|
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding.
Reinstatement granted with conditions.
¶1 PER CURIAM. We review a report filed
by Referee James C. Boll recommending that the
court reinstate the license of David V. Moss
to practice law in Wisconsin. Upon careful
review of the matter, we agree that Attorney
Moss's license should be reinstated, with the
conditions described herein. We further agree
with the referee that Attorney Moss should be
required to pay the full costs of the
reinstatement proceeding, which are $3,321.79
as of May 22, 2017.
|
|
¶2 Attorney Moss was admitted to
practice law in Wisconsin in 2009 and
practiced in Galesville. Attorney Moss
currently lives in the state of Washington.
In 2014, Attorney Moss's license to practice
law in Wisconsin was suspended for a period
of two years for 35 counts of misconduct,
which involved eight separate client
matters. In re Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Moss, 2014 WI 95, 357 Wis. 2d 324,
850 N.W.2d 934. Attorney Moss's misconduct
included repeatedly taking fees from clients
and failing to perform the work for which he
was hired; failing to communicate with
clients regarding the status of their
matters; and failing to return fees and
client files upon request. Attorney Moss
was later reciprocally disciplined by the
United States Patent and Trademark Office.
¶3 In July 2016, Attorney Moss filed a
petition seeking the reinstatement of his
Wisconsin law license. In January 2017, the
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a
response stating it did not oppose the
reinstatement petition. A public hearing
was held on April 3, 2017. Attorney Moss
called three witnesses at the hearing, two
attorneys in Washington state and a longtime
friend. All three testified they would
refer clients to Attorney Moss and believe
he would be a good lawyer. One former
client of Attorney Moss testified at the
hearing that he did not believe Attorney
Moss should be reinstated to practice law.
However, the former client said he had not
spoken with or observed Attorney Moss for
over three years.
¶4 On May 2, 2017, the referee issued
his report and recommendation recommending
that Attorney Moss's Wisconsin law license
be reinstated. The referee commented that
during the reinstatement hearing, Attorney
Moss testified with sincerity regarding his
previous disciplinary issues, took
responsibility for his actions, and
apologized on the record to his clients.
The referee noted that Attorney Moss
testified he had been diagnosed with a bi-
polar disorder in March of 2014 and that he
controls this condition under the
supervision of a doctor with prescribed
medication and regular sessions with a
counselor. The referee said that while he
understands the frustration of the former
client who opposed Attorney Moss's
reinstatement, all available evidence in the
record indicates that Attorney Moss has
changed from the individual the former
client encountered and the record
demonstrates that Attorney Moss, with the
help of medication and under a doctor's
supervision, now has the moral character to
practice law.
|
|
¶5 The referee concluded that Attorney
Moss satisfied the burden of proof and
requirements for reinstatement set forth in
Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.31. The referee
recommends that Attorney Moss's Wisconsin
law license be reinstated with the following
conditions:
1) Attorney Moss continue in
counseling with a therapist who treats bi-
polar conditions.
2) Attorney Moss continue in
treatment with a physician who prescribes
medication for bi-polar conditions.
3) Attorney Moss cooperate by
taking the medication prescribed for his bi-
polar condition.
4) Attorney Moss not consume
any illegal drugs.
5) For a period of two (2)
years following reinstatement, Attorney Moss
provide the OLR with quarterly written
reports from his therapist and his
prescribing physician that he is cooperating
with therapy and with taking the prescribed
mediation for his bi-polar condition.
¶6 The referee also recommends that
Attorney Moss pay the full costs of the
reinstatement proceeding. No appeal has
been filed from the referee's report and
recommendation.
|
|
¶7 Supreme Court Rule 22.31(1) provides
the standards to be met for reinstatement.
The petitioner must show by clear,
satisfactory, and convincing evidence that
he or she has the moral character to
practice law, that his or her resumption of
the practice of law will not be detrimental
to the administration of justice or
subversive to the public interest, and that
he or she has complied with SCR 22.26 and
the terms of the order of suspension. 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.
|
|
¶8 When we review a referee's report
and recommendation, we will adopt the
referee's findings of fact unless they are
clearly erroneous. Conclusions of law are
reviewed de novo. See In re
Disciplinary Proceedings Against
Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43,
675 N.W.2d 747. We concluded that the
referee's findings support a determination
that Attorney Moss has met his burden to
establish by clear, satisfactory, and
convincing evidence that he has met all of
the standards required for reinstatement.
¶9 The referee found that during the
period of his suspension, Attorney Moss has
not practiced law in Wisconsin or any other
jurisdiction. The referee noted that
Attorney Moss's suspension required him to
make restitution and to pay the costs of the
disciplinary proceeding and he has satisfied
those conditions. The referee found that
Attorney Moss has maintained competence and
learning in the law by attending identified
educational activities. The referee
specifically found that Attorney Moss's
conduct since the suspension has been
exemplary and above reproach. The referee
noted that during his suspension, Attorney
Moss has pursued a certification as a
certified professional horticulturist and
has also spent time assisting a friend
growing vegetables for a local food bank.
The referee found that Attorney Moss has a
proper understanding of and attitude toward
the standards that are imposed upon members
of the bar and will act in conformity with
those standards.
¶10 The referee noted that Attorney Moss
has represented that if his license to
practice law is reinstated, he would
potentially seek employment in Seattle,
Washington to practice immigration law. One
of the attorneys who testified on Attorney
Moss's behalf at the reinstatement hearing
said he would offer Attorney Moss such
employment. In addition, the referee noted
that Attorney Moss testified he may return
to Wisconsin to practice law in Green Bay in
the areas of water law, permitting, land
use, immigration, and criminal law.
¶11 This court agrees with the referee
that Attorney Moss has met his burden of
proof with respect to all elements needed to
justify his reinstatement. We further agree
that it is appropriate to impose the
conditions on Attorney Moss's practice of
law recommended by the referee. Finally, we
agree with the referee's recommendation that
Attorney Moss should pay the full costs of
the proceeding.
¶12 IT IS ORDERED that the license of
David V. Moss to practice law in Wisconsin
is reinstated effective the date of this
order.
¶13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as a
condition of the reinstatement of his
license to practice law in Wisconsin, David
V. Moss shall, until further order of the
court, comply with the following conditions:
1) Attorney Moss continue in
counseling with a therapist who treats bi-
polar conditions.
2) Attorney Moss continue in
treatment with a physician who prescribes
medication for bi-polar conditions.
3) Attorney Moss cooperate by
taking the medication prescribed for his bi-
polar condition.
4) Attorney Moss not consume
any illegal drugs.
5) For a period of two (2)
years following reinstatement, Attorney Moss
provide the Office of Lawyer Regulation with
quarterly written reports from his therapist
and his prescribing physician that he is
cooperating with therapy and with taking the
prescribed mediation for his bi-polar
condition.
¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60
days of the date of this order, David V.
Moss shall pay to the Office of Lawyer
Regulation the costs of this proceeding,
which are $3,321.79 as of May 22, 2017.
¶15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that
compliance with all of the terms of this
order remains a condition of David V. Moss's
license to practice law in Wisconsin.
|