Title: Board of Bar Examiners v. J.E.G.
Citation: 2015 WI 71
Docket Number: 2014XX000817-BA, 2013AP001769-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: July 9, 2015

2015 WI 71 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2013AP1769-D & 2014XX817-BA 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
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. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GALL 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
July 9, 2015 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2015 WI 71 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2013AP1769-D 
No.   2014XX817-BA 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
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. 
 
FILED 
 
JUL 9, 2015 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded and motion denied. 
No. 
2013AP1769-D 
No. 
2014XX817-BA   
 
2 
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   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. 
No. 
2013AP1769-D 
No. 
2014XX817-BA   
 
3 
 
¶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 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.22(3) provides as follows: 
The supreme court shall impose the identical 
discipline or license suspension unless one or more of 
the following is present: 
(continued) 
No. 
2013AP1769-D 
No. 
2014XX817-BA   
 
4 
 
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 
                                                                                                                                                             
(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. 
No. 
2013AP1769-D 
No. 
2014XX817-BA   
 
5 
 
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 
No. 
2013AP1769-D 
No. 
2014XX817-BA   
 
6 
 
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 
No. 
2013AP1769-D 
No. 
2014XX817-BA   
 
7 
 
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 provisions regarding the 
extension of the Minnesota Agreement or regarding the authority 
of the MBLE to extend the agreement, which would have expired, 
according to its terms, at the conclusion of the Minnesota 
disciplinary proceeding. 
¶13 Under 
SCR 22.22(3), 
this 
court 
shall 
impose 
the 
identical discipline imposed by the other jurisdiction unless 
one or more of three exceptions are present.  The first two 
exceptions involve situations where the disciplinary proceeding 
in the other jurisdiction deprived the respondent attorney of 
due process or suffered from a lack of proof.  SCR 22.22(3)(a)-
(b).  The third exception to the imposition of reciprocal 
discipline applies where the misconduct justifies substantially 
different discipline in Wisconsin.  SCR 22.22(3)(c). 
No. 
2013AP1769-D 
No. 
2014XX817-BA   
 
8 
 
¶14 Attorney Gall has not responded to our order to show 
cause and argued that one or more of these three exceptions are 
applicable to his case.  Our own review of the matter does not 
indicate that any exception applies to this matter. 
¶15 Accordingly, we will publicly reprimand Attorney Gall 
as discipline reciprocal to that imposed by the Supreme Court of 
Minnesota.  Although that court also imposed a two-year period 
of probation in its disciplinary order, we do not impose a 
similar period of probation.  Probation is not one of the forms 
of discipline that this court generally imposes.  Where another 
jurisdiction has imposed a period of probation in a reciprocal 
discipline context, we have replicated the effect of such 
probation by ordering the respondent attorney to comply with the 
probationary order entered in the other jurisdiction.  See, 
e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Moree, 2004 WI 118, 
275 Wis. 2d 279, 281, 684 N.W.2d 667 (published order).  We will 
follow that practice here. 
¶16 We now turn to the BBE's motion.  The BBE learned of 
Attorney 
Gall's 
Minnesota 
public 
reprimand 
and 
two-year 
disciplinary probation within a few days after the Minnesota 
disciplinary order had been issued in May 2013.  The BBE 
conducted an annual review of Attorney Gall's conditional 
No. 
2013AP1769-D 
No. 
2014XX817-BA   
 
9 
 
admission to the practice of law in Wisconsin in October 2013.2  
It voted at that time to extend the Wisconsin Agreement for two 
more years.3 
¶17 Following the BBE's vote, the BBE's executive director 
wrote to Attorney Gall to inform him of the BBE's action and to 
request that he either sign an amended Wisconsin Agreement or 
advise that he did not wish to do so.  Attorney Gall did not 
respond.  He also did not respond after two subsequent 
communications requesting execution of the amended agreement. 
¶18 The BBE ultimately voted to find Attorney Gall to be 
non-compliant with the Wisconsin Agreement and voted to revoke 
that agreement.  Following one last communication warning 
Attorney Gall that the BBE would seek the suspension of his 
license to practice law in Wisconsin, to which Attorney Gall 
still did not respond, the BBE filed its motion asking for an 
                                                 
