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.