2021 WI 69

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

CASE NO.: 2020AP1945-BA

COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of the Bar Admission of Abby D. 

Padlock:

Abby D. Padlock,

 Petitioner,

 v.

Board of Bar Examiners,

 Respondent.

BAR ADMISSION OF ABBY D. PADLOCK

OPINION FILED: June 29, 2021 

SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 

ORAL ARGUMENT: 

SOURCE OF APPEAL:

COURT: 

COUNTY: 

JUDGE: 

JUSTICES:

Per Curiam.

ZIEGLER, C.J. filed a dissenting opinion, joined by ROGGENSACK 

and HAGEDORN, JJ.

NOT PARTICIPATING:

 

ATTORNEYS:

For the petitioner, there were briefs filed by Peyton B. 

Engel and Hurley Burish, S.C., Madison.

For the respondent, there was a brief filed by Jacquelynn 

B. Rothstein, Director and Legal Counsel, Board of Bar 

Examiners.
2021 WI 69

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further 

editing and modification. The final 

version will appear in the bound 

volume of the official reports. 

No. 2020AP1945-BA

STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT

In the Matter of the Bar Admission

of Abby D. Padlock: 

Abby D. Padlock,

Petitioner, 

v.

Board of Bar Examiners, 

Respondent. 

FILED

JUN 29, 2021

Sheila T. Reiff

Clerk of Supreme Court

REVIEW of the Board of Bar Examiners' decision. Reversed 

and remanded. 

¶1 PER CURIAM. We review, pursuant to Supreme Court 

Rule (SCR) 40.08(7), the final decision of the Board of Bar 

Examiners (Board) declining to certify that the petitioner, Abby 

D. Padlock, has satisfied the character and fitness requirements 

for admission to the Wisconsin bar set forth in SCR 40.06(1). 

The Board's decision was based primarily on its conclusion that 

Ms. Padlock was deceptive in her law school application and in 

her bar application by underreporting, in a misleading manner, 

the details of an arrest that caused her to be charged with two 
No. 2020AP1945-BA 

2

felony drug charges, which were later dismissed pursuant to a 

deferred prosecution agreement. 

¶2 The initial duty to examine an applicant's 

qualifications for bar admission rests with the Board. In the 

final analysis, however, this court retains supervisory 

authority and has the ultimate responsibility for regulating 

admission to the Wisconsin bar. See In re Bar Admission of 

Rippl, 2002 WI 15, ¶3, 250 Wis. 2d 519, 639 N.W.2d 553, and In 

re Bar Admission of Vanderperren, 2003 WI 37, ¶2, 261 

Wis. 2d 150, 661 N.W.2d 27. Here, although Ms. Padlock's 

disclosures raised significant questions about her fitness to 

practice law, we conclude that Ms. Padlock may be admitted to 

the practice of law in this state. Accordingly, we reverse and 

remand the matter to the Board for further proceedings.

¶3 Ms. Padlock was a high school athlete who played 

Division I volleyball in college and graduated with excellent 

grades. However, during and after college, sports injuries and 

serious family issues led to what she describes as a "dark 

time." When she was 24, Ms. Padlock wanted to work 

internationally as a language instructor. To acquire money for 

this venture she and a friend agreed to transport a substantial 

amount of marijuana across state lines as a means of raising 

cash. 

¶4 In October 2015, Ms. Padlock and her friend left the 

State of Oregon with a shipment of marijuana in her car that 

they were attempting to deliver to Wisconsin. They were stopped 

by law enforcement officials in Minnesota. Her friend, who was 
No. 2020AP1945-BA 

3

driving at the time, consented to a K9 search. Officers 

discovered seventy-six (76) individually sealed packages of 

marijuana, weighing approximately 114 pounds in the vehicle. 

They also found three cell phones, $473 in cash, assorted 

marijuana edibles, other marijuana, and drug paraphernalia.

During a follow up search of Ms. Padlock's home, police found 

$30,120, which was later subject to civil forfeiture.

¶5 Ms. Padlock was arrested and charged in Minnesota with 

two felony counts of a controlled substance crime in the second 

degree. She was offered a deferred prosecution agreement; the 

felony charges were later reduced to one count of possession of 

marijuana in the third degree, a misdemeanor. She received a 

stay of adjudication, was sentenced to three days in jail, fined 

$1,000, and placed on probation for two years. When she 

successfully completed her probation, the charge was dismissed.

Ms. Padlock had been paid approximately $30,000 for the 

attempted delivery; as noted, these funds were subject to a 

civil forfeiture. 

