Court Opinion

ID: 9374886
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-24 15:12:11.067044+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:53.816202
License: Public Domain

2023 WI 15

                  SUPREME COURT            OF   WISCONSIN
CASE NO.:              2022AP1420-D

COMPLETE TITLE:        In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
                       Against Judy R. Moats, Attorney at Law:

                       Office of Lawyer Regulation,
                                 Complainant,
                            v.
                       Judy R. Moats,
                                 Respondent.

                            DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MOATS

OPINION FILED:         February 24, 2023
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:

SOURCE OF APPEAL:
   COURT:
   COUNTY:
   JUDGE:

JUSTICES:
Per curiam. ZIEGLER, C.J., filed a concurring opinion in which
REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, HAGEDORN, and KAROFSKY, JJ., joined.
NOT PARTICIPATING:

ATTORNEYS:
                                                                        2023 WI 15
                                                                NOTICE
                                                  This opinion is subject to further
                                                  editing and modification.   The final
                                                  version will appear in the bound
                                                  volume of the official reports.
No.   2022AP1420-D

STATE OF WISCONSIN                            :             IN SUPREME COURT

In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Judy R. Moats, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,                                         FILED
            Complainant,                                        FEB 24, 2023
      v.                                                           Sheila T. Reiff
                                                                Clerk of Supreme Court
Judy R. Moats,

            Respondent.

      ATTORNEY    disciplinary       proceeding.          Attorney's        license

revoked.

      ¶1    PER CURIAM.     This is a reciprocal discipline matter.

On August 19, 2022, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed

a two-count complaint against Attorney Judy R. Moats.                    Count one

alleged    that   by   virtue   of    a   January     25,    2022     consent       to

revocation order entered by the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary

Board, Attorney Moats should be subject to reciprocal discipline

in Wisconsin pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.22.                       Count

two alleged that by failing to notify OLR of her discipline in
                                                                       No.    2022AP1420-D

Virginia within 20 days of its effective date, Attorney Moats

violated SCR 22.22 (1).1

      ¶2   On    November     2,    2022,        this     court    issued         an    order

directing Attorney Moats to inform the court, in writing, by

January 16, 2023 why the imposition of discipline identical to

that imposed in Virginia would be unwarranted and of the factual

basis for any such claim.               Attorney Moats has not responded to

the   order.     Accordingly,           we   find    it    appropriate        to       impose

discipline reciprocal to that imposed by the Virginia State Bar

Disciplinary     Board,     and    we    order      the   revocation         of   Attorney

Moats’ Wisconsin law license.

      ¶3   Attorney       Moats     was      admitted       to    practice         law    in

Wisconsin in 1975.        She was admitted to practice law in Virginia

in 1981.     Her Wisconsin law license was suspended in 2021 due to

her failure to pay bar dues and failure to file an OLR Trust

Account    Certificate.           Those      suspensions         remain      in    effect.

Attorney     Moats    has     no        previous      disciplinary           history      in

Wisconsin.
      ¶4   According to the allegations in OLR’s complaint and

the   Virginia   disciplinary       records         attached      to   the    complaint,

Attorney Moats’ misconduct in Virginia arose out of her handling

of an estate in which she was a co-executor.                           The misconduct

      1SCR 22.22 (1) states: “An attorney on whom public
discipline for misconduct or a license suspension for medical
incapacity has been imposed by another jurisdiction shall
promptly notify the director of the matter. Failure to furnish
the notice within 20 days of the effective date of the order or
judgment of the other jurisdiction constitutes misconduct.”

                                             2
                                                                        No.    2022AP1420-D

included    failing      to        provide     competent       representation         to     a

client; failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness

in representing a client; knowingly disobeying or advising a

client to disregard a standing rule of a tribunal made in the

course of a proceeding; overcharging the estate for executor

fees; failing to respond to a lawful demand for information from

the Virginia disciplinary authority; and obstructing a lawful

investigation by the disciplinary authority.

      ¶5    On   January       24,     2022,        Attorney    Moats     submitted         an

affidavit    declaring         consent         to     revocation     in       which        she

acknowledged that the material facts upon which the allegations

of misconduct levelled against her were true and that if they

were prosecuted in the disciplinary proceeding, she could not

successfully defend against them.                    Attorney Moats consented to

the revocation of her Virginia law license.                      The Virginia State

Bar    Disciplinary      Board       revoked        Attorney    Moats’        license      to

practice law on January 25, 2022.                   On June 2, 2022, the District

of    Columbia   Court        of     Appeals     disbarred       Attorney       Moats      as
discipline reciprocal to that imposed by Virginia.

      ¶6    Supreme Court Rule 22.22 (3) states as follows:

      The   supreme   court  shall   impose   the  identical
      discipline or license suspension unless one or more of
      the following is present:

      a) The procedure in the other jurisdiction was so
      lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to
      constitute a deprivation of due process.

      b) There was such an infirmity of proof establishing
      the misconduct or medical incapacity that the supreme

                                             3
                                                       No.   2022AP1420-D

    court could not accept as final the conclusion              in
    respect to the misconduct or medical incapacity.

    c) The misconduct justifies        substantially    different
    discipline in this state.
    ¶7   Attorney Moats did not respond to this court’s order

to show cause, and there is no showing that any of the defenses

found in SCR 22.22 (3) apply.       Therefore, we impose discipline

identical to that imposed by the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary

Board.

    ¶8   IT IS ORDERED that the license of Judy R. Moats to

practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of this

order.

    ¶9   IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent she has not

already done so, Judy R. Moats shall comply with the provisions

of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose license to

practice law in Wisconsin has been revoked.

                                4
                                                                        No.     2022AP1420-D

      ¶10     ANNETTE    KINGSLAND       ZIEGLER,     C.J.        (concurring).            I

concur in the court's order revoking Attorney Moats’ license to

practice law in Wisconsin.           I write separately to point out that

in Wisconsin the "revocation" of an attorney's law license is

not   truly      revocation   because      the    attorney        may     petition       for

reinstatement after a period of five years.                       See SCR 22.29(2).

I believe that when it comes to lawyer discipline, courts should

say what they mean and mean what they say.                        We should not be

creating false perceptions to both the public and to the lawyer

seeking     to    practice    law    again.           See    In     re        Disciplinary

Proceedings Against Moodie, 2020 WI 39, 391 Wis. 2d 196, 942

N.W.2d 302 (Ziegler, J., dissenting).                  And, as I stated in my

dissent to this court's order denying Rule Petition 19-10, In

the   Matter      of    Amending    Supreme      Court      Rules        Pertaining      to

Permanent Revocation of a License to Practice Law in Attorney

Disciplinary       Proceedings,      I    believe     there       may     be     rare    and

unusual cases that would warrant the permanent revocation of an
attorney's license to practice law.                    See S. Ct. Order 19-10

(issued Dec. 18, 2019) (Ziegler, J., dissenting).

      ¶11     I am authorized to state that Justices REBECCA GRASSL

BRADLEY,      BRIAN     HAGEDORN,    and       JILL   J.     KAROFSKY          join     this

concurrence.

                                           1