Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. David V. Moss

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2017 WI 82 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2013AP2088-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against David V. Moss, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
David V. Moss, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MOSS 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
August 2, 2017 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
     
 
 
2017 WI 82
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2013AP2088-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against David V. Moss, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
David V. Moss, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
AUG 2, 2017 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding.   Reinstatement granted 
with conditions. 
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review a report filed by Referee 
James C. Boll recommending that the court reinstate the license 
of David V. Moss to practice law in Wisconsin.  Upon careful 
review of the matter, we agree that Attorney Moss's license 
should be reinstated, with the conditions described herein.  We 
further agree with the referee that Attorney Moss should be 
required to pay the full costs of the reinstatement proceeding, 
which are $3,321.79 as of May 22, 2017.   
No. 
2013AP2088-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
Attorney 
Moss 
was 
admitted 
to 
practice 
law 
in 
Wisconsin in 2009 and practiced in Galesville.  Attorney Moss 
currently lives in the state of Washington.  In 2014, Attorney 
Moss's license to practice law in Wisconsin was suspended for a 
period of two years for 35 counts of misconduct, which involved 
eight separate client matters.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Moss, 2014 WI 95, 357 Wis. 2d 324, 850 N.W.2d 934.  
Attorney Moss's misconduct included repeatedly taking fees from 
clients and failing to perform the work for which he was hired; 
failing to communicate with clients regarding the status of 
their matters; and failing to return fees and client files upon 
request.  Attorney Moss was later reciprocally disciplined by 
the United States Patent and Trademark Office. 
¶3 
In July 2016, Attorney Moss filed a petition seeking 
the reinstatement of his Wisconsin law license.  In January 
2017, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a response 
stating it did not oppose the reinstatement petition.  A public 
hearing was held on April 3, 2017.  Attorney Moss called three 
witnesses at the hearing, two attorneys in Washington state and 
a longtime friend.  All three testified they would refer clients 
to Attorney Moss and believe he would be a good lawyer.  One 
former client of Attorney Moss testified at the hearing that he 
did not believe Attorney Moss should be reinstated to practice 
law.  However, the former client said he had not spoken with or 
observed Attorney Moss for over three years. 
¶4 
On May 2, 2017, the referee issued his report and 
recommendation recommending that Attorney Moss's Wisconsin law 
No. 
2013AP2088-D   
 
3 
 
license be reinstated.  The referee commented that during the 
reinstatement hearing, Attorney Moss testified with sincerity 
regarding his previous disciplinary issues, took responsibility 
for his actions, and apologized on the record to his clients.  
The referee noted that Attorney Moss testified he had been 
diagnosed with a bi-polar disorder in March of 2014 and that he 
controls this condition under the supervision of a doctor with 
prescribed medication and regular sessions with a counselor.  
The referee said that while he understands the frustration of 
the former client who opposed Attorney Moss's reinstatement, all 
available evidence in the record indicates that Attorney Moss 
has changed from the individual the former client encountered 
and the record demonstrates that Attorney Moss, with the help of 
medication and under a doctor's supervision, now has the moral 
character to practice law.   
¶5 
The referee concluded that Attorney Moss satisfied the 
burden of proof and requirements for reinstatement set forth in 
Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.31.  The referee recommends that 
Attorney Moss's Wisconsin law license be reinstated with the 
following conditions: 
1) 
Attorney Moss continue in counseling with a 
therapist who treats bi-polar conditions. 
2) 
Attorney Moss continue in treatment with a 
physician who prescribes medication for bi-polar 
conditions. 
3) 
Attorney Moss cooperate by taking the medication 
prescribed for his bi-polar condition. 
4) 
Attorney Moss not consume any illegal drugs. 
No. 
2013AP2088-D   
 
4 
 
5) 
For 
a 
period 
of 
two 
(2) 
years 
following 
reinstatement, Attorney Moss provide the OLR with 
quarterly written reports from his therapist and 
his prescribing physician that he is cooperating 
with therapy and with taking the prescribed 
mediation for his bi-polar condition. 
¶6 
The referee also recommends that Attorney Moss pay the 
full costs of the reinstatement proceeding.  No appeal has been 
filed from the referee's report and recommendation.   
¶7 
Supreme Court Rule 22.31(1) provides the standards to 
be met for reinstatement.  The petitioner must show by clear, 
satisfactory, and convincing evidence that he or she has the 
moral character to practice law, that his or her resumption of 
the 
practice 
of 
law 
will 
not 
be 
detrimental 
to 
the 
administration of justice or subversive to the public interest, 
and that he or she has complied with SCR 22.26 and the terms of 
the 
order 
of 
suspension. 
 