¶6 After Ms. Padlock was sentenced, but before she had 

finished serving that sentence, she applied to the University of 

Wisconsin Law School. 

¶7 Ms. Padlock's disclosures on her law school 

application form the first basis for the Board's decision to 

deny her admission to the Wisconsin bar. The law school 

application requires applicants to describe in detail any 

criminal infractions that occurred prior to admission. 

Applicants are directed to report instances in which they were 
No. 2020AP1945-BA 

4

cited, arrested, charged, convicted, or sentenced to any 

criminal, civil, or ordinance violation at the federal, state, 

or local level. The application also requires applicants to 

answer whether or not the matter was resolved in a conviction, a 

dismissal, or was resolved at the same or a different level of 

seriousness as the original violation. Applicants must answer 

even if a finding of guilt or sentence was suspended or 

withheld, or if the record was expunged or sealed.

¶8 Ms. Padlock reported that she had been given a stay of 

adjudication and that the charges against her had been 

dismissed. This was inaccurate. The charges had not yet been 

dismissed at the time Ms. Padlock applied to law school. She 

was still on probation. Moreover, Ms. Padlock did not provide 

any other details about the 2015 criminal matter. She did not 

report the amount of marijuana that was discovered, the initial 

felony charges that she faced, any information about the $1,000 

fine, her three days in jail, or her two years of probation. 

She did not mention the $30,000 civil forfeiture. 

¶9 Ms. Padlock was admitted to the University of 

Wisconsin Law School and began her studies. It is not disputed 

that during law school, Ms. Padlock spoke openly about her 

conviction in class and with colleagues and faculty. At some 

point, Ms. Padlock received an offer to participate in a law 

school program that required a background check. During this 

background check, the law school learned the details of the 

underlying criminal offense and determined that Ms. Padlock had 

"seriously mischaracterized her 2015 criminal matter." 
No. 2020AP1945-BA 

5

¶10 The law school revoked its employment offer and 

conducted an investigation. Ultimately, the law school imposed 

no discipline on Ms. Padlock and she was permitted to complete 

law school, although she was warned that this incident might 

adversely affect her admission to the bar. 

¶11 In November 2019, as a third-year law student 

anticipating graduation, Ms. Padlock applied for admission to 

the Wisconsin State Bar under the diploma privilege, SCR 40.03. 

Ms. Padlock's disclosures on her bar application form the second 

basis for the Board's decision to deny her admission to the 

Wisconsin bar. In her bar application, Ms. Padlock reported 

that in October of 2015, she "drove from Oregon to Wisconsin 

with marijuana in [her] car." She reported that she was charged 

with possession of marijuana on December 14, 2015. She 

indicated that the final disposition of those charges was a stay 

of adjudication with an ultimate dismissal of the charges. 

¶12 Following some inquiries by the Board that resulted in 

Ms. Padlock amending her bar application, the Board informed 

Ms. Padlock that her bar admission application was at risk of 

being denied on character and fitness grounds. SCR 40.08(1).

Ms. Padlock formally contested the Board's preliminary adverse 

determination and requested a hearing before the Board. 

¶13 The Board conducted an evidentiary hearing on 

September 11, 2020, via videoconference. Ms. Padlock testified 

about her history and her application materials. Professor Mary 

Prosser and Professor Greg Wiercioch, both faculty members at 
No. 2020AP1945-BA 

6

the University of Wisconsin Law School, testified in support of 

Ms. Padlock's application. 

¶14 The Board issued a written adverse decision and order 

on October 26, 2020. As relevant, the Board made the following 

findings about Ms. Padlock's law school application:

11. In her application for admission to the University 

of Wisconsin Law School, Ms. Padlock reported that she 

made a conscious choice to do something that she knew 

was wrong and illegal. She further reported that she 

was charged with possession of marijuana on December 

14, 2015. She indicated that the final disposition of 

those charges was a stay of adjudication with an 

ultimate dismissal of the charges. Ms. Padlock did 

not provide any additional details about her arrest, 

including, for instance, the amount of marijuana that 

was discovered, the initial charges that she faced, or 

any information about the $30,000.00 forfeiture.

12. At the time Ms. Padlock made those statements to 

the University of Wisconsin Law School, her underlying 

criminal charges had not been dismissed.

***

15. Specifically and with regard to the 2015 criminal 

matter, Ms. Padlock failed to disclose on her law 

school application that she was initially charged with 

multiple counts of a controlled substances crime, that 

she accepted guilt for one count of a controlled 

substances crime, that she was sentenced on a count 

different than the original one and that it was 

resolved at a different level of seriousness, and that 

she omitted the details of her sentence including a 

$1000.00 fine, three days in jail, and two years of 

probation.

