In re of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Aleman, 122315 WISC, 2015AP1340-D
|Opinion Judge:||PER CURIAM.|
|Party Name:||In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Jeffrey John Aleman, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Jeffrey John Aleman, Respondent.|
|Judge Panel:||REBECCA G. BRADLEY, J., did not participate. SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J. (dissenting).|
|Case Date:||December 23, 2015|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Wisconsin|
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ALEMAN
¶1 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 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
(d) assisting a person in the unauthorized...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP