Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Robert B. Moodie
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2018AP001781-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: August 31, 2021

2021 WI 75 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2018AP1781-D 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Robert B. Moodie, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
     v. 
Robert B. Moodie, 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY MOODIE REINSTATEMENT PROCEEDIGNS 
Reported at 391 Wis. 26 196,942 N.W.2d 302 
PDC No:2020 WI 39 - Published 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
August 31, 2021   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Per Curiam. ZIEGLER, C.J., filed a concurring opinion.  
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
        
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2021 WI 75
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No. 2018AP1781-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Robert B. Moodie, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Robert B. Moodie, 
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
FILED 
 
AUG 31, 2021 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding.  Reinstatement granted.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report and recommendation 
of Referee Jean A. DiMotto that Attorney Robert B. Moodie's 
petition for reinstatement of his license to practice law in 
Wisconsin be granted.1  Upon careful of review of the matter, we 
                     
1 Because neither party appealed from the referee's report 
and recommendation, our review proceeds under Supreme Court Rule 
(SCR) 22.33(3), which provides that "[i]f no appeal is timely 
filed, the supreme court shall review the referee's report, 
order 
reinstatement, 
with 
or 
without 
conditions, 
deny 
reinstatement, or order the parties to file briefs in the 
matter." 
No. 
2018AP1781-D   
 
2 
 
agree that Attorney Moodie's license should be reinstated.  We 
also agree with the referee that Attorney Moodie should be 
required to pay the full costs of this reinstatement proceeding, 
which are $3,594.27 as of June 2, 2021.   
¶2 
Attorney Moodie was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1982.  He had no disciplinary history prior to the 
matter giving rise to this reinstatement proceeding. 
¶3 
Effective June 3, 2020, this court suspended Attorney 
Moodie's law license for a period of six months as discipline 
for his conversion of fees belonging to his law firm to his 
personal use.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Moodie, 
2020 WI 39, 391 Wis. 2d 196, 942 N.W.2d 302.   
¶4 
On October 1, 2020, Attorney Moodie filed a petition 
for reinstatement of his law license.  The petition alleged, 
among other things, that Attorney Moodie had complied fully with 
the terms of this court's suspension order, that he had 
maintained competence and learning in the law, that his conduct 
since the suspension had been exemplary and above reproach, and 
that he had fully complied with the requirements set forth in 
SCR 22.26. 
¶5 
On January 12, 2021, the Board of Bar Examiners filed 
a memorandum, stating that Attorney Moodie was currently in 
compliance with the court's continuing legal education and 
ethics 
and 
professional 
responsibility 
requirements 
for 
reinstatement.  
¶6 
On March 4, 2021, the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) filed a response to Attorney Moodie's petition for 
No. 
2018AP1781-D   
 
3 
 
reinstatement.  The OLR stated that it supported Attorney 
Moodie's petition for reinstatement so long as he could prove at 
the reinstatement hearing that, in the words of this court's 
disciplinary decision, he can "fully account for his moral 
lapses and explain how they have been addressed to ensure they 
will not happen again."  Moodie, 391 Wis. 2d 196, ¶17.   
¶7 
On October 12, 2020, this court appointed a referee, 
who conducted a reinstatement hearing on April 8, 2021.  
Attorney Moodie testified at the hearing, as well as two 
witnesses who supported his reinstatement.  The referee also 
received several letters in support of Attorney Moodie's 
reinstatement. 
¶8 
On May 12, 2021, the referee filed a report and 
recommendation.  The referee concluded that Attorney Moodie had 
satisfied the requirements for reinstatement.  See (former) 
SCR 22.31(1) and SCR 22.29(4)(a)-(4m).2  The referee observed 
that Attorney Moodie testified in a contrite and forthright 
manner during the reinstatement hearing and expressed "abject 
remorse and shame" for his misconduct.  The referee noted that 
Attorney Moodie "has been reckoning with his misconduct for four 
                     