¶15 The Board made the following findings about her bar 

application and her credibility regarding her application 

disclosures:

18. In her application for admission to the Wisconsin 

bar Ms. Padlock reported that on October 27, 2015, she 
No. 2020AP1945-BA 

7

"drove from Oregon to Wisconsin with marijuana in 

[her] car." She did not reveal that she had been 

transporting one hundred and fourteen (114) pounds of 

marijuana, nor did she indicate that she was 

originally charged with two counts of felony 

trafficking of controlled substances.

19. In her testimony before the Board, Ms. Padlock 

revealed that she had participated in another illegal 

drug delivery between Oregon and Wisconsin 

approximately two weeks prior to the October 27th 

incident. She reported being paid $10,000 for the 

earlier drug transaction. Ms. Padlock had not 

previously revealed that information to the Board or 

to the University of Wisconsin Law School.

***

24. By having repeatedly minimized her criminal 

conduct surrounding her illegal transportation of 

marijuana across state lines, Ms. Padlock demonstrated 

a lack of character and fitness that is essential for 

admission to the Wisconsin bar.

25. By engaging in repeated acts of misconduct, 

including one that she disclosed for the first time 

during her testimony before the Board, Ms. Padlock has 

not met her burden of establishing her honesty, 

diligence, or reliability.

26. Ms. Padlock has not demonstrated a sufficient 

effort towards or provided any significant evidence of 

rehabilitation.

27. By minimizing her criminal conduct in applying to 

the University of Wisconsin Law School and on her 

application for admission to the Wisconsin bar, 

Ms. Padlock was both dishonest and deceptive. Her 

explanations about each were neither plausible nor 

believable. Accordingly, the Board did not find 

Ms. Padlock to be a credible witness.

¶16 In its written decision the Board indicated that 

Ms. Padlock had failed to provide details about her arrest, 

including, for instance, the amount of marijuana that was 

discovered, the initial charges that she faced, or any 
No. 2020AP1945-BA 

8

information about the $30,000 forfeiture. She did not disclose 

that she had been transporting 114 pounds of marijuana or that 

she was originally charged with two counts of felony trafficking 

of controlled substances. The Board found, further, that these 

omissions and incomplete disclosures were intentional. The 

Board also emphasized that during the hearing, in response to a 

question, Ms. Padlock disclosed that she had actually completed 

another illegal drug delivery between Oregon and Wisconsin 

approximately two weeks before the October 2015 incident and 

that she had been paid $10,000 for that drug transaction. Ms. 

Padlock had not previously revealed that information. The Board 

found that Ms. Padlock lacked credibility, that her omissions 

reflected an effort to deceive the law school and the Board, and 

that she had failed to establish good moral character and 

fitness to practice law in Wisconsin under SCR 40.06(1) and (3).

¶17 Ms. Padlock seeks review.1 The crux of this appeal is 

whether Ms. Padlock has established that she has the requisite 

character and fitness for admission to the bar. When this court 

reviews an adverse determination of the Board pursuant to 

SCR 40.08(7), we adopt the Board's findings of fact if they are 

not clearly erroneous. In re Vanderperren, 261 Wis. 2d 150, 

¶20. We then determine if the Board's conclusions of law based 

on those facts are proper. Id.

 

1 The court has decided this matter based on the record and 

the written submissions of the parties. Neither party requested 

oral argument. 
No. 2020AP1945-BA 

9

¶18 First, we observe that the Board properly declined to 

offer Ms. Padlock conditional admission under SCR 40.075. The 

character and fitness concerns that gave rise to the Board's 

adverse determination are not amenable to conditional admission. 

Only applicants who are able to demonstrate a record of 

documented, ongoing recovery and who are able to meet the 

competence and the character and fitness requirements may be 

considered for conditional admission under SCR 40.075. When an 

applicant appeals an adverse determination, this court may elect 

to impose post-admission conditions as a condition of admitting 

the applicant, but this is a distinct procedure from conditional 

admission under SCR 40.075. In re Bar Admission of Jarrett, 

2016 WI 39, 368 Wis. 2d 567, 879 N.W.2d 116.

¶19 Next, Ms. Padlock contends that two of the Board's 

factual findings are clearly erroneous and should be rejected by 

this court. See In re Bar Admission of Rusch, 171 Wis. 2d 523, 

528-29, 492 N.W.2d 153 (1992). She further contends that the 

Board's legal conclusion regarding her character is not 

supported by the record evidence, and is inconsistent with other 

decisions of this court. See Rippl, 250 Wis. 2d 519, ¶16; In re 

Bar Admission of Crowe, 141 Wis. 2d 230, 232, 414 N.W.2d 41 

(1987). She suggests that the Board was biased against her and 

that she did not receive a fair hearing. From her perspective, 

the Board "has interpreted every word she spoke in the most 

negative light possible, ignoring some of the evidence favorable 

to her, and distorting the rest into the portrait of an 

incorrigible liar." She maintains that she has met her burden 
No. 2020AP1945-BA 

10

of producing information sufficient to affirmatively demonstrate 

her present character and fitness and she asks this court to 

order her admission. Alternatively, she suggests that she 

should be afforded admission with conditions.

