Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Yuri Bernard Nielsen
Citation: 2013 WI 102
Docket Number: 2013AP001720-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: December 20, 2013

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, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Yuri Bernard Nielsen, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
DEC 20, 2013 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
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   
 
2 
 
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. 
No. 
2013AP1720-D   
 
3 
 
¶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. 
No. 
2013AP1720-D   
 
4 
 
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. 
No. 
2013AP1720-D   
 
5 
 
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 
No. 
2013AP1720-D   
 
6 
 
a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
revoked. 
¶9 
ANNETTE KINGSLAND ZIEGLER, J., did not participate. 
 
 
 
No. 
2013AP1720-D   
 
 
 
1