Wisconsin Attorney Suspended for Taking Client Fees

A Wisconsin lawyer who converted client fees in five matters for his personal use and had no explanation for his conduct was suspended for six months by the state’s high court.

Attorney Robert B. Moodie argued for a 60-day suspension, which the Wisconsin Supreme Court rejected, in part because Moodie offered no explanation for his acts.

“A shrug of the shoulders is not a defense,” the court said. “If anything, Attorney Moodie’s inability to explain his behavior weighs in favor of a six-month suspension, which will require him to successfully complete the formal reinstatement process in order to regain his Wisconsin law license,” the court wrote on April 22.

The Waukesha, Wisconsin attorney’s actions were discovered in 2016 when he had to be hospitalized for a “serious health event,” the court said.

During this time, his law firm took over his client files, and found out that he had taken $8,665 in fees, it said.

Moodie would have been entitled to 55-60 percent of the money under the terms of the firm’s compensation system, the court explained.

The lawyer stipulated that his actions violated a professional conduct rule prohibiting dishonesty and that he also breached his fiduciary duty to his firm as well as his his duty of honesty in his professional dealings with the firm, it said.

But at his sanctions hearing Moodie couldn’t explain his actions, saying they were “just wrong and dumb,” the court noted.

Mitigating factors included that Moodie had been a member of his law firm for over 30 years without any past disciplinary issues, it said. The amount of the misappropriation was “relatively small,” and he repaid it. Furthermore, he admitted his misconduct, was cooperative, and expressed sincere remorse, the court said.

But the conduct occurred over an 18-month period without any obvious motive, it said.

To have no idea why he did do so “cuts against an argument of mitigation,” the court said.

“When it comes to evaluating the discipline owed for a lawyer’s misconduct, the ‘why’ is often as important as the ‘what’ and the ‘how,’” it said.

The case is Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Moodie (In re Moodie), 2020 BL 149042, Wis., No. 2018AP1781-D, 4/22/20.