Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Isaacson , 361 Wis. 2d 479 ( 2015 )

2015 WI 33
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2014AP495-D
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against
Naomi Dawn Isaacson, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Complainant,
v.
Naomi Dawn Isaacson,
Respondent.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ISAACSON
OPINION FILED: March 20, 2015
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
CONCURRED:
DISSENTED:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS:
2015 WI 33
NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2014AP495-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Naomi Dawn Isaacson, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED
Complainant,
MAR 20, 2015
v.
Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Supreme Court
Naomi Dawn Isaacson,
Respondent.
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license
suspended.
¶1 PER CURIAM. We review a report filed by referee
James G. Curtis, recommending that this court suspend the
Wisconsin law license of Attorney Naomi Dawn Isaacson for one
year for professional misconduct consisting of engaging in a
pattern of bad faith litigation, including making false and
harassing statements toward judges and others involved in
litigation, and then failing to cooperate with the Office of
Lawyer Regulation (OLR). The referee further recommended that
No. 2014AP495-D
Attorney Isaacson pay the full costs of this proceeding, which
are $6,634.96 as of December 23, 2014.
¶2 No appeal has been filed, so we review this matter
pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.17(2).1 We adopt the
referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law and agree that
a one-year suspension is sufficient discipline for Attorney
Isaacson's misconduct. We further agree that Attorney Isaacson
should pay the full costs of this disciplinary proceeding.2
¶3 Attorney Isaacson was admitted to the practice of law
in Minnesota in May 1999. She was admitted to the practice of
law in Wisconsin in September 2000. Her Wisconsin law license
has been suspended since May 2011 for noncooperation with the
OLR's investigation. She was also suspended for nonpayment of
Wisconsin State Bar dues and failure to provide trust account
certification, effective October 2012, and for failure to comply
with mandatory continuing legal education requirements,
effective June 2014. Her license remains suspended.
1
SCR 22.17(2) states:
If no appeal is filed timely, the supreme court
shall review the referee's report; adopt, reject or
modify the referee's findings and conclusions or
remand the matter to the referee for additional
findings; and determine and impose appropriate
discipline. The court, on its own motion, may order
the parties to file briefs in the matter.
2
The referee explicitly noted that the fact that he
recommended dismissal of Count Three has no relevance on the
costs issue. We agree.
2
No. 2014AP495-D
¶4 On March 5, 2014, the OLR filed a complaint against
Attorney Isaacson alleging four counts of professional
misconduct. James Curtis was appointed referee. Attorney
Isaacson never filed an answer and did not appear in the action.
The OLR filed a motion for default judgment on August 6, 2014.
The record reflects that, despite multiple and extensive efforts
to provide Attorney Isaacson with notice of the default hearing,
all efforts to contact Attorney Isaacson were unsuccessful.
¶5 The referee found that Attorney Isaacson was properly
served with an authenticated copy of the complaint and order to
answer pursuant to the provisions of SCR 22.13(1), ruled that
all of the allegations of the complaint were deemed established
to the standard of clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence,
and granted the OLR's motion for default judgment on October 20,
2014.3 On November 24, 2014, the referee filed a report and
recommendation addressing sanctions.
3
The referee noted the need for one clarification of the
OLR's complaint, as outlined in his report and recommendation.
The complaint alleged that on January 3, 2012, a Minnesota
bankruptcy judge issued a bench warrant for Attorney Isaacson's
arrest and alleged, further, that a warrant, on information and
belief, remains active. The OLR later advised the referee that
the bankruptcy case was concluded without further involvement by
Attorney Isaacson and, in closing the case, the presiding judge
quashed the warrant over the objection of the bankruptcy trustee
and the U.S. Trustee's Office.
3
No. 2014AP495-D
¶6 The disciplinary complaint alleges violations of both
the Wisconsin Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys and
the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC).4
¶7 First, we note that Attorney Isaacson is not alleged
to have acted as an attorney in this disciplinary proceeding.
Rather, she is a licensed Wisconsin attorney who engaged in
misconduct while serving in the capacity as an officer or
managing member of a corporate entity and its subsidiaries.
Specifically, Attorney Isaacson was the Chief Executive Officer
of Dr. R. C. Samanta Roy Institute of Science and Technology,
Inc., known as "SIST," together with its wholly owned
subsidiaries and limited liability companies.5 The complaint
identifies several somewhat interrelated litigation proceedings
4
SCR 20:8.5 contains a choice of law provision that governs
when the court applies the rules of professional conduct of
another jurisdiction in attorney discipline matters. For
conduct in connection with a matter pending before a tribunal,
the rules of the jurisdiction in which the tribunal sits are
applied. SCR 20:8.5(b)(1). The misconduct alleged herein
occurred in connection with matters pending before tribunals in
both Minnesota and Wisconsin, so the rules of both jurisdictions
apply.
5
These entities include: U.S. Acquisitions & Oil, Inc.
