Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Yuri Bernard Nielsen

2013 WI 102

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2013AP1720-D
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Yuri Bernard Nielsen, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Complainant,
v.
Yuri Bernard Nielsen,
Respondent.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST NIELSEN

OPINION FILED: December 20, 2013
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:

SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:

JUSTICES:
CONCURRED:
DISSENTED:
NOT PARTICIPATING: ZIEGLER, J., did not participate.

ATTORNEYS:
 2013 WI 102
NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2013AP1720-D

STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT

In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Yuri Bernard Nielsen, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED
Complainant,
DEC 20, 2013
v.
Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Supreme Court
Yuri Bernard Nielsen,

Respondent.

ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license

revoked.

¶1 PER CURIAM. This is a reciprocal discipline matter.

We review the stipulation entered by Attorney Yuri Bernard

Nielsen and the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) for the

imposition of discipline reciprocal to that imposed by the

Supreme Court of Arizona. After our review of the matter, we

accept the stipulation. By virtue of having been disbarred by

the Supreme Court of Arizona for professional misconduct,
Attorney Nielsen is subject to reciprocal discipline in
 No. 2013AP1720-D

Wisconsin pursuant to SCR 22.22.1 We revoke Attorney Nielsen's

license to practice law in Wisconsin. The OLR does not seek

costs, and no costs will be imposed in this matter.
1
SCR 22.22 provides: Reciprocal discipline.

(1) An attorney on whom public discipline for
misconduct or a license suspension for medical
incapacity has been imposed by another jurisdiction
shall promptly notify the director of the matter.
Failure to furnish the notice within 20 days of the
effective date of the order or judgment of the other
jurisdiction constitutes misconduct.

(2) Upon the receipt of a certified copy of a
judgment or order of another jurisdiction imposing
discipline for misconduct or a license suspension for
medical incapacity of an attorney admitted to the
practice of law or engaged in the practice of law in
this state, the director may file a complaint in the
supreme court containing all of the following:

(a) A certified copy of the judgment or order
from the other jurisdiction.

(b) A motion requesting an order directing the
attorney to inform the supreme court in writing within
20 days of any claim of the attorney predicated on the
grounds set forth in sub. (3) that the imposition of
the identical discipline or license suspension by the
supreme court would be unwarranted and the factual
basis for the claim.

(3) The supreme court shall impose the identical
discipline or license suspension unless one or more of
the following is present:

(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.

2
 No. 2013AP1720-D

¶2 Attorney Nielsen was admitted to practice law in

Wisconsin in 2005. He was also admitted to practice law in

Arizona. His current Wisconsin license status is "active" and

in "good standing."

¶3 On May 2, 2013, the Supreme Court of Arizona disbarred

Attorney Nielsen for misappropriation of trust funds and failure

to provide an accounting of trust accounts and related client

(c) The misconduct justifies substantially
different discipline in this state.

(4) Except as provided in sub. (3), a final
adjudication in another jurisdiction that an attorney
has engaged in misconduct or has a medical incapacity
shall be conclusive evidence of the attorney's
misconduct or medical incapacity for purposes of a
proceeding under this rule.

(5) The supreme court may refer a complaint
filed under sub. (2) to a referee for a hearing and a
report and recommendation pursuant to SCR 22.16. At
the hearing, the burden is on the party seeking the
imposition of discipline or license suspension
different from that imposed in the other jurisdiction
to demonstrate that the imposition of identical
discipline or license suspension by the supreme court
is unwarranted.

(6) If the discipline or license suspension
imposed in the other jurisdiction has been stayed, any
reciprocal discipline or license suspension imposed by
the supreme court shall be held in abeyance until the
stay expires.

3
 No. 2013AP1720-D

records.2 The Supreme Court of Arizona found that these actions

violated Rule 42, ERs 1.3, 1.4, 1.15, 8.1, 8.4(c), along with

various sections of Rule 43 and Rule 54 of the Arizona Rules of

the Supreme Court.

¶4 On August 5, 2013, the OLR filed a complaint alleging

that, by virtue of the Arizona disbarment, Attorney Nielsen was

subject to reciprocal discipline in Wisconsin. On September 25,

2013, pursuant to SCR 22.123 the OLR and Attorney Nielsen entered

into a stipulation whereby they stipulated to the revocation of

2
Disbarment of an attorney in Arizona is comparable to
revocation of an attorney's license in Wisconsin. In Arizona an
attorney who has been disbarred may apply for reinstatement not
sooner than 90 days prior to the fifth anniversary of the
effective date of the disbarment. Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 64(b). In
Wisconsin an attorney whose license has been revoked may file
for reinstatement five years after the effective date of
revocation.
3
SCR 22.12 states as follows: Stipulation.

(1) The director may file with the complaint a
stipulation of the director and the respondent to the
facts, conclusions of law regarding misconduct, and
discipline to be imposed. The supreme court may
consider the complaint and stipulation without the
appointment of a referee.

(2) If the supreme court approves a stipulation,
it shall adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of
law and impose the stipulated discipline.

(3) If the supreme court rejects the stipulation,
a referee shall be appointed and the matter shall
proceed as a complaint filed without a stipulation.

(4) A stipulation rejected by the supreme court
has no evidentiary value and is without prejudice to
the respondent's defense of the proceeding or the
prosecution of the complaint.

4
 No. 2013AP1720-D

Attorney Nielsen's license to practice law in Wisconsin,

reciprocal to the discipline imposed in Arizona.

¶5 Attorney Nielsen agrees that the facts alleged in the

OLR's complaint and the documents from the Arizona proceeding

attached thereto form a basis for the discipline requested. The

parties aver that the stipulation did not result from plea

bargaining. Attorney Nielsen states that he does not contest

the facts and misconduct alleged by the OLR, or the discipline

that the OLR director is seeking in this matter. Attorney

Nielsen states that he fully understands the misconduct

allegations; he fully understands the ramifications should the

court impose the stipulated level of discipline; he fully

understands his right to contest this matter; he fully

understands his right to consult with counsel; his entry into

the stipulation is made knowingly and voluntarily; and his entry

into the stipulation represents his decision not to contest the

misconduct alleged in the complaint or the level and type of

discipline sought by the OLR's director.
¶6 Upon our review of the matter, we accept the

stipulation and impose discipline identical to that imposed by

the Supreme Court of Arizona.

¶7 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Yuri Bernard Nielsen

to practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of

this order.

¶8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Yuri Bernard Nielsen shall

comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of

5
 No. 2013AP1720-D

a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been

revoked.

¶9 ANNETTE KINGSLAND ZIEGLER, J., did not participate.

6
 No. 2013AP1720-D

1