2 It is not clear whether the Wisconsin Agreement was still 
in effect at this time.  It appears from the filings of the OLR 
and the BBE that the Minnesota Agreement, pursuant to its terms, 
would have expired, at the latest, at the conclusion of the 
Minnesota disciplinary proceeding in May 2013.  Since the terms 
of the Wisconsin Agreement provided that its duration was 
coterminous with the Minnesota Agreement, it is unclear whether 
the Wisconsin Agreement would have remained in effect beyond May 
2013. 
3 It is also unclear from the BBE's filings whether this 
extension was to be measured from March 2013 (when the Minnesota 
Agreement was initially to have expired), from May 2013 (when 
the Minnesota Agreement would have expired upon completion of 
the Minnesota disciplinary proceeding), or from October 2013 
(when the BBE voted for the extension). 
No. 
2013AP1769-D 
No. 
2014XX817-BA   
 
10 
 
order to show cause, and ultimately the suspension of Attorney 
Gall's license to practice law in Wisconsin. 
¶19 We conclude that the BBE's motion should be denied.  
According to the materials submitted to this court regarding the 
response of the Supreme Court of Minnesota and its applicable 
agencies 
to 
Attorney 
Gall's 
misconduct, 
it 
appears 
that 
Minnesota addressed the misconduct solely through the means of 
the public reprimand and the disciplinary probation imposed by 
the Supreme Court of Minnesota.  There is no indication that 
Attorney Gall was required to sign a new or amended Minnesota 
Agreement or that his conditional admission was extended.  
Moreover, the BBE has not demonstrated that the Minnesota 
Agreement remained in effect beyond the completion of the 
Minnesota disciplinary proceeding in May 2013.  It also has not 
shown why the Wisconsin Agreement would have remained in effect 
beyond the effective term of the Minnesota Agreement.  In any 
event, we conclude that the matter of Attorney Gall's misconduct 
was sufficiently addressed by the Minnesota public reprimand and 
disciplinary probation, which is being imposed in this state via 
the reciprocal discipline procedure.   
¶20 IT IS ORDERED that Jordan E. Gall is publicly 
reprimanded 
for 
his 
professional 
misconduct 
as 
reciprocal 
discipline to that imposed by the Supreme Court of Minnesota.   
Jordan E. Gall's license to practice law in Wisconsin remains 
administratively suspended.   
No. 
2013AP1769-D 
No. 
2014XX817-BA   
 
11 
 
¶21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Jordan E. Gall shall comply 
with the terms and conditions of the disciplinary probation set 
forth in the May 16, 2013 order of the Supreme Court of 
Minnesota and any subsequent orders.  In re Disciplinary Action 
Against Gall, 830 N.W.2d 441, 441-42 (Minn. 2013). 
¶22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the director of the Office 
of Lawyer Regulation shall advise the court if there has not 
been full compliance with all conditions of this order. 
¶23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in In re Conditional 
Admission of J.E.G., No. 2014XX817-BA, the motion of the Board 
of Bar Examiners for the issuance of an order to show cause is 
denied. 
 
 
 
No.  2013AP1769-D.awb 
No.  2014XX817-BA.awb 
 
1 
 
¶24 ANN 
WALSH 
BRADLEY, 
J.   (concurring 
in 
part, 
dissenting in part).  I agree with the imposition of a public 
reprimand as reciprocal discipline to that imposed by the 
Supreme Court of Minnesota.  However, for the protection of the 
public, more is needed. 
¶25 In addition to the public reprimand, I would grant the 
motion of the Board of Bar Examiners for the issuance of an 
order to show cause why the license of Attorney Jordan E. Gall 
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. 
¶26 I am authorized to state that Justice SHIRLEY S. 
ABRAHAMSON joins this concurrence/dissent.  
 
 
 
No.  2013AP1769-D.awb 
No.  2014XX817-BA.awb 
 
 
 
1