¶20 The standards for evaluating an applicant's admission 

to the Wisconsin bar are well-settled. Supreme Court Rule

40.06(1) requires that applicants for bar admission establish 

good moral character and fitness to practice law. The burden 

rests with the applicant to establish character and fitness to 

the satisfaction of the Board. See SCRs 40.06(3) and 40.07. 

The Appendix to SCR ch. 40 contains the Board's rules that 

provide additional guidance to the Board and to applicants. 

¶21 Bar Admission Rule (BA) 6.01 provides that "[a] lawyer 

should be one whose record of conduct justifies the trust of 

clients, adversaries, courts and others with respect to the 

professional duties owed to them." That same section notes that 

"[a] record manifesting a deficiency in the honesty, diligence 

or reliability of an applicant may constitute a basis for denial 

of admission."

¶22 Bar Admission Rule 6.02 provides that in determining 

whether an applicant possesses the necessary character and 

fitness to practice law, 12 factors "should be treated as cause 

for further inquiry." BA 6.02 (Relevant Conduct or Condition). 

As relevant, these factors include a person's unlawful conduct, 

academic misconduct, false statements by the applicant, 

including concealment or nondisclosure, and acts involving 

dishonesty or misrepresentation. See id.
No. 2020AP1945-BA 

11

¶23 Bar Admission Rule 6.03 provides that in assigning 

weight and significance to the applicant's prior conduct, the 

following factors are to be considered:

(a) the applicant's age at the time of the conduct;

(b) the recency of the conduct;

(c) the reliability of the information concerning the 

conduct;

(d) the seriousness of the conduct;

(e) the mitigating or aggravating circumstances;

(f) the evidence of rehabilitation;

(g) the applicant's candor in the admissions process;

(h) the materiality of any omissions or misrepresentations; 

and

(i) the number of incidents revealing deficiencies.

See SCR ch. 40 App., BA 6.03. 

¶24 The Board states that its adverse decision is 

predicated on Ms. Padlock's alleged lack of candor in the 

application process, BA 6.03(g)-(h), not her underlying 

misconduct. It is not seriously disputed that the disclosures 

made on Ms. Padlock's law school application were insufficient. 

Ms. Padlock essentially concedes this as she admits that her 

application "set her up for trouble with the Law School." She 

maintains, however, that she did not intend to deceive the law 

school and she attributes the admitted shortcomings to having a 

"lay person's understanding of her legal position" at the time. 

Ms. Padlock's disclosures on her bar application were less 

problematic, but still appear to minimize her misconduct. So, 
No. 2020AP1945-BA 

12

the critical question is whether Ms. Padlock's failure to make 

sufficiently detailed disclosures on her law school and bar 

applications reflects systematic evasion with an intent to 

deceive, or simply an error in judgment. 

¶25 Our case law emphasizes the extreme importance of an 

applicant's candor with regard to prior misconduct as being as 

important as the underlying misconduct itself. In In re Bar 

Admission of Gaylord, 155 Wis. 2d 816, 456 N.W.2d 590 (1990), we 

affirmed the Board's decision to deny an applicant admission 

where the applicant failed to disclose having been charged three 

times with criminal offenses including unlawful possession of a 

controlled substance with intent to sell, and the possession of 

a weapon without a permit. Id. at 819. We stated:

It must be emphasized that the basis of the decision 

to decline certification of [the applicant's] 

character and fitness to practice law was not her 

conduct that led to the three criminal charges and the 

numerous traffic offenses. Rather, [the Board] 

determined that [the applicant] did not meet her 

burden to establish good moral character and fitness 

to practice law solely by virtue of the inaccuracies 

and omissions in her admission application.

Id. at 822.

