Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Jerry R. Albert

• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
• Decided: August 20, 2014
• Docket: 2013AP002702-D
• Status: Published

Opinion

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