Title: Abby D. Padlock v. Board of Bar Examiners
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2020AP001945-BA
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: June 29, 2021

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 alcohol-
related 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