¶26 Our analysis in bar admission cases typically begins 

with an assessment of the Board's factual findings, then 

proceeds to the de novo review of its legal conclusions. Here, 

this is complicated, somewhat, by the fact that the Board's 

credibility determinations are intertwined with its legal 

conclusion that Ms. Padlock lacks the character and fitness to 

practice law. We are generally disinclined to second-guess 
No. 2020AP1945-BA 

13

credibility determinations made by factfinders. That said, we 

are charged with considering the record as a whole when we 

conduct our de novo review of the Board's legal conclusions. 

According, we review the evidence.

¶27 At the evidentiary hearing, Ms. Padlock acknowledged 

that her law school application does not explicitly identify the 

crime she was initially charged with, but points out that it 

"does reference consequences that bespeak felony penalties."

She explains that from her perspective, it seemed as though 

everyone knew about her arrest. She repeatedly notes that 

anyone with access to the Internet has only to enter "Abby 

Padlock" in a search engine to get a detailed account of her 

arrest, complete with mugshot. She says that she assumed 

(wrongly, she now agrees) that law schools undertook their own 

investigations. She reasons that if she had been attempting to 

cover up her history, she would not have spoken about it openly 

with peers and professors, and would not have applied for a law 

school student mentoring program that she knew required a 

background check. She adds that the law school was ultimately 

satisfied by her explanations and concluded that there was no 

need to discipline her or take action against her. Ms. Padlock 

maintains her oversights were unintentional, that she was not 

dishonest, that the statements on her applications were not 

false, and that she wrote what she thought was required of her. 

¶28 Ms. Padlock also offered, in addition to her own 

testimony, the character testimony of two of her academic 

supervisors. Both stated that Ms. Padlock had been forthcoming 
No. 2020AP1945-BA 

14

about her past. Professor Mary Prosser taught her small group 

class on criminal law, and later supervised Ms. Padlock in the 

Legal Assistance to Incarcerated People Project (LAIP). 

Professor Prosser spoke at length about Ms. Padlock's honesty, 

the fact that she did not shade the truth, the fact that she was 

forthcoming, her belief that Ms. Padlock had not intended to 

deceive the admissions department, and her conclusion that Ms. 

Padlock was a suitable candidate for admission to the bar. 

¶29 Adjunct Professor Greg Wiercioch also worked closely 

with Ms. Padlock during her time in LAIP, and spoke about how 

Ms. Padlock led off her application to the program with a 

dramatic reference to her criminal case, stating: "Facing a 50-

year prison sentence can drastically change one's perspective on 

life. Exactly one year, three weeks, and six days ago, I was in 

this exact predicament." Professor Wiercioch stated he had no 

concerns about her character, her honesty or integrity, or in 

recommending her for admission to practice. 

¶30 The Board's factual findings derive from Ms. Padlock's 

undisputed underlying criminal misconduct, the disclosures on 

her two applications, and from the Board members' credibility 

determinations based on the testimony and evidence adduced at 

the Board's hearing. 

¶31 Ms. Padlock argues that the Board's factual finding 

regarding evidence of her rehabilitation is clearly erroneous. 

Specifically, the Board found that there was "a notable lack of 

evidence that Ms. Padlock had engaged in any significant 

rehabilitative efforts to offset her misdeeds." The Board 
No. 2020AP1945-BA 

15

stated that "Padlock has not demonstrated a sufficient effort 

toward or provided any significant evidence of rehabilitation." 

In its brief, the Board goes farther, claiming that Ms. Padlock 

has exhibited effectively no evidence of rehabilitation. This 

is an important challenge, as a number of our cases reflect the 

importance of "post-incident" rehabilitative conduct when we 

evaluate an applicant's character and fitness during an appeal 

from an adverse determination. See, e.g., In re Bar Admission 

of Anderson, 2006 WI 57, ¶26, 290 Wis. 2d 722, 715 N.W.2d 586 

(holding that Anderson's post-incident conduct has reflected a 

record of good behavior and the establishment of the requisite 

character and fitness to be admitted to the Wisconsin bar). The 

Board's finding is not consistent with the record evidence. 

¶32 The record reflects that Ms. Padlock provided services 

to incarcerated persons through the LAIP program, citing her own 

experience with the justice system as a reason for her 

involvement with the program. She hoped to become a mentor, 

publicly stating that that her experience fueled her desire to 

help people, a sentiment her professors confirmed. She joined a 

group of law students who went to Dilley, Texas, to provide 

legal assistance to women seeking asylum. She fundraised, 

organized, and led camps in Kenya staffed by UW students to help 

disadvantaged children build sustainable futures. She was asked 

to join the board of the nonprofit that ran the camps, and did 

so. She regularly volunteered to provide legal assistance to 

veterans at the Madison Veterans hospital. She started a small 

business seven months after graduating law school. Based on 
No. 2020AP1945-BA 

16

these undisputed facts of record we conclude there is 

significant evidence of rehabilitation and we deem Finding 26 

clear error. 

