THE ETHICS REPORTER

January 19, 2026

Multiple Disbarments for Attorney Stacey Dawn Wilson

Multiple Disbarments for Attorney Stacey Dawn Wilson

Maintaining the “sacred trust” of client funds is the most fundamental requirement of the legal profession. For Stacey Dawn Wilson (formerly of Orlando, Florida), a series of investigations into financial mismanagement and procedural abuse led to her permanent removal from the bar in multiple states and federal courts.

Effective July 1, 2025, the Supreme Court of New Jersey issued an order of disbarment, following years of similar actions in Florida and within the federal court system.

The Core Misconduct: Misappropriation and Systematic Abuse

The disciplinary case against Stacey Dawn Wilson (NJ Case No. 090583) revealed a troubling pattern of behavior that spanned nearly a decade. The findings focused on two primary areas of misconduct:

1. Knowing Misappropriation of Client Funds

Investigations by the Florida Bar and later the New Jersey Office of Attorney Ethics (OAE) found that Wilson failed to safeguard funds entrusted to her for medical liens and client settlements.

  • The Hodges Case: After a $100,000 settlement, Wilson failed to pay a significant lien to a Florida law firm.

  • The Assing Case: Wilson issued a check to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for a client’s medical bills but stopped payment on it. She then used those funds for personal expenses, including a vacation and payroll, leaving her trust account with a balance of just $0.30.

2. Abuse of the Bankruptcy System

Wilson was found to have filed at least 38 deficient bankruptcy petitions in the Middle District of Florida. These filings were often used as a tactic to delay foreclosures through the “automatic stay” without the intention of actually completing the bankruptcy process.

  • Outcome: The U.S. Bankruptcy Court permanently barred her from practice in March 2020, citing her “abuse of the bankruptcy system.”

 A National Disciplinary Timeline

Wilson’s removal from the legal profession occurred in waves across several jurisdictions:

  • April 2020 (Florida): The Supreme Court of Florida imposed a “Disciplinary Revocation,” which is the equivalent of disbarment, following an audit of her trust accounts.

  • October 2020 (Federal/Immigration): The U.S. Department of Justice disbarred her from practicing before the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and all Immigration Courts.

  • November 2023 (New Jersey): Wilson was temporarily suspended for failing to cooperate with ethics investigators.

  • July 2025 (New Jersey): The New Jersey Supreme Court finalized her disbarment, striking her name from the roll of attorneys permanently.

 Financial Restitution and Asset Freeze

In its July 2025 order, the New Jersey Supreme Court took significant steps to protect potential victims:

  • Asset Restraint: All funds in New Jersey financial institutions maintained by Stacey Dawn Wilson were restrained and ordered to be transferred to the Clerk of the Superior Court.

  • Compliance: Wilson was ordered to comply with Rule 1:20-20, which governs the conduct of disbarred attorneys, including the notification of all former clients.

 Conclusion: The High Cost of Ethical Failure

The case of Stacey Dawn Wilson illustrates the “domino effect” of professional discipline. When an attorney is found to have misappropriated funds in one state, reciprocal discipline typically ensures they cannot move their practice to another. For the families and victims she represented in personal injury and immigration matters, these rulings provide a final, necessary boundary to prevent further professional harm.

Independent Journalism Needs You

You just read something most publications won't touch. We investigate judges who shouldn't be on the bench, attorneys who prey on clients, and a legal system that too often protects itself instead of the public. We do it openly, aggressively, and without apology.

We don't have a paywall. We don't take money from law firms, bar associations, or corporate advertisers who might prefer we stay quiet. Every piece of reporting on this site — every judge exposed, every disbarment documented, every reversal analyzed — was made possible entirely by readers like you.

If you read us regularly — if this work has ever made you angry, informed you, or helped you — we humbly ask you to support us today. It takes less than a minute. Even $1 goes directly toward keeping this reporting alive. Without it, we cannot continue.

Reader Supported

This journalism is free because readers like you make it possible.

We don't have corporate advertisers. We don't take money from law firms. Every investigation you read here is funded entirely by readers. Even $1 keeps us going.

Join 47 readers who donated this month

47% toward our monthly goal of 100 supporters

Secure checkout via Stripe. Cancel your monthly gift anytime.

The Ethics Reporter is independent and reader-funded. We have no corporate backers. Your support is everything.

← Back to all articles