Admission Granted To Applicant Whose Candor Was Questioned

In a per curiam 4-3 decision, the Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed and remanded an adverse decision of its Board of Bar Examiners and granted an application for bar admission.

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 felony drug charges, which were later dismissed pursuant to a deferred prosecution agreement.

…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.

The conduct

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.

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 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.

In the criminal matter

She received a stay of adjudication, was sentenced to three days in jail, fined $1,000, and placed on probation for two years. 

She applied to the University of Wisconsin Law School while on probation and in response to a question regarding her criminal history

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.

The question

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 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.

While in law school, she openly discussed the circumstances far more fulsomely to faculty and other students and an investigation ensued after a background check

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.”

…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.

In seeking admission by diploma privilege

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.

On review of the board’s adverse decision

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 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 these undisputed facts of record we conclude there is significant evidence of rehabilitation and we deem Finding 26 clear error.

As to the adverse candor finding

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.

Nonetheless

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.

That reference is to her disclosure of an earlier, successful marijuana run.

 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…

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).

Justice Ziegler dissented joined by two colleagues, noting that the spare bar disclosures came after the law school’s warning

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.

Justices Roggensack and Hagedorn joined the dissent. (Mike Frisch)