Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Jerry R. Albert ( 2014 )

2014 WI 105
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2013AP2702-D
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Jerry R. Albert, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Complainant,
v.
Jerry R. Albert,
Respondent.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ALBERT
OPINION FILED: August 20, 2014
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
CONCURRED:
DISSENTED:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS:
2014 WI 105
NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2013AP2702-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Jerry R. Albert, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED
Complainant,
AUG 20, 2014
v.
Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Supreme Court
Jerry R. Albert,
Respondent.
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney publicly
reprimanded.
¶1 PER CURIAM. This is a reciprocal discipline matter.
On December 9, 2013, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed
a complaint and motion pursuant to Supreme Court Rule
(SCR) 22.22 requesting that this court publicly reprimand
Attorney Jerry R. Albert as reciprocal discipline identical to
that imposed by the Arizona Supreme Court.
¶2 Attorney Albert was admitted to practice law in
Wisconsin in 1971. His Wisconsin law license is currently
No. 2013AP2702-D
suspended for failure to pay State Bar of Wisconsin dues.
Attorney Albert is also admitted to practice law in Arizona.
¶3 The OLR's complaint noted that on June 25, 2013, the
Arizona Supreme Court reprimanded Attorney Albert for knowingly
making a false statement by omission when he failed to tell the
court that a question he planned to ask during a criminal trial
was redacted so as to make it appear that the defendant had
contradicted herself on the material point, when in fact she had
not. The Arizona Supreme Court found that this act violated
ER 3.3(a) and 8.4(d) of the Arizona Rules of Professional
Conduct, Rule 42, Ariz.R.Sup.Ct. Attorney Albert admitted the
allegation and agreed that a reprimand was appropriate.
¶4 Attorney Albert did not notify the OLR of the Arizona
reprimand within 20 days of its effective date.
¶5 On February 18, 2014, Attorney Albert filed a response
to the OLR's complaint and motion, in which he stated that he
did not object to the imposition of discipline reciprocal to
that imposed in Arizona.
¶6 Under SCR 22.22(3), in reciprocal discipline matters,
this court shall impose the identical discipline unless one of
the enumerated exceptions is shown. There is no indication that
any of those exceptions apply in this case.
¶7 IT IS ORDERED that Jerry R. Albert is publicly
reprimanded as discipline reciprocal to that imposed by the
Arizona Supreme Court.
2
No. 2013AP2702-D
1