Title: Gregory K. Scott v.

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
86-1258-D 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
In the Matter of the Reinstatement 
of the License of Gregory K. Scott 
to Practice Law in Wisconsin. 
 
 
LICENSE REINSTATEMENT OF GREGORY K. SCOTT 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
October 22, 1998 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
 
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating:  
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
No.  86-1258-D   
 
1 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further editing and 
modification.  The final version will appear in 
the bound volume of the official reports. 
 
 
No. 86-1258-D  
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of the Reinstatement of the 
License of GREGORY K. SCOTT to Practice 
Law in Wisconsin. 
FILED 
 
OCT 22, 1998 
 
Marilyn L. Graves 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding;  reinstatement denied.  
¶1 
PER CURIAM   On May 23, 1997, Gregory K. Scott 
petitioned for the reinstatement of his license to practice law 
in Wisconsin, which was revoked with his consent on July 28, 
1986, as discipline for professional misconduct. That misconduct 
consisted of giving false testimony regarding his income while 
testifying under oath in a contempt hearing arising from a child 
support order, leading to his conviction of perjury in Dodge 
county circuit court. Disciplinary Proceedings Against Scott, 
132 Wis. 2d 222, 390 N.W.2d 572.  
¶2 
The district professional responsibility committee 
that investigated the reinstatement petition and held a hearing 
on it unanimously recommended to the Board of Attorneys 
Professional Responsibility (Board) that the petition be denied. 
That adverse recommendation was based on the following.  
¶3 
The petitioner appeared not to understand the nature 
and seriousness of his perjury conviction, as he stated that his 
No.  86-1258-D   
 
2 
perjury was not a material matter, notwithstanding his admission 
that his false statement under oath was an attempt to avoid 
paying increased child support. In that regard, he acknowledged 
that he had been “playing a game” with the court. He showed no 
remorse for his past professional misconduct and continued to 
contest the validity of his perjury conviction and of a 
subsequent misdemeanor conviction of possession of gambling 
devices, for which he was placed on nine months’ probation in 
1996.  
¶4 
In his testimony before the district committee, Mr. 
Scott was evasive in many of the answers he gave to the 
committee’s questions. For example, referring to his 1992 
conviction of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, he 
stated that the result of the breathalyzer test was double zero 
(00). Upon further questioning, however, he admitted that the 
result he reported was in fact an indication that he had refused 
to take the breathalyzer test.  
¶5 
In addition, the district committee found that Mr. 
Scott’s conduct since license revocation has not been exemplary 
and above reproach.1 In addition to his convictions for driving 
                     
1 SCR 22.28 provides, in pertinent part: Reinstatement. 
 . . .  
(4) The petition for reinstatement shall show that:  
 . . .  
(e) The petitioner’s conduct since the suspension or 
revocation has been exemplary and above reproach.  
No.  86-1258-D   
 
3 
while intoxicated and for possession of gambling devices, he 
entered into a joint business venture with a known felon, made 
threats that resulted in a disorderly conduct charge that 
ultimately was dismissed, and did not respond to civil judgments 
entered against him that he has not paid.  
¶6 
Based 
on 
the 
district 
committee’s 
findings 
and 
conclusions, the Board concluded that Mr. Scott failed to meet 
his burden under SCR 22.28 of demonstrating that his conduct 
since revocation has been exemplary and above reproach, that he 
has a proper understanding of and attitude toward standards 
imposed on members of the bar and that he will act in conformity 
with those standards, and that he can safely be recommended to 
the legal profession, the courts, and the public as a person fit 
to be consulted by others and to represent them and otherwise 
act in matters of trust and confidence and in general to aid in 
the administration of justice as a member of the bar and an 
officer of the court. On August 24, 1998, the Board filed its 
report recommending that the petition for reinstatement of his 
license to practice law be denied. Mr. Scott did not file a 
response to the Board’s report and recommendation filed with the 
court.  
¶7 
We determine, based on the reports and recommendations 
of the district professional responsibility committee and the 
Board, that Mr. Scott has failed to establish by clear and 
No.  86-1258-D   
 
4 
convincing evidence that he has the moral character to be 
licensed to practice law in this state.2  
¶8 
IT IS ORDERED that the petition of Gregory K. Scott 
for reinstatement of his license to practice law in Wisconsin is 
denied.  
 
                     
2 SCR 22.28(6) provides, in pertinent part:  
 . . .  
(6) The petitioner has the burden of demonstrating by clear 
and convincing evidence that the petitioner has the moral 
character 
to 
practice 
law 
in 
this 
state 
and 
that 
the 
petitioner’s resumption of the practice of law will not be 
detrimental to the integrity and standing of the bar or the 
administration of justice or subversive of the public interest.  
 
 
1