The Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended attorney Robert T. Malloy's license to practice law for 18 months following his no-contest plea to eight counts of professional misconduct, according to a decision issued Aug. 14, 2025.
The court reviewed the case under Supreme Court Rule 22.17(2) after Malloy voluntarily withdrew his notice of appeal from the referee's initial recommendation. Referee Hon. Jean DiMotto had originally recommended a two-year suspension, but the Wisconsin Supreme Court reduced the penalty to 18 months.
"Having carefully reviewed the record in this matter, we conclude that a suspension of 18 months is sufficient to satisfy the purposes of professional discipline," the court wrote in its per curiam opinion in *Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Robert T. Malloy*.
The case, designated No. 2023AP923-D, arose from a disciplinary proceeding initiated by the Office of Lawyer Regulation against Malloy. The specific nature of the eight professional misconduct counts was not detailed in the available portion of the court's opinion, but the referee's report included what the court described as "a substantial number of facts regarding how Attorney Malloy failed to follow various rules and directives during this proceeding."
According to the court, these procedural failures during the disciplinary process itself influenced the referee's analysis when determining the appropriate sanction level. The referee viewed Malloy's failure to comply with rules and directives as warranting a higher level of discipline, which contributed to her initial recommendation of a two-year suspension.
Under Wisconsin's disciplinary procedure, when an attorney withdraws their appeal of a referee's recommendation, the state Supreme Court automatically reviews the case pursuant to SCR 22.17(2). This rule requires the court to "adopt, reject or modify" the referee's report when no timely appeal is filed.
In addition to the license suspension, the Wisconsin Supreme Court imposed additional sanctions on Malloy. The court ordered him to pay restitution to one of his former clients, if he has not already done so. The court also required Malloy to pay the full costs of the disciplinary proceeding.
The restitution order suggests that at least one of the misconduct counts involved financial harm to a client, though the specific details of the client relationship and the nature of the required restitution were not included in the available portion of the opinion.
Attorney disciplinary proceedings in Wisconsin follow a structured process involving investigation by the Office of Lawyer Regulation, hearings before appointed referees, and ultimate review by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The system is designed to protect the public while maintaining the integrity of the legal profession.
The 18-month suspension represents a significant professional consequence for Malloy. During the suspension period, he will be prohibited from practicing law in Wisconsin. To resume practice after the suspension expires, attorneys typically must demonstrate compliance with all court orders, including payment of restitution and costs, and may be required to meet additional conditions such as continuing legal education or ethics training.
The court noted that all work on the opinion was completed on or before July 31, 2025, when Justice Ann Walsh Bradley was still a member of the court. The timing notation is significant because it establishes the composition of the court that reviewed the disciplinary matter.
Professional misconduct cases involving multiple counts often reflect patterns of behavior rather than isolated incidents. The fact that Malloy faced eight separate counts suggests the Office of Lawyer Regulation identified multiple violations of professional conduct rules, which could include issues such as client communication failures, trust account violations, conflicts of interest, or failures to provide competent representation.
The reduction from the referee's recommended two-year suspension to 18 months indicates the Wisconsin Supreme Court found mitigating factors that warranted a lesser penalty. Courts typically consider factors such as the attorney's cooperation with the disciplinary process, acknowledgment of wrongdoing, efforts at remediation, and the absence of prior disciplinary history when determining appropriate sanctions.
The case serves as a reminder of the Wisconsin legal profession's self-regulatory system and the consequences attorneys face when they fail to meet professional standards. The requirement that Malloy pay both restitution and the costs of the disciplinary proceeding reflects the dual purpose of attorney discipline: protecting clients and the public while deterring future misconduct.
For clients and members of the public, the disciplinary system provides a mechanism for addressing attorney misconduct and ensuring accountability within the legal profession. The Wisconsin Supreme Court's review of disciplinary cases helps maintain consistent standards for professional conduct across the state's legal community.