Abby D. Padlock v. Board of Bar Examiners, 2021 WI 69

Background

Abby D. Padlock transported marijuana from Oregon to Wisconsin; law enforcement found ~114 pounds in her vehicle. She was arrested in Minnesota, initially charged with two felonies, later prosecuted under a deferred prosecution agreement, pled to a reduced misdemeanor, received a stay of adjudication, 3 days jail, $1,000 fine, and two years’ probation; charges were dismissed after successful completion of probation.
While still on probation she applied to the University of Wisconsin Law School; her application stated a stay of adjudication and ultimate dismissal but omitted material details (amount of marijuana, initial felony charges, $30,000 civil forfeiture, jail, probation) and inaccurately implied the matter had been resolved when it had not.
A law‑school background check revealed fuller details; the school revoked a student employment offer but ultimately did not discipline her; professors later testified Padlock had been forthcoming during law school.
Padlock applied for Wisconsin bar admission under diploma privilege; her bar application again minimized the 2015 incident. The Board of Bar Examiners investigated, held a hearing, and concluded she intentionally minimized and concealed material facts, lacked candor, and had not shown sufficient rehabilitation.
The Board declined certification of her character and fitness. Padlock sought Supreme Court review under SCR 40.08(7). The Board properly declined conditional admission under SCR 40.075.
The Supreme Court reversed the Board, finding the record shows significant rehabilitative activity and that the application shortcomings did not warrant denial; it ordered certification and enrollment without conditions. Chief Justice Ziegler (joined by two justices) dissented.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Padlock met SCR 40.06(1) good moral character and fitness given her application omissions	Omissions were inadvertent or reflect a lay misunderstanding; she was open about the incident in law school and the school accepted her	Omissions were intentional minimization and concealment of serious misconduct (114 lbs, felony charges, prior delivery), showing dishonesty	Court reversed: omissions, considered with record, did not preclude admission; Padlock met burden when rehabilitation and other evidence considered
Whether Board's finding that Padlock lacked evidence of rehabilitation was clearly erroneous	Pointed to substantial post‑incident rehabilitation: LAIP work, asylum project in Dilley, Kenya camps, veterans assistance, nonprofit board service, entrepreneurship	Board found a notable lack of significant rehabilitative efforts to offset misdeeds	Court held Board's finding on lack of rehabilitation was clearly erroneous and credited the rehabilitation evidence
Weight to give Board credibility determinations (did her testimony and late disclosure of a prior delivery require denial?)	Her admission of an earlier undiscovered delivery at hearing showed candor; professors corroborated her openness	The late disclosure fatally undermined credibility and demonstrated a pattern of withholding material facts	Court afforded some deference to credibility findings but concluded disbelief alone did not mandate denial; overall record favored admission
Appropriateness of conditional admission or imposition of post‑admission conditions	Sought admission (or conditional admission) given remediation and record	Board properly declined conditional admission under SCR 40.075 because concerns were not of the type suited to conditional admission	Court admitted Padlock without conditions and imposed none; agreed Board properly declined SCR 40.075 conditional route

Key Cases Cited

In re Bar Admission of Rippl, 250 Wis. 2d 519, 639 N.W.2d 553 (Wis. 2002) (this court retains supervisory authority over bar admissions)
In re Bar Admission of Vanderperren, 261 Wis. 2d 150, 661 N.W.2d 27 (Wis. 2003) (post‑incident rehabilitation can mitigate earlier non‑forthrightness)
In re Bar Admission of Jarrett, 368 Wis. 2d 567, 879 N.W.2d 116 (Wis. 2016) (distinguishing full candor from other omissions; conditional admission discussion)
In re Bar Admission of Gaylord, 155 Wis. 2d 816, 456 N.W.2d 590 (Wis. 1990) (denial based on inaccuracies and omissions in application rather than underlying conduct)
In re Bar Admission of Anderson, 290 Wis. 2d 722, 715 N.W.2d 586 (Wis. 2006) (post‑conduct evidence of good behavior supports admission)
In re Bar Admission of Crowe, 141 Wis. 2d 230, 414 N.W.2d 41 (Wis. 1987) (candor and conduct relevant to fitness)
In re Bar Admission of Rusch, 171 Wis. 2d 523, 492 N.W.2d 153 (Wis. 1992) (standard for challenging Board factual findings)