Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Gall (In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Gall), s. 2013AP1769–D

• Decision Date: 09 July 2015
• Docket Number: Nos. 2013AP1769–D,2014XX817–BA.,s. 2013AP1769–D
• Citation: 867 N.W.2d 414,363 Wis.2d 846
• Parties: In the Matter of DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST Jordan E. GALL, Attorney at Law. Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Jordan E. Gall, Respondent. In the Matter of the Conditional Admission of J.E.G. Board of Bar Examiners, Complainant, v. J.E.G., Respondent.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

363 Wis.2d 846

867 N.W.2d 414

In the Matter of DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST Jordan E. GALL, Attorney at Law.

Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant

v.Jordan E. Gall, Respondent.

In the Matter of the Conditional Admission of J.E.G.

Board of Bar Examiners, Complainant

v.J.E.G., Respondent.

Nos. 2013AP1769–D

2014XX817–BA.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Decided July 9, 2015.

ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney publicly reprimanded and motion denied.

PER CURIAM.

¶ 1 In this reciprocal discipline matter, we consider whether we should publicly reprimand Attorney Jordan E. Gall as discipline reciprocal to that imposed by the Supreme Court of Minnesota. We also address a motion filed by the Board of Bar Examiners (BBE) asking this court to issue an order directing Attorney Gall to show cause why his license to practice law in Wisconsin should not be suspended for his alleged willful failure to comply with the conditions set forth in the Consent Agreement for Conditional Admission dated August 29, 2011, and a motion to seal all filings related to the conditional admission motion.

¶ 2 After reviewing these matters, and in light of Attorney Gall's failure to respond to our order to show cause, we conclude that Attorney Gall should be publicly reprimanded in this state for the misconduct that has already resulted in a public reprimand in Minnesota. We further conclude, however, in light of the manner in which the Supreme Court of Minnesota addressed Attorney Gall's disciplinary case, that there is no need to issue an order to show cause to Attorney Gall regarding his conditional admission in this state. We therefore deny the BBE's motion requesting such an order. We also deny the BBE's motion to seal all filings regarding the conditional admission, determining that the interweaving of the disciplinary matter and the conditional admission matter require public disclosure of the fact of Attorney Gall's conditional admission to the practice of law in this state.

¶ 3 Attorney Gall was admitted to the practice of law in this state in September 2011. In March 2011 Attorney Gall had been conditionally admitted to the practice of law in Minnesota. At the time of the Minnesota public reprimand, the Minnesota disciplinary documents indicate that he was practicing law in Plymouth, Minnesota. The most recent address that Attorney Gall has provided to the State Bar of Wisconsin is a law firm in Minneapolis.

¶ 4 Attorney Gall has not previously been the subject of professional discipline in Wisconsin. His license to practice law in this state, however, is currently subject to administrative suspensions for failure to pay bar dues and assessments, for noncompliance with his obligation to report his attendance at continuing legal education, and for failure to file an annual trust account certification.

¶ 5 In the disciplinary proceeding, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a complaint, an order to answer, and a motion requesting that this court issue an order directing Attorney Gall to inform the court in writing of any claim, predicated upon the grounds set forth in Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.22(3),¹ that the imposition of discipline identical to that previously imposed in Minnesota would be unwarranted, and of the factual basis for any such claim. The OLR was unable to serve a copy of the complaint and order to answer personally on Attorney Gall. Ultimately, it accomplished service on Attorney Gall by sending by certified mail an authenticated copy of the complaint and order to answer to the most recent address that Attorney Gall had provided to the State Bar of Wisconsin, pursuant to SCR 22.13(1). The court then granted the OLR's motion and issued the requested order to show cause. Attorney Gall did not respond to the order to show cause. He also has not filed an answer or other response to the OLR's complaint.

¶ 6 The facts set forth below are taken from both the OLR's complaint and the BBE's motion. Attorney Gall has not disputed the facts set forth in either the complaint or the motion.

¶ 7 The OLR's complaint alleges that on May 16, 2013, the Supreme Court of Minnesota publicly reprimanded Attorney Gall. The OLR attached copies of the Minnesota order, the petition for disciplinary action, and Attorney Gall's stipulation, in which he unconditionally admitted the allegations of the petition for disciplinary action and agreed to request the imposition of a public reprimand.

¶ 8 The facts underlying Attorney Gall's public reprimand involved his failure to comply with the Consent Agreement for Conditional Admission to the practice of law in Minnesota (the Minnesota Agreement) and his false statements to the Minnesota lawyer regulatory authorities.

¶ 9 Specifically, the Minnesota Agreement, which Attorney Gall executed with the Minnesota Board of Law Examiners (MBLE) in March 2011, contained a requirement that Attorney Gall comply with the conditions of probation imposed in November 2010 as a result of a conviction for Fourth Degree Driving While Intoxicated. One of those conditions was a requirement that for a period of two years Attorney Gall would have no driver's license violations. The Minnesota Agreement also required Attorney Gall to submit quarterly reports detailing his compliance with all of the terms and conditions of that agreement, as well as to submit narrative statements detailing the steps he was taking to support his decision to abstain from alcohol. The Minnesota Complaint provided that it would be in effect for a period of two years (until March 2013). The agreement also stated, however, that if a complaint was filed with the Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility during the term of the agreement, then the period of conditional admission would be extended until the disposition of that complaint. Once Attorney Gall signed the Minnesota Agreement, he was admitted to the practice of law in that state.

¶ 10 The BBE's motion alleges that Attorney Gall signed a similar Consent Agreement for Conditional Admission (the Wisconsin Agreement) in August 2011. The Wisconsin Agreement provided that its duration would be coterminous with the Minnesota Agreement, but that the period of conditional admission in this state could be extended under SCR 40.075(6) and (8). In addition to requiring Attorney Gall to obey all laws and rules governing the active practice of law, the Wisconsin Agreement also mandated that Attorney Gall comply with all of the terms and conditions of the Minnesota Agreement.

¶ 11 Contrary to Attorney Gall's probation and his conditional admission agreements in both states, he was cited for 11 traffic violations in the period from June 2011 to September 2012. Among those traffic violations were two instances of failing to obey a traffic sign, three speeding citations, one instance of illegal or improper passing, and three occasions on which Attorney Gall was found to be driving after the suspension of his driver's license. He failed to report any of these infractions to the MBLE, which constituted a violation of his conditional admission consent agreements. In addition, Attorney Gall also violated the Minnesota Agreement and applicable ethics rules by submitting multiple quarterly reports falsely stating that he had abided by all laws and was in compliance with the conditions of his criminal probation.

¶ 12 On the basis of the stipulation of facts executed by Attorney Gall, the Supreme Court of Minnesota issued an order publicly reprimanding him and placing him on disciplinary probation for a period of two years with a number of conditions. In re Disciplinary Action against Gall, 830 N.W.2d 441 (Minn.2013). Those conditions included maintaining complete abstinence from alcohol and other non-prescription, mood-altering chemicals, submitting to random urinalysis screenings, and abiding by all laws. The Supreme Court of Minnesota's order, however, did not contain any...