2 Effective January 1, 2021, substantial changes were made 
to the rules pertaining to lawyer disciplinary procedures, 
including the reinstatement rules, SCR 22.29 through 22.33.  
See S. Ct. Order 19-06, 19-07, 19-08, 19-09, 19-10, 19-11, and 
19-12, 2020 WI 62  (issued June 30, 2020, eff. Jan. 1, 2021).  
Because this reinstatement proceeding commenced prior to January 
1, 2021, unless otherwise indicated, all references to the 
supreme court rules will be to those in effect prior to 
January 1, 2021. 
No. 
2018AP1781-D   
 
4 
 
years now"; that he understands that it was driven by his 
personal dissatisfaction with the direction of his former law 
firm's management; and that he "now recognizes what he could 
have done differently to avoid the misconduct:  discuss with his 
partners their and his different viewpoints about running a 
firm, client development and retention, and compensation."  The 
referee found that Attorney Moodie has not practiced law during 
the period of his suspension; that he has complied with the 
terms of the order of suspension and will continue to do so 
until his license is reinstated; that he has maintained 
competence and learning in the law; that his conduct since the 
suspension has been exemplary and above reproach; that he has a 
proper understanding of and attitude towards the standards that 
are imposed upon members of the bar and will act in conformity 
with those standards; that he can be safely recommended to the 
legal profession, the courts, and the public as a person fit to 
be consulted by others and to represent them and otherwise act 
in matters of trust and confidence and in general to aid in the 
administration of justice as a member of the bar and as an 
officer of the courts; and that he owes no restitution.  The 
referee also found that, if his license is reinstated, Attorney 
Moodie has planned his resumption of practice in such a way as 
to obviate the risk of his misconduct reoccurring; specifically, 
to practice only as a solo practitioner, only for friends and 
former clients, and only in his areas of competence——small 
business transactions, estate planning, and residential real 
No. 
2018AP1781-D   
 
5 
 
estate matters.  The referee also noted that the OLR had no 
objection to Attorney Moodie's reinstatement. 
¶9 
Ultimately, the referee wrote that she was "satisfied 
that 
Mr. 
Moodie 
has 
complied 
with 
all 
requirements 
for 
reinstatement, that he understands the wrongfulness of his 
conduct and his underlying motivation for it, that he is 
authentically remorseful, and has indeed become a better person" 
during the four years since his misconduct came to light.  Thus, 
the referee recommended that the court reinstate Attorney 
Moodie's law license.  The referee also recommended that 
Attorney Moodie be ordered to pay the full costs of this 
reinstatement proceeding. 
¶10 The standards that apply to all petitions seeking 
reinstatement after a disciplinary suspension or revocation are 
set forth in SCR 22.31(1).  In particular, the petitioning 
attorney must demonstrate by clear, satisfactory, and convincing 
evidence that he or she has the moral character necessary to 
practice law in this state, that his or her resumption of the 
practice of law will not be detrimental to the administration of 
justice or subversive of the public interest, and that the 
attorney has complied fully with the terms of the suspension 
order and of SCR 22.26. 
 In addition, SCR 22.31(1)(c) 
incorporates the statements that a petition for reinstatement 
must contain pursuant to SCR 22.29(4)(a)–(4m).  Thus, the 
petitioning 
attorney 
must 
demonstrate 
that 
the 
required 
representations in the reinstatement petition are substantiated. 
No. 
2018AP1781-D   
 
6 
 
¶11 As in disciplinary proceedings, this court will affirm 
a referee's findings of fact unless they are found to be clearly 
erroneous.  Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.  See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Banks, 2010 WI 105, ¶16, 329 
Wis. 2d 39, 787 N.W.2d 809.  
¶12 Upon review of the record, we agree with the referee 
that Attorney Moodie has established by clear, satisfactory, and 
convincing evidence that he has satisfied all the criteria 
necessary 
for 
reinstatement. 
 
