Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Judy R. Moats

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2023 WI 15 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2022AP1420-D 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Judy R. Moats, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Judy R. Moats, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MOATS 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
February 24, 2023   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Per curiam. ZIEGLER, C.J., filed a concurring opinion in which 
REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, HAGEDORN, and KAROFSKY, JJ., joined. 
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
        
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2023 WI 15
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2022AP1420-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Judy R. Moats, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Judy R. Moats, 
 
          Respondent. 
FILED 
 
FEB 24, 2023 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding. 
 
Attorney's 
license 
revoked.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   This is a reciprocal discipline matter.  
On August 19, 2022, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed 
a two-count complaint against Attorney Judy R. Moats.  Count one 
alleged that by virtue of a January 25, 2022 consent to 
revocation order entered by the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary 
Board, Attorney Moats should be subject to reciprocal discipline 
in Wisconsin pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.22.  Count 
two alleged that by failing to notify OLR of her discipline in 
No. 
2022AP1420-D   
 
2 
 
Virginia within 20 days of its effective date, Attorney Moats 
violated SCR 22.22 (1).1   
¶2 
On November 2, 2022, this court issued an order 
directing Attorney Moats to inform the court, in writing, by 
January 16, 2023 why the imposition of discipline identical to 
that imposed in Virginia would be unwarranted and of the factual 
basis for any such claim.  Attorney Moats has not responded to 
the order.  Accordingly, we find it appropriate to impose 
discipline reciprocal to that imposed by the Virginia State Bar 
Disciplinary Board, and we order the revocation of Attorney 
Moats’ Wisconsin law license. 
¶3 
Attorney Moats was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1975.  She was admitted to practice law in Virginia 
in 1981.  Her Wisconsin law license was suspended in 2021 due to 
her failure to pay bar dues and failure to file an OLR Trust 
Account Certificate.  Those suspensions remain in effect.  
Attorney 
Moats 
has 
no 
previous 
disciplinary 
history 
in 
Wisconsin. 
¶4 
According to the allegations in OLR’s complaint and 
the Virginia disciplinary records attached to the complaint, 
Attorney Moats’ misconduct in Virginia arose out of her handling 
of an estate in which she was a co-executor.  The misconduct 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.22 (1) states: “An attorney on whom public 
discipline for misconduct or a license suspension for medical 
incapacity has been imposed by another jurisdiction shall 
promptly notify the director of the matter. Failure to furnish 
the notice within 20 days of the effective date of the order or 
judgment of the other jurisdiction constitutes misconduct.” 
No. 
2022AP1420-D   
 
3 
 
included failing to provide competent representation to a 
client; failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness 
in representing a client; knowingly disobeying or advising a 
client to disregard a standing rule of a tribunal made in the 
course of a proceeding; overcharging the estate for executor 
fees; failing to respond to a lawful demand for information from 
the Virginia disciplinary authority; and obstructing a lawful 
investigation by the disciplinary authority. 
¶5 
On January 24, 2022, Attorney Moats submitted an 
affidavit 
declaring 
consent 
to 
revocation 
in 
which 
she 
acknowledged that the material facts upon which the allegations 
of misconduct levelled against her were true and that if they 
were prosecuted in the disciplinary proceeding, she could not 
successfully defend against them.  Attorney Moats consented to 
the revocation of her Virginia law license.  The Virginia State 
Bar Disciplinary Board revoked Attorney Moats’ license to 
practice law on January 25, 2022.  On June 2, 2022, the District 
of Columbia Court of Appeals disbarred Attorney Moats as 
discipline reciprocal to that imposed by Virginia. 
¶6 
Supreme Court Rule 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 
No. 
2022AP1420-D   
 
4 
 
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. 
¶7 
Attorney Moats did not respond to this court’s order 
to show cause, and there is no showing that any of the defenses 
found in SCR 22.22 (3) apply.  Therefore, we impose discipline 
identical to that imposed by the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary 
Board.   
¶8 
IT IS ORDERED that the license of Judy R. Moats to 
practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of this 
order.  
¶9 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent she has not 
already done so, Judy R. Moats shall comply with the provisions 
of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose license to 
practice law in Wisconsin has been revoked. 
No. 
2022AP1420-D   
 
 
 
1 
 
¶10 ANNETTE KINGSLAND ZIEGLER, C.J.   (concurring).  I 
concur in the court's order revoking Attorney Moats’ license to 
practice law in Wisconsin.  I write separately to point out that 
in Wisconsin the "revocation" of an attorney's law license is 
not truly revocation because the attorney may petition for 
reinstatement after a period of five years.  See SCR 22.29(2).  
I believe that when it comes to lawyer discipline, courts should 
say what they mean and mean what they say.  We should not be 
creating false perceptions to both the public and to the lawyer 
seeking to practice law again.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Moodie, 2020 WI 39, 391 Wis. 2d 196, 942 
N.W.2d 302 (Ziegler, J., dissenting).  And, as I stated in my 
dissent to this court's order denying Rule Petition 19-10, In 
the Matter of Amending Supreme Court Rules Pertaining to 
Permanent Revocation of a License to Practice Law in Attorney 
Disciplinary Proceedings, I believe there may be rare and 
unusual cases that would warrant the permanent revocation of an 
attorney's license to practice law.  See S. Ct. Order 19-10 
(issued Dec. 18, 2019) (Ziegler, J., dissenting). 
¶11 I am authorized to state that Justices REBECCA GRASSL 
BRADLEY, BRIAN HAGEDORN, and JILL J. KAROFSKY join this 
concurrence.