¶33 Ms. Padlock next argues that the Board's factual 

finding that she was dishonest and deceptive in her applications 

is clearly erroneous. Finding 27 states:

By minimizing her criminal conduct in applying to the 

University of Wisconsin Law School and on her 

application for admission to the Wisconsin bar, 

Ms. Padlock was both dishonest and deceptive. Her 

explanations about each were neither plausible nor 

believable. Accordingly, the Board did not find 

Ms. Padlock to be a credible witness. 

¶34 Ms. Padlock faces an uphill battle with this 

challenge. The Board is brutally disparaging of her 

credibility, employing rhetoric that seems, at times, 

unnecessarily scathing. The Board condemns her "repeated and 

flagrant displays at minimizing and concealing her wrongful 

conduct." The Board says:

Ms. Padlock has consistently neglected to acknowledge 

the seriousness and the breadth of her actions to any

one body or institution.

***

She selectively provides information about her 

criminal history in dribs and drabs without a complete 

accounting of the whole story, the whole picture, or 

the whole truth, to either the University of Wisconsin 

Law School or to the Board of Bar Examiners.

***

Ms. Padlock lies by omission unless and until 

confronted by it as was the case during her hearing 

before the Board when she reported, for the first 

time, that she had been involved in a second illegal 
No. 2020AP1945-BA 

17

drug smuggling operation to import a sizable amount of 

marijuana to Wisconsin from Oregon for which she 

supposedly received $10,000. 

***

She has persistently and consistently demonstrated a 

lack of candor and seems not to have any real inkling 

about the importance of fully, completely, and wholly 

embracing the truth.

***

The Board did not find her testimony with regard to 

either claim to be credible or convincing. By 

repeatedly minimizing her criminal conduct surrounding 

the illegal transportation of drugs across state 

lines, the Board found that Ms. Padlock manifested a 

deficiency in honesty and integrity both of which are 

essential characteristics for admission to the bar in 

this state. 

***

The Board has concluded that Ms. Padlock is unable to 

recognize and to understand what it means to be 

truthful, what constitutes a complete disclosure, or 

how to be forthright and argues that she cannot be 

expected to bring those essential skills to the table 

as a lawyer in this state. 

***

The Board is not persuaded that she has been anything 

other than dishonest and deceptive.

¶35 One exchange at the hearing was clearly pivotal to the 

Board's determination that the shortcoming in Ms. Padlock's 

applications reflect a calculated effort to deceive the law 

school and the Board. In response to a direct question from a 

Board member, Ms. Padlock admitted that she had actually 

successfully made one cross-country marijuana delivery before 

she was caught, for which she was paid $10,000. For Ms. 
No. 2020AP1945-BA 

18

Padlock, this admission evidences her "complete candor to the 

Board——she could have kept this fact to herself, and no one 

would have been the wiser." For the Board, this admission 

clearly shredded whatever tatters of credibility Ms. Padlock 

retained. The Board heavily faults Ms. Padlock for not 

previously disclosing this incident. The Board says "[h]er 

claim that she has never intentionally concealed her past is 

simply false as illustrated not only by her failure to include 

her first illegal drug transaction on her law school application 

but also on her application for admission to the bar." 

¶36 We generally accord deference to a factfinder's 

credibility determinations because the factfinder has the 

opportunity to observe the witness' demeanor and gauge the 

testimony's persuasiveness. Here, the Board did not believe 

Ms. Padlock's explanations for her incomplete disclosures, and 

we are bound by that finding. However, the Board's disbelief of 

Ms. Padlock's reasons for her insufficient disclosures does not 

lead, inexorably, to the conclusion that she lacks the character 

and fitness to practice law. Were that the case, any effort to 

appeal an adverse determination predicated on credibility would 

be a fruitless endeavor.

¶37 In our view, the Board gives undue weight to 

Ms. Padlock's disclosure. Recall that the Board's stated basis 

for deeming her application at risk was Ms. Padlock's lack of 

candor on her applications – not her underlying criminal conduct 

itself. Those charges were dismissed. While in no way 

condoning her illegal activity, neither the law school 
No. 2020AP1945-BA 

19

application nor the bar application requires an applicant to 

disclose behavior that was immoral or even unlawful, but that 

was never formally investigated or prosecuted. Such an 

expectation would be entirely subjective, would place the honest 

and forthright candidate at a disadvantage, and would be 

impossible to administer. 

