Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Jeffrey John Aleman
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2015AP001340-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: December 23, 2015

2015 WI 112 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2015AP1340-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against  
Jeffrey John Aleman, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Jeffrey John Aleman, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ALEMAN 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
December 23, 2015 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
ABRAHAMSON, J., dissents. (Opinion Filed) 
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: R.G. BRADLEY, J., did not participate.    
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2015 WI 112
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2015AP1340-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Jeffrey John Aleman, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Jeffrey John Aleman, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
DEC 23, 2015 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   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 
No. 
2015AP1340-D   
 
2 
 
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 
No. 
2015AP1340-D   
 
3 
 
(d) assisting a person in the unauthorized 
practice of law, in violation of Rule 5.5(a) of the 
IRPC. 
¶4 
Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.22(3) states as follows: 
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.  
(c) 
The 
misconduct 
justifies 
substantially 
different discipline in this state. 
¶5 
Attorney Aleman does not claim that any of the 
defenses found in SCR 22.22(3)(a)-(c) apply.  Attorney Aleman 
further states that his entry into the stipulation did not 
result from plea bargaining.  He represents 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; 
and his entry into the stipulation is made knowingly and 
voluntarily and represents his decision not to contest the 
misconduct alleged in the OLR's complaint or the level and type 
of discipline sought by the OLR director.   
¶6 
After fully reviewing the matter, we accept the 
parties' stipulation.  We agree that it is appropriate to impose 
No. 
2015AP1340-D   
 
4 
 
discipline identical to that imposed by the Illinois Supreme 
Court, i.e., a two-year suspension of Attorney Aleman's license 
to practice law in Wisconsin.  Since this matter was resolved by 
means of a stipulation, the OLR has not sought the imposition of 
costs and we do not assess any costs. 
¶7 
IT IS ORDERED that the license of Jeffrey John Aleman 
to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for two years, 
effective the date of this order. 
¶8 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not 
already done so, Jeffrey John Aleman shall comply with the 
provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose 
license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended.  
¶9 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.29(4)(c). 
¶10 REBECCA G. BRADLEY, J., did not participate. 
 
No.  2015AP1340-D.ssa 
 
1 
 
¶11 SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J.   (dissenting).  I write in 
dissent in several attorney discipline cases because I have 
concerns about the discipline imposed. 
¶12 With regard to Attorney Aleman, Illinois imposed a 
two-year suspension for two counts of misconduct stemming from 
co-founding and working with a national debt settlement firm.  
Upon stipulation of the parties, this court orders reciprocal 
discipline in Wisconsin.  The two-year suspension seems harsh 
compared to the discipline imposed in other cases. 
¶13 I 
write 
in 
dissent 
because 
I 
have 
difficulty 
reconciling the significantly different levels of discipline 
imposed in the following four cases.   
• 
OLR v. Krogman, 2015 WI 113, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___ 
N.W.2d ___: 
 
Upon 
stipulation 
admitting 
factual 
allegations, the court orders a four-month suspension 
of license and conditions upon reinstatement.  The 
complaint alleged 22 counts of professional misconduct 
involving four clients, misconduct relating to license 
suspension, and misconduct relating to trust accounts.  
The four-month suspension seems too light. 
• 
OLR v. Crandall, 2015 WI 111, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___ 
N.W.2d ___:  Crandall had been disciplined four times 
previously:  a three-month suspension, a public 
reprimand, a 30-day suspension, and a five-month 
suspension.  The court now imposes another public 
reprimand.  The sanction is too light.  The principle 
No.  2015AP1340-D.ssa 
 
2 
 
of progressive discipline should have been imposed.  
It was not.  
• 
OLR v. Boyle, 2015 WI 110, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___ 
N.W.2d ___:  Boyle committed six offenses, including 
two trust account violations.  The court imposes a 60-
day suspension plus conditions.  Boyle had received 
three private reprimands between 2002 and 2012.  How 
can this level of discipline be justified in light of 
OLR v. Crandall and OLR v. Sayaovong (see below)? 
• 
OLR v. Sayaovong, 2015 WI 100, 365 Wis. 2d 200, 871 
N.W.2d 217:  This per curiam was released November 18, 
2015, imposing suspension for a period of six months.  
Attorney Sayaovong defaulted in the discipline case.  
The complaint alleged six counts of misconduct, four 
counts involving two clients and two counts involving 
another client.  In 2014 Attorney Sayaovong was 
publicly reprimanded for misconduct in two separate 
client matters.  See OLR v. Sayaovong, 2014 WI 94, 357 
Wis. 2d 312, 850 N.W.2d 940.  The discipline does not 
seem consistent with the discipline imposed in other 
cases.  
¶14 For the reasons set forth, I write in each of these 
cases. 
No.  2015AP1340-D.ssa 
 
 
 
1