("USAO"); Midwest Oil of Wisconsin, LLC; Midwest Oil of Shawano,
LLC; Midwest Oil of Minnesota, LLC; and Midwest Properties of
Shawano, LLC. Attorney Isaacson has described her roles as
"President" of USAO and "Managing Member" of the subsidiary LLCs
and others, including Midwest Amusement Park, LLC and Midwest
Oil of Anoka, LLC. She has also identified herself as the
President of Yehud-Monosson USA, Inc. Attorney Rebekah Mariya
Nett acted as counsel of record for SIST and its subsidiaries in
various litigation cases in which Attorney Isaacson was a
corporate representative.
4
No. 2014AP495-D
in which Attorney Isaacson participated. She prepared and
signed affidavits, declarations, or responses in these matters
which were filed on her behalf. The core of the complaint is
that Attorney Isaacson's statements in these documents had no
apparent purpose other than to harass judicial officers, public
officials, opposing counsel, and others based on race, creed,
and religion.
¶8 As the referee observed, it is difficult to summarize
the verbose and grandiose allegations leveled by Attorney
Isaacson against the courts generally, specific judges, other
counsel, appointed officers, and third parties. The OLR's
complaint contains over 70 paragraphs providing detailed context
for and quoting from specific sworn and verified statements she
made in court filings. A few examples must suffice to convey
the nature of Attorney Isaacson's statements.
¶9 Some of the entities with which Attorney Isaacson is
affiliated were involved in a public amusement go—cart track
business in Shawano, Wisconsin. In the mid—2000s, creditors of
the go—cart track business alleged default and brought claims
against various corporate entities. In 2009, USAO and SIST
filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. The cases
were administered together with the simultaneous bankruptcy
filings of five other wholly owned subsidiaries of SIST. On
September 22, 2009, these bankruptcy proceedings were dismissed.
¶10 On May 28, 2010, one of the aforementioned creditors,
Southwest Guaranty, Ltd., successfully moved to reopen
5
No. 2014AP495-D
proceedings in Shawano County, Wisconsin. On July 13, 2010,
Midwest Properties of Shawano, LLC filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy. In re Midwest Properties of Shawano, LLC, Case
No. 10-31515 (Bankr. E.D. Wis.).
¶11 On July 16, 2010, Attorney Isaacson drafted and signed
a sworn affidavit filed in the Midwest Properties bankruptcy
case. Attorney Isaacson's affidavit stated, inter alia, that
the Shawano Mayor "has wrapped her tentacles around the
judiciary system including Shawano Municipal judges, Shawano
County judges, Wisconsin Appellate Court judges, the Federal
District Court judge in Green Bay, Seventh Circuit Appellate
Court judges, and even [the U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge in
Delaware]."
¶12 On August 15, 2010, Attorney Isaacson personally
prepared and signed a declaration that was filed in Southwest
Guaranty, Ltd. v. U.S. Acquisitions & Oil, Inc., et al., Case
No. 10-CV-596 (E.D. Wis.). In that declaration, she stated that
"Shawano is Neo-Nazi territory where it is believed people of
other races and religions have no right to life," and referred
to the "underlying White Supremacist feelings and beliefs and
Jim Crow mentality held by many persons in Shawano." She
declared that the "[d]efendant's experience of 'justice' in
Shawano is comparable to the 'justice' Jews experienced under
Hitler's regime."
¶13 On October 12, 2010, in a written order and decision,
the U.S. District Court remanded the USAO case to the Shawano
County Circuit Court and agreed to impose sanctions for what the
6
No. 2014AP495-D
court described as "a number of inflammatory and irrelevant
allegations regarding Southwest Guaranty, their counsel, and
various members of the Shawano community." The court observed
that "inexplicably" the matter "includes a number of detailed,
serious, and bizarre allegations in the footnotes about certain
members of the Shawano community, including judges, city
officials, and the mayor of Shawano." The court observed that
"[t]he objectionable allegations are so fantastic and delusional
that no reasonable attorney would certify that they have
evidentiary support."
¶14 Attorney Isaacson was also involved with bankruptcy
proceedings pending in Minnesota and similar documents were
filed in those proceedings. On August 17, 2010, Attorney
Isaacson signed a declaration filed in In re Midwest Oil of
Minnesota, LLC, Case No. 10—35450 (Bankr. D. Minn.), in which
she stated that "[the Shawano Mayor] is involved in sending her
cultic missionaries to other lands to destroy the family values,
heritages, and cultures that have preserved peoples of other
civilizations for thousands of years" and declared that the
mayor "is a member of the most dangerous, dirtiest, and
deadliest death cult in human history and is a descendent of
Martin Luther and Hitler who started and propagated the Lutheran
cult." Attorney Isaacson also referred to the bankruptcy
trustee as "a visceral racist," an "ignoramus," and "a member of
this most dangerous, dirtiest, and deadliest death cult in human
history as well."