¶38 The Board then wholly discounted the character 

testimony of the two University of Wisconsin law professors who 

know and worked with Ms. Padlock personally. The Board faults 

them for apparently not knowing of her first drug delivery for 

which she was never apprehended, and for not affirmatively 

indicating they knew all the details of her underlying arrest 

and prosecution. The Board states that it "is unknown whether 

either knew about her first marijuana delivery for which she was 

never apprehended. Regardless, each supported her admission to 

the bar."

¶39 We find the Board's position in this regard somewhat 

troubling. Both professors had extensive direct contact with 

Ms. Padlock and both are longtime specialists in criminal law. 

Moreover, as Ms. Padlock points out, every member of the Board 

was given the opportunity, individually and by name, to ask them 

questions. The goal of this proceeding was to evaluate 

Ms. Padlock's character and fitness. It is perplexing that not 

a single member of the Board asked a question of these character 

witnesses. It is somewhat concerning that these witnesses were 

then discredited for failing to answer questions that were never 

asked of them.
No. 2020AP1945-BA 

20

¶40 Moreover, the record before us reflects that each 

professor did more than merely "allude to having some awareness"

of Ms. Padlock's crime. Professor Prosser described the letter 

she wrote on Ms. Padlock's behalf to the court, seeking to 

terminate her probation, and she stated that Ms. Padlock was 

completely forthcoming about her situation. Professor Wiercioch 

testified that his first introduction to Ms. Padlock was her 

cover letter that led with an admission of her criminal charge.

He testified that she was up-front about her history, which they 

discussed at length. The record confirms that both witnesses 

had definite knowledge of Ms. Padlock's criminal case, and 

believed that she was honest and forthcoming about it. Rather, 

it seems these professors could not overcome the Board's 

antipathy for Ms. Padlock. 

¶41 This court has, on several occasions, certified 

applicants to the bar despite an adverse determination from the 

Board. Ms. Padlock points to In re Jarrett, 368 Wis. 2d 567. 

Mr. Jarrett was admitted to practice law with conditions after 

several incidents of demonstrated academic misconduct in law 

school. Mr. Jarrett, unlike Ms. Padlock, was completely 

forthcoming about his academic misconduct throughout the 

application process, although he failed to disclose several 

speeding tickets. Neither the Board nor the court were 

persuaded by his explanation for doing so, but this court 

determined that the omission regarding the tickets was 

insufficient to preclude his admission. 
No. 2020AP1945-BA 

21

¶42 Also relevant to our analysis is In re Vanderperren, 

261 Wis. 2d 150, where the Board's refusal to certify 

Ms. Vanderperren was based primarily on her "less than 

forthright and complete responses" to questions on her 

application for admission to Hamline University School of Law, 

and on her subsequent Wisconsin bar application. Her underlying 

issues were not criminal, but involved a series of alcoholrelated incidents, obnoxious behavior, and argumentative run-ins 

with police and university authorities. The Vanderperren case 

reflects the importance of post-conduct rehabilitation because, 

by the time this court considered her bar application, Ms. 

Vanderperren had been admitted to practice law in Minnesota, had 

passed the Wisconsin bar exam, had voluntarily corrected her bar 

application, and several years had elapsed since her last 

reported incident involving excessive alcohol consumption. 

Vanderperren, 261 Wis. 2d 150, ¶65; see also Rippl, 250 

Wis. 2d 519, ¶3. She had undergone an AODA evaluation and had 

attended AA meetings and changed her drinking habits. 

Accordingly, this court opted to admit her to the practice of 

law. 

¶43 Ms. Padlock reminds the court that here, more than six 

years have elapsed since her criminal misconduct. We have 

determined there is evidence of her rehabilitation on this 

record and we accord more weight to the testimony of her faculty 

supervisors than did the Board, and less weight to her 

disclosure of information that – while unsavory – she was not 

required to disclose.
No. 2020AP1945-BA 

22

¶44 This was not an easy case. Ms. Padlock would have 

done better to be exceedingly forthcoming on her law school and 

her bar applications. That said, we have concluded that the 

shortcomings in her applications are not sufficient to preclude 

her admission to the bar in light of the record as a whole. 

Denying Ms. Padlock admission to the bar because of the 

shortcomings, even factoring in the Board's perception that she 

minimized her misconduct, is simply too harsh a penalty under 

the circumstances presented. Her goal of becoming a lawyer has 

already been delayed, and her prospect of obtaining bar 

admission has been uncertain. Her own actions - and the manner 

in which she disclosed them - have caused her significant 

obstacles, embarrassment, and had financial consequences. The 

language of a much cited concurrence written by Justice Prosser 

is apt here. He observed:

All in all, I believe the applicant deserves the 

benefit of the doubt. She should have the opportunity 

to begin the practice law with a clean slate-with the 

understanding of the importance that courts attach to 

character and ethics and a warning that this court has 

a long memory. 