See 
SCR 22.31(1) 
and 
SCR 22.29(4)(a)-(4m).  Accordingly, we adopt the referee's 
findings of fact and conclusions of law and we accept the 
referee's recommendation to reinstate Attorney Moodie's license 
to practice law in Wisconsin.  We further determine, consistent 
with our general practice, that Attorney Moodie should be 
required to pay the full costs of this reinstatement proceeding. 
¶13 IT IS ORDERED that Robert B. Moodie's petition for 
reinstatement of his license to practice law in Wisconsin from 
the disciplinary suspension is granted, effective the date of 
this order. 
¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Robert B. Moodie shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are 
$3,594.27 as of June 2, 2021.   
¶15 ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J., did not participate. 
 
No.  2018AP1781-D.akz 
 
1 
 
¶16 ANNETTE KINGSLAND ZIEGLER, C.J.   (concurring).  I 
agree with the court's decision to reinstate Attorney Moodie's 
license to practice law.  I respectfully concur because, as I 
predicted in April 2020 when we ordered Attorney Moodie's 
license suspension, the disciplinary term imposed far exceeded 
six months.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Moodie, 2020 
WI 39, ¶¶26-34, 391 Wis. 2d 196, 942 N.W.2d 302 (Ziegler, J., 
dissenting).  When it comes to lawyer discipline, courts should 
say what they mean and mean what they say.  Id., ¶26. The court 
failed to do so in this case.  
¶17 In 
this 
case, 
we 
did 
not 
individualize 
our 
determination and defaulted to a six-month mandatory suspension, 
built upon prior disciplinary orders.  Id., ¶¶14-15.  However, 
we have consistently said there is no fixed formula for 
determining the "right" amount of lawyer discipline.  See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Siderits, 2013 WI 2, ¶33, 345 
Wis. 2d 89, 824 N.W.2d 812, (acknowledging that the imposition 
of discipline in attorney disciplinary cases "is not an exact 
science").  Each case is different, and discipline must be 
tailored to each instance of misconduct.  See id., ¶¶31-32; see 
also In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Nunnery, 2011 WI 39, 
¶5, 334 Wis. 2d 1, 798 N.W.2d 239 ("We determine the appropriate 
level of discipline given the particular facts of each case."). 
¶18 In our April 2020 decision, the court held that 
Attorney Moodie's license would be suspended for a period of six 
months.  Moodie, 391 Wis. 2d 196, ¶15.  In reality, because of 
the required reinstatement process, Attorney Moodie's suspension 
No.  2018AP1781-D.akz 
 
2 
 
has been over twice the suspension period imposed.  See SCRs 
22.29-22.33.  By the time he will be reinstated, Attorney Moodie 
will have been removed from the legal profession for almost 15 
months.   
¶19 The referee and the court in this case cited several 
of our precedents involving fund misappropriation.  It is true 
that in In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Casey, 174 
Wis. 2d 341, 496 N.W.2d 94 (1993), we held that misappropriation 
from 
a 
law 
firm 
must 
carry 
the 
same 
punishment 
as 
misappropriation from a client.  Further, following Casey, in 
several 
cases, 
we 
ordered 
license 
suspensions 
for 
fund 
misappropriation that were greater than six months.  See, e.g., 
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Olson, 216 Wis. 2d 483, 
574 N.W.2d 245 (1998) (one-year suspension).  However, treating 
misappropriation from attorneys and clients similarly, and 
imposing suspensions over six months in other cases with unique 
facts, does not imply that the court is bound to a six-month 
suspension in this case.  Attorney disciplinary actions cannot 
be reduced simply to formulas or bare cutoffs.  See Siderits, 
345 Wis. 2d 89, ¶¶31-33; Nunnery, 334 Wis. 2d 1, ¶5.  
¶20 Attorney Moodie's case was notably different than 
cases cited by the court and relied upon by the OLR.  See 
Moodie, 391 Wis. 2d 196, ¶28-30 (Ziegler, J., dissenting) 
(citing Shea, 190 Wis. 2d 560) (noting that Attorney Moodie had 
become senior partner at a reputable law firm after practicing 
at the firm for 30 years, without any reports of unethical 
conduct; he had taken a relatively small amount of money and 
No.  2018AP1781-D.akz 
 
