IN RE: DISCIPLINE OF Jeremy T. BERGSTROM (2021)

ORDER IMPOSING RECIPROCAL DISCIPLINE AND SUSPENDING ATTORNEY

This is a petition for reciprocal discipline of attorney Jeremy T. Bergstrom pursuant to SCR 114. Bergstrom has been suspended for two years from the practice of law in Arizona. Bergstrom is currently suspended from the practice of law in Nevada and has not sought reinstatement. In re Discipline of Bergstrom, Docket No. 79205 (Order Approving Conditional Guilty Plea Agreement, Nov. 14, 2019).

Bergstrom entered into an agreement for discipline by consent in Arizona and acknowledged the following misconduct. He failed to properly account for client funds; failed to update his client on the status of its cases; failed to attend an arbitration hearing resulting in a judgment being issued against his client and failed to inform the client of the judgment; and failed to litigate some of his client's cases, resulting in the dismissal of those cases. Bergstrom also listed himself as being licensed in California and Illinois on his signature block and letterhead when he was not. Lastly, he failed to respond to the Arizona State Bar's requests for information.

The Arizona Disciplinary Judge found Bergstrom violated Ariz. Sup. Ct. Rule 42, ER 1.3, similar to RPC 1.3 (diligence); Ariz. Sup. Ct. Rule 42, ER 1.4, similar to RPC 1.4 (communication); Ariz. Sup. Ct. Rule 42, ER 3.2, similar to RPC 3.2 (expediting litigation); Ariz. Sup. Ct. Rule 42, ER 5.5, similar to RPC 5.5 (unauthorized practice of law); Ariz. Sup. Ct. Rule 42, ER 8.1, similar to RPC 8.1 (disciplinary matters); Ariz. Sup. Ct. Rule 42, ER 8.4(d), similar to RPC 8.4(d) (misconduct: prejudicial to the administration of justice); Ariz. Sup. Ct. Rule 54(d), similar to RPC 8.1 (disciplinary matters); and Ariz. Sup. Ct. Rule 57(b), similar to SCR 114 (reciprocal discipline). “[A] final adjudication in another jurisdiction that an attorney has engaged in misconduct conclusively establishes the misconduct for the purpose of a disciplinary proceeding in this state.” SCR 114(5).

The Arizona Disciplinary Court suspended Bergstrom from the practice of law for two years. SCR 114(4) provides that this court must impose identical reciprocal discipline unless the attorney demonstrates, or this court finds, that one of four exceptions applies. Bergstrom did not oppose the petition for reciprocal discipline and we conclude that none of the four exceptions apply in this case.¹ Thus, we grant the petition for reciprocal discipline.

Accordingly, attorney Jeremy T. Bergstrom is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Nevada for two years from the date of this order.² The State Bar shall comply with SCR 121.1.

It is so ORDERED.

I concur with the majority's decision to impose a two-year suspension as reciprocal discipline. However, instead of having that suspension commence from the date of this court's order, I would have the suspension run consecutive with the suspension imposed by this court in In re Discipline of Bergstrom, Docket No. 82359.

FOOTNOTES

1.   While it appears the Arizona Disciplinary Judge concluded Bergstrom violated Ariz. Sup. Ct. Rule 57(b) in relation to his prior disciplines from this court, we recognize that this court cannot impose reciprocal discipline for that rule violation. However, because the other rule violations would warrant a two-year suspension, we conclude the SCR 114(4)(d) exception does not preclude reciprocal discipline here.

2.   To the extent Bergstrom is currently suspended through a different matter on this court's docket, the suspension here will run concurrent with such a suspension, but the concurrence of the suspensions does not affect the date this suspension commences or concludes.