|
|
|
|
|
Case No.: |
03-0273-D |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Complete Title: |
|
|
|
|
In the
Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against
Bruce Nash, Attorney at Law: Office
of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Bruce
Nash, Respondent. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST NASH |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Opinion Filed: |
April 22, 2003 |
|
|
Submitted on Briefs: |
||
|
Oral Argument: |
||
|
|
|
|
|
Source of Appeal: |
|
|
|
|
Court: |
|
|
|
County: |
|
|
|
Judge: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Justices: |
|
|
|
|
Concurred: |
|
|
|
Dissented: |
|
|
|
Not Participating: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Attorneys: |
|
|
2003 WI 25
|
|
Supreme
Court of Wisconsin |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notice This order is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. |
|
The Court entered the following order on this date:
On January 30,
2003, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a disciplinary complaint
against Attorney Bruce Nash asking this court to impose reciprocal discipline
identical to that imposed on Attorney Nash by the Illinois Supreme Court. That court suspended Attorney Nash’s
Illinois law license for one year, effective March 22, 2001. On February 12, 2003, this court issued an
order to show cause directing Attorney Nash to show cause in writing by March
5, 2003 why the imposition of the identical discipline imposed by the Illinois
Supreme Court would be unwarranted.
Attorney Nash failed to respond to the order to show cause;
Attorney Nash was
admitted to practice law in Wisconsin in 1987 and he became licensed to
practice law in Illinois. His license
to practice law in Wisconsin is currently under suspension for failure to pay
dues and for failure to comply with continuing legal education (CLE) requirements;
The one-year
suspension in Illinois was based on Attorney Nash’s failure to complete legal
work for which he had been paid a retainer and using moneys advanced by his
clients for personal or business expenses;
SCR 22.22(3)
provides that this court shall impose the identical discipline or license
suspension unless the procedure in the other jurisdiction was so lacking in
notice or opportunity to be heard as to constitute a due process violation;
there was such an infirmity of proof establishing the misconduct that this
court should not accept as final the misconduct finding; or the misconduct
justifies substantially different discipline here. Neither OLR nor Attorney Nash contend, nor does this court find,
that any of these three exceptions exist;
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED
that the license of Bruce Nash to practice law in the state of Wisconsin be
suspended for one year, effective the date of this order;
IT IS FURTHER
ORDERED that this suspension does not affect the existing suspensions for failure
to comply with CLE requirements which would also have to be satisfied in order
for Attorney Nash’s license to practice law in Wisconsin to be reinstated;
IT IS FURTHER
ORDERED that Attorney Nash shall comply, if he has not already done so, with
the requirements of SCR 22.26 pertaining to activities following suspension.