7
No. 2014AP495-D
¶15 On August 18, 2010, at a hearing on the trustee's
motion to dismiss the Midwest Oil case, the presiding bankruptcy
judge commented on the pleadings, which included an Attorney
Isaacson document, "which in my time on the bench are among the
worst and most scurrlious [sic], defamatory pleadings I have
ever seen from a lawyer."
¶16 On March 23, 2011, Yehud—Monosson USA, Inc. filed for
Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of New York, Case No. 11-11278. On April 12,
2011, Attorney Isaacson drafted and signed a sworn affidavit in
which she averred that "[t]rying a matter in Minnesota is like
sending the Jews back to Germany during the Holocaust."
¶17 On April 13, 2011, over the debtor's objections, the
Yehud-Monosson bankruptcy was transferred from New York to
Minnesota and converted to a Chapter 7 proceeding. On
October 19, 2011, Attorney Isaacson signed a sworn affidavit
that was filed with the court in which she stated that the
bankruptcy trustee was making false, defamatory, scandalous, and
misleading statements to the court. Eventually, contempt
proceedings were brought against Attorney Isaacson, and on
November 10, 2011, Attorney Isaacson swore to and signed an
affidavit in which she claimed that the trustee "lied to the
court" and "persisted in her perjurious conduct," and stated
that "[o]bviously, like her dirty bible, [the trustee] is full
of lies and deceit."
¶18 Attorney Isaacson made reference to trustees,
variously, as a "dirty Catholic inquisitor," a "Jesuitess," and
8
No. 2014AP495-D
a "priest's boy," and referred to various judges as a "black-
robed bigot," a "Jesuit judge," and a "Catholic Knight Witch
Hunter." She stated that court systems, "particularly the
Bankruptcy Court in Minnesota, are composed of a bunch of
ignoramus, bigoted Catholic beasts that carry the sword of the
church."
¶19 At an ensuing hearing on November 29, 2011, the
presiding judge described Attorney Isaacson's language as
"irresponsible, unprofessional and unbelievably and
unmitigatingly outrageous".
¶20 Attorney Isaacson responded with a second declaration
in which she repeated similar rhetoric and referred to the
Chapter 7 trustee as the court's "Inquisitor." Then, on
December 30, 2011, Attorney Isaacson signed a 17—page "response"
in which she expressly asserted that all her statements as
quoted by the court were true and accurate and not made for any
improper purpose. She referred to the first bankruptcy judge to
hear the case in Minnesota as "an avowed Jesuit," "the dirty
Jesuit," a "dastardly Jesuit," and "a Jesuit working
undercover." Attorney Isaacson's "response" also included
statements such as "out of personal malice, [the court] has
issued this Order to Show Cause and warrant for my arrest," and
"[s]ince the unfortunate day that [the trustee] was appointed,
she has been a Jesuitess, meaning a zealous advocate of her
bigoted catholic White Supremacy beliefs."
¶21 Eventually, Attorney Isaacson was held in contempt for
failing to comply with the orders to turn over documents and
9
No. 2014AP495-D
information and for her failures to appear on before the court.
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court issued an order for sanctions against
Attorney Isaacson "for each of the sanctionable statements
identified in the court's order to show cause." Attorney
Isaacson appealed and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals
affirmed. Isaacson v. Manty, 721 F.3d 533 (8th Cir. 2013).
¶22 The referee concluded, as to Count One, that the
undisputed allegations of the complaint establish clear,
satisfactory, and convincing evidence that:
By making unfounded, scurrilous, vilifying
statements and religious slurs directed against the
courts generally, and against specific judges, other
counsel, appointed officers and third parties, in a
series of 12 documents she signed or created during
July and August 2010, April 2011, and between October
and December 2011, and which were filed in cases
before various federal courts in Wisconsin, Minnesota
and New York, [Attorney] Isaacson violated
6 7
SCR 20:8.2(a), SCR 20:8.4(g), SCR 40.158 and
6
SCR 20:8.2(a) provides that "[a] lawyer shall not make a
statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless
disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the
qualifications or integrity of a judge, adjudicatory officer or
public legal officer, or of a candidate for election or
appointment to judicial or legal office."
7
SCR 20:8.4(g) provides that it is professional misconduct
for a lawyer to "violate the attorney's oath."
8
SCR 40.15 is the Attorney's Oath, and provides, in
pertinent part: "I will maintain the respect due to courts of
justice and judicial officers."
10
No. 2014AP495-D
SCR 20:8.4(i),9 and [MRPC] Rule 3.1,10 Rule 4.4(a),11
Rule 8.2(a),12 Rule 8.4(d)13 and Rule 8.4(g).14
9
SCR 20:8.4(i) provides that it is professional misconduct
for a lawyer to "harass a person on the basis of sex, race, age,
creed, religion, color, national origin, disability, sexual
preference or marital status in connection with the lawyer's
professional activities. Legitimate advocacy respecting