCR 22.22(3)(c).
7
No. 2013AP1769-D
No. 2014XX817-BA
¶14 Attorney Gall has not responded to our order to show
cause and argued that one or more of these three exceptions are
applicable to his case. Our own review of the matter does not
indicate that any exception applies to this matter.
¶15 Accordingly, we will publicly reprimand Attorney Gall
as discipline reciprocal to that imposed by the Supreme Court of
Minnesota. Although that court also imposed a two-year period
of probation in its disciplinary order, we do not impose a
similar period of probation. Probation is not one of the forms
of discipline that this court generally imposes. Where another
jurisdiction has imposed a period of probation in a reciprocal
discipline context, we have replicated the effect of such
probation by ordering the respondent attorney to comply with the
probationary order entered in the other jurisdiction. See,
e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Moree, 2004 WI 118,
275 Wis. 2d 279, 281, 684 N.W.2d 667 (published order). We will
follow that practice here.
¶16 We now turn to the BBE's motion. The BBE learned of
Attorney Gall's Minnesota public reprimand and two-year
disciplinary probation within a few days after the Minnesota
disciplinary order had been issued in May 2013. The BBE
conducted an annual review of Attorney Gall's conditional
8
No. 2013AP1769-D
No. 2014XX817-BA
admission to the practice of law in Wisconsin in October 2013.2
It voted at that time to extend the Wisconsin Agreement for two
more years.3
¶17 Following the BBE's vote, the BBE's executive director
wrote to Attorney Gall to inform him of the BBE's action and to
request that he either sign an amended Wisconsin Agreement or
advise that he did not wish to do so. Attorney Gall did not
respond. He also did not respond after two subsequent
communications requesting execution of the amended agreement.
¶18 The BBE ultimately voted to find Attorney Gall to be
non-compliant with the Wisconsin Agreement and voted to revoke
that agreement. Following one last communication warning
Attorney Gall that the BBE would seek the suspension of his
license to practice law in Wisconsin, to which Attorney Gall
still did not respond, the BBE filed its motion asking for an
2
It is not clear whether the Wisconsin Agreement was still
in effect at this time. It appears from the filings of the OLR
and the BBE that the Minnesota Agreement, pursuant to its terms,
would have expired, at the latest, at the conclusion of the
Minnesota disciplinary proceeding in May 2013. Since the terms
of the Wisconsin Agreement provided that its duration was
coterminous with the Minnesota Agreement, it is unclear whether
the Wisconsin Agreement would have remained in effect beyond May
2013.
3
It is also unclear from the BBE's filings whether this
extension was to be measured from March 2013 (when the Minnesota
Agreement was initially to have expired), from May 2013 (when
the Minnesota Agreement would have expired upon completion of
the Minnesota disciplinary proceeding), or from October 2013
(when the BBE voted for the extension).
9
No. 2013AP1769-D
No. 2014XX817-BA
order to show cause, and ultimately the suspension of Attorney
Gall's license to practice law in Wisconsin.
¶19 We conclude that the BBE's motion should be denied.
According to the materials submitted to this court regarding the
response of the Supreme Court of Minnesota and its applicable
agencies to Attorney Gall's misconduct, it appears that
Minnesota addressed the misconduct solely through the means of
the public reprimand and the disciplinary probation imposed by
the Supreme Court of Minnesota. There is no indication that
Attorney Gall was required to sign a new or amended Minnesota
Agreement or that his conditional admission was extended.
Moreover, the BBE has not demonstrated that the Minnesota
Agreement remained in effect beyond the completion of the
Minnesota disciplinary proceeding in May 2013. It also has not
shown why the Wisconsin Agreement would have remained in effect
beyond the effective term of the Minnesota Agreement. In any
event, we conclude that the matter of Attorney Gall's misconduct
was sufficiently addressed by the Minnesota public reprimand and
disciplinary probation, which is being imposed in this state via
the reciprocal discipline procedure.
¶20 IT IS ORDERED that Jordan E. Gall is publicly
reprimanded for his professional misconduct as reciprocal
discipline to that imposed by the Supreme Court of Minnesota.
Jordan E. Gall's license to practice law in Wisconsin remains
administratively suspended.
10
No. 2013AP1769-D
No. 2014XX817-BA
¶21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Jordan E. Gall shall comply
with the terms and conditions of the disciplinary probation set
forth in the May 16, 2013 order of the Supreme Court of
Minnesota and any subsequent orders. In re Disciplinary Action
Against Gall, 830 N.W.2d 441, 441-42 (Minn. 2013).
¶22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the director of the Office
of Lawyer Regulation shall advise the court if there has not
been full compliance with all conditions of this order.
¶23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in In re Conditional
Admission of J.E.G., No. 2014XX817-BA, the motion of the Board
of Bar Examiners for the issuance of an order to show cause is
denied.
11
No. 2013AP1769-D.awb
No. 2014XX817-BA.awb
¶24 ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J. (concurring in part,
dissenting in part). I agree with the imposition of a public
reprimand as reciprocal discipline to that imposed by the
Supreme Court of Minnesota. However, for the protection of the
public, more is needed.
¶25 In addition to the public reprimand, I would grant the
motion of the Board of Bar Examiners for the issuance of an
order to show cause why the license of Attorney Jordan E. Gall
to practice law in Wisconsin should not be suspended for his
alleged willful failure to comply with the conditions set forth
in the Consent Agreement for Conditional Admission dated
August 29, 2011.
¶26 I am authorized to state that Justice SHIRLEY S.
ABRAHAMSON joins this concurrence/dissent.
1
No. 2013AP1769-D.awb
No. 2014XX817-BA.awb
1