Vanderperren, 261 Wis. 2d 150, ¶65. We again choose to exercise 

our prerogative and afford this applicant the benefit of the 

doubt.

¶45 Accordingly, we reverse the Board's conclusion of law 

regarding Ms. Padlock's character and fitness to practice law, 

and we direct the Board to certify Ms. Padlock's admission to 

practice law in Wisconsin and her enrollment with the State Bar 

of Wisconsin pursuant to SCR 10.03(2). The Board did not 
No. 2020AP1945-BA 

23

identify any conditions that should be imposed on Ms. Padlock in 

the event we elected to admit her, and we impose no conditions 

upon her practice of law.

¶46 IT IS ORDERED that the decision of the Board of Bar 

Examiners declining to certify that Abby D. Padlock has 

satisfied the requirements for admission to the practice of law 

in Wisconsin is reversed and the matter is remanded to the Board 

for further action consistent with this order.

¶47 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the documents submitted 

under seal are deemed confidential and shall remain under seal 

until further order of the court. 
No. 2020AP1945-BA.akz

1

¶48 ANNETTE KINGSLAND ZIEGLER, C.J. (dissenting). I 

would affirm the final decision of the Board of Bar Examiners 

(Board) declining to certify Abby Padlock's character and 

fitness for admission to the Wisconsin bar. The Board found 

that Ms. Padlock underreported, in a misleading manner, the 

details of a 2015 interstate drug trafficking incident that 

caused her to be charged in Minnesota with two felony counts of 

a Controlled Substance Crime in the Second Degree. I agree.

¶49 The inadequacy of the disclosures on her law school 

application later caused the law school to determine that 

Ms. Padlock had "seriously mischaracterized her 2015 criminal 

matter." In fact, she was paid $10,000 to illegally transport 

drugs cross country before being caught. With respect to the 

underreported charges, Ms. Padlock failed to report the amount 

of marijuana that was discovered: 114 pounds. She failed to 

report that she faced felony charges. She failed to report that 

she spent three days in jail, or that she was subject to a 

$30,000 civil forfeiture. She inaccurately claimed that the 

charges against her had already been dismissed when, in fact, 

she was still on probation at the time she applied to law 

school. 

¶50 Ms. Padlock was warned that the insufficient 

disclosures on her law school application might adversely affect 

her admission to the bar. Nonetheless, Ms. Padlock again 

underreported her criminal conduct in her application seeking 

bar admission. 
No. 2020AP1945-BA.akz

2

¶51 Ms. Padlock's inadequate disclosures reflect dishonest 

and deceptive behavior, which demonstrates that Ms. Padlock has 

acted in a manner that is not honest, diligent, or reliable. 

Coupled with the Board's finding that Ms. Padlock was not 

credible nor convincing at the evidentiary hearing before the 

Board, I conclude that there are simply too many incidents in 

which, despite being previously warned, Ms. Padlock considered 

candid disclosure optional. 

¶52 Our cases emphasize the extreme importance of an 

applicant's candor with regard to prior misconduct as being as, 

if not more, important as the underlying misconduct itself. 

See, e.g., In re Bar Admission of Gaylord, 155 Wis. 2d 816, 819, 

456 N.W.2d 590 (1990) (affirming the Board's decision to deny 

certification of bar applicant where the applicant failed to 

disclose having been charged three times with criminal 

offenses). The applicant in Gaylord did not meet her burden to 

establish good moral character and fitness to practice law due 

to the inaccuracies and omissions in her admission application. 

Id. at 822. I conclude the same is true of Ms. Padlock. By 

repeatedly minimizing her criminal conduct surrounding the 

illegal transportation of drugs across state lines, Ms. Padlock 

manifested a deficiency in honesty and integrity, both of which 

are essential characteristics for admission to the bar in this 

state. 

¶53 Based on the record before this court, I am not 

persuaded that Ms. Padlock has yet demonstrated the requisite 

moral character and fitness "needed to assure to a reasonable 
No. 2020AP1945-BA.akz

3

degree of certainty the integrity and the competence of services 

performed for clients and the maintenance of high standards in 

the administration of justice." SCR 40.06. I would affirm the 

Board's decision.

¶54 For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.

¶55 I am authorized to state that Justices PATIENCE DRAKE 

ROGGENSACK and BRIAN HAGEDORN join this dissent.
No. 2020AP1945-BA.akz

1