In 
addition, 
SCR 
22.31(1)(c) 
incorporates the statements that a petition for reinstatement 
must contain pursuant to SCR 22.29(4)(a)-(4m).  Thus, the 
petitioning 
attorney 
must 
demonstrate 
that 
the 
required 
representations in the reinstatement petition are substantiated. 
¶8 
When we review a referee's report and recommendation, 
we will adopt the referee's findings of fact unless they are 
clearly erroneous.   Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.  
See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI 
14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747.  We concluded that the 
referee's findings support a determination that Attorney Moss 
has met his burden to establish by clear, satisfactory, and 
No. 
2013AP2088-D   
 
5 
 
convincing evidence that he has met all of the standards 
required for reinstatement.   
¶9 
The referee found that during the period of his 
suspension, Attorney Moss has not practiced law in Wisconsin or 
any other jurisdiction.  The referee noted that Attorney Moss's 
suspension required him to make restitution and to pay the costs 
of the disciplinary proceeding and he has satisfied those 
conditions.  The referee found that Attorney Moss has maintained 
competence and learning in the law by attending identified 
educational activities.  The referee specifically found that 
Attorney Moss's conduct since the suspension has been exemplary 
and above reproach.  The referee noted that during his 
suspension, Attorney Moss has pursued a certification as a 
certified professional horticulturist and has also spent time 
assisting a friend growing vegetables for a local food bank.  
The referee found that Attorney Moss has a proper understanding 
of and attitude toward the standards that are imposed upon 
members of the bar and will act in conformity with those 
standards.   
¶10 The referee noted that Attorney Moss has represented 
that if his license to practice law is reinstated, he would 
potentially seek employment in Seattle, Washington to practice 
immigration law.  One of the attorneys who testified on Attorney 
Moss's behalf at the reinstatement hearing said he would offer 
Attorney Moss such employment.  In addition, the referee noted 
that Attorney Moss testified he may return to Wisconsin to 
No. 
2013AP2088-D   
 
6 
 
practice law in Green Bay in the areas of water law, permitting, 
land use, immigration, and criminal law. 
¶11 This court agrees with the referee that Attorney Moss 
has met his burden of proof with respect to all elements needed 
to justify his reinstatement.  We further agree that it is 
appropriate to impose the conditions on Attorney Moss's practice 
of law recommended by the referee.  Finally, we agree with the 
referee's recommendation that Attorney Moss should pay the full 
costs of the proceeding.   
¶12 IT IS ORDERED that the license of David V. Moss to 
practice law in Wisconsin is reinstated effective the date of 
this order.   
¶13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as a condition of the 
reinstatement of his license to practice law in Wisconsin, David 
V. Moss shall, until further order of the court, comply with the 
following conditions:   
1) 
Attorney Moss continue in counseling with a 
therapist who treats bi-polar conditions. 
2) 
Attorney Moss continue in treatment with a 
physician who prescribes medication for bi-polar 
conditions. 
3) 
Attorney Moss cooperate by taking the medication 
prescribed for his bi-polar condition. 
4) 
Attorney Moss not consume any illegal drugs. 
5) 
For 
a 
period 
of 
two 
(2) 
years 
following 
reinstatement, Attorney Moss provide the Office 
of 
Lawyer 
Regulation 
with 
quarterly 
written 
reports from his therapist and his prescribing 
physician that he is cooperating with therapy and 
with taking the prescribed mediation for his bi-
polar condition. 
No. 
2013AP2088-D   
 
7 
 
¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, David V. Moss shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are $3,321.79 as 
of May 22, 2017. 
¶15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all of the 
terms of this order remains a condition of David V. Moss's 
license to practice law in Wisconsin.   
 
 
No. 
2013AP2088-D   
 
 
 
1