2015 WI 112
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2015AP1340-D
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against
Jeffrey John Aleman, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Complainant,
v.
Jeffrey John Aleman,
Respondent.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ALEMAN
OPINION FILED: December 23, 2015
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
CONCURRED:
DISSENTED: ABRAHAMSON, J., dissents. (Opinion Filed)
NOT PARTICIPATING: R.G. BRADLEY, J., did not participate.
ATTORNEYS:
2015 WI 112
NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2015AP1340-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Jeffrey John Aleman, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED
Complainant,
DEC 23, 2015
v.
Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Supreme Court
Jeffrey John Aleman,
Respondent.
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license
suspended.
¶1 PER CURIAM. This is a reciprocal discipline matter.
The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a complaint against
Attorney Jeffrey John Aleman, seeking the imposition of
discipline reciprocal to that imposed by the Illinois Supreme
Court. On May 14, 2015, the Illinois Supreme Court suspended
Attorney Aleman's Illinois law license for two years, effective
June 4, 2015, based on two counts of misconduct. The Illinois
court also ordered Attorney Aleman to reimburse the Illinois
No. 2015AP1340-D
Client Protection Program Trust Fund for any payments due to
conduct prior to the end of his suspension.
¶2 Attorney Aleman was admitted to practice law in
Wisconsin in 1996. He was admitted to practice law in Illinois
in 1997. His Wisconsin law license was administratively
suspended on June 2, 2015, for failure to comply with continuing
legal education requirements.
¶3 On August 12, 2015, Attorney Aleman and the OLR
entered into a stipulation whereby Attorney Aleman agrees it
would be appropriate for this court to impose the level of
discipline sought by the OLR director, namely, a two-year
suspension of Attorney Aleman's license to practice law in
Wisconsin. The stipulation notes that Attorney Aleman's
misconduct in Illinois stemmed from co-founding and working with
a national debt settlement firm, Legal Helpers Debt Resolution.
The Illinois Supreme Court found that Attorney Aleman violated
the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (IRPC) by:
(a) failing to consult with clients about the
means by which the representations' objectives were to
be pursued and accomplished, in violation of
Rule 1.2(a) of the 1990 IRPC and Rule 1.4(a)(2) of the
2010 IRPC;
(b) failing to explain matters to the extent
reasonably necessary for clients to make informed
decisions about the representation, in violation of
[Rule] 1.4(b) of the IRPC;
(c) failing to supervise and make reasonable
efforts to ensure the conduct of non-lawyers employed
by or associated with the debt settlement firm were
compatible with his professional obligations, in
violation of Rule 5.3(a) of the IRPC; and
2
No. 2015AP1340-D
(d) assisting a person in the unauthorized
practice of law, in violation of Rule 5.5(a) of the
IRPC.
¶4 Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.22(3) states as follows:
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.
(c) The misconduct justifies substantially
different discipline in this state.
¶5 Attorney Aleman does not claim that any of the
defenses found in SCR 22.22(3)(a)-(c) apply. Attorney Aleman
further states that his entry into the stipulation did not
result from plea bargaining. He represents 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;
and his entry into the stipulation is made knowingly and
voluntarily and represents his decision not to contest the
misconduct alleged in the OLR's complaint or the level and type
of discipline sought by the OLR director.
¶6 After fully reviewing the matter, we accept the
parties' stipulation. We agree that it is appropriate to impose
3
No. 2015AP1340-D
discipline identical to that imposed by the Illinois Supreme
Court, i.e., a two-year suspension of Attorney Aleman's license
to practice law in Wisconsin. Since this matter was resolved by
means of a stipulation, the OLR has not sought the imposition of
costs and we do not assess any costs.
¶7 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Jeffrey John Aleman
to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for two years,
effective the date of this order.
¶8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not
already done so, Jeffrey John Aleman shall comply with the
provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose
license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended.
¶9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement. See
SCR 22.29(4)(c).
¶10 REBECCA G. BRADLEY, J., did not participate.
4
No. 2015AP1340-D.ssa
¶11 SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J. (dissenting). I write in
dissent in several attorney discipline cases because I have
concerns about the discipline imposed.
¶12 With regard to Attorney Aleman, Illinois imposed a
two-year suspension for two counts of misconduct stemming from
co-founding and working with a national debt settlement firm.
Upon stipulation of the parties, this court orders reciprocal
discipline in Wisconsin. The two-year suspension seems harsh
compared to the discipline imposed in other cases.
¶13 I write in dissent because I have difficulty
reconciling the significantly different levels of discipline
imposed in the following four cases.
• OLR v. Krogman, 2015 WI 113, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___
N.W.2d ___: Upon stipulation admitting factual
allegations, the court orders a four-month suspension
of license and conditions upon reinstatement. The
complaint alleged 22 counts of professional misconduct
involving four clients, misconduct relating to license
suspension, and misconduct relating to trust accounts.
The four-month suspension seems too light.
• OLR v. Crandall, 2015 WI 111, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___
N.W.2d ___: Crandall had been disciplined four times
previously: a three-month suspension, a public
reprimand, a 30-day suspension, and a five-month
suspension. The court now imposes another public
reprimand. The sanction is too light. The principle
1
No. 2015AP1340-D.ssa
of progressive discipline should have been imposed.
It was not.
• OLR v. Boyle, 2015 WI 110, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___
N.W.2d ___: Boyle committed six offenses, including
two trust account violations. The court imposes a 60-
day suspension plus conditions. Boyle had received
three private reprimands between 2002 and 2012. How
can this level of discipline be justified in light of
OLR v. Crandall and OLR v. Sayaovong (see below)?
• OLR v. Sayaovong, 2015 WI 100, 365 Wis. 2d 200, 871
N.W.2d 217: This per curiam was released November 18,
2015, imposing suspension for a period of six months.
Attorney Sayaovong defaulted in the discipline case.
The complaint alleged six counts of misconduct, four
counts involving two clients and two counts involving
another client. In 2014 Attorney Sayaovong was
publicly reprimanded for misconduct in two separate
client matters. See OLR v. Sayaovong, 2014 WI 94, 357
Wis. 2d 312, 850 N.W.2d 940. The discipline does not
seem consistent with the discipline imposed in other
cases.
¶14 For the reasons set forth, I write in each of these
cases.
2
No. 2015AP1340-D.ssa
1