3 
 
repaid it in full; he was forthright, cooperated with OLR 
investigators, and accepted responsibility for his behavior; 
and, very likely, he would never practice in a law firm setting 
again).  Furthermore, in Casey, this court imposed a short 
suspension for an attorney who misappropriated three client 
retainers, totaling $2,300.  174 Wis. 2d at 342.  Given that 
Attorney Moodie would have ultimately collected a large portion 
of the proceeds he diverted from the firm, in aggregate, the 
amount Attorney Moodie wrongfully withheld from his partners in 
this case was approximately $3,000 to $3,500. See Moodie, 391 
Wis. 2d 196, ¶28.  Like Attorney Moodie, the attorney in Casey 
stipulated to his wrongful conduct, but the court suspended 
Casey for only 60 days.  Casey, 174 Wis. 2d at 343.  The referee 
in this case, in recommending a suspension four months longer 
than the suspension in Casey, was motivated by apparent 
constraints imposed through disciplinary cases since Casey.  
Nonetheless, no mandatory minimum for license suspensions can be 
found in Wisconsin statutes or caselaw. 
¶21 If a perceived six-month constraint were not in place, 
based on the underlying disciplinary record, it is likely that 
the referee would not have recommended a six-month suspension.  
Certainly, the referee did not assert that a suspension lasting 
over a year was justified.  In place of the recommended 
discipline, we could have suspended Attorney Moodie's license 
for five months and 28 days, mere days shorter than the eventual 
six-month suspension.  This small change would have ensured just 
punishment 
for 
Attorney 
Moodie's 
misconduct 
while 
also 
No.  2018AP1781-D.akz 
 
4 
 
maintaining honesty and proportionality in our disciplinary 
process.  
¶22 I disagree that when acting essentially as the 
"sentencing" decision maker in a lawyer discipline case, this 
court is hamstrung from exercising discretion.  I disagree that 
we are bound to a mandatory minimum six-month penalty because of 
other fact-dependent cases.  I disagree that we should have 
judicially imposed automatic minimum suspensions for all such 
cases no matter the evidence or mitigating circumstances.  If we 
so constrain ourselves, we abdicate our responsibility to make 
individualized determinations, and with it, our ability to 
fairly and accurately "protect the public, the courts, and the 
legal system from repetition of misconduct."  In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Sommers, 2012 WI 33, ¶80, 339 Wis. 2d 580, 
811 N.W.2d 387.  
¶23 We should not shirk our duty to carefully consider 
each matter independently, taking into account the gravity of 
the 
offense, 
its 
nature, 
the 
implications 
on 
the 
legal 
profession, and the need to protect the public.  In furtherance 
of this objective, we should say what we mean and mean what we 
say.  See Moodie, 319 Wis. 2d 196, ¶¶26-34 (Ziegler, J., 
dissenting); see also S. Ct. Order 19-10, In the Matter of 
Amending Supreme Court Rules Pertaining to Permanent Revocation 
of 
a 
License 
to 
Practice 
Law 
in 
Attorney 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings (issued Dec. 18, 2019) (Ziegler, J., dissenting).  
We should not create false perceptions to both the public and to 
lawyers seeking to practice law.  When this court ties its own 
No.  2018AP1781-D.akz 
 
5 
 
hands by setting a mandatory minimum six-month suspension 
(which, in reality, amounts to a far longer suspension than six 
months) instead of providing individualized consideration for 
each disciplinary matter, the court fails to perform fully its 
weighty responsibilities.  
¶24 For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully concur. 
 
No.  2018AP1781-D.akz 
 
 
 
1