Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Judy R. Moats
This text of 2023 WI 15 (Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Judy R. Moats) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2023 WI 15, 986 N.W.2d 304, 406 Wis. 2d 31, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-lawyer-regulation-v-judy-r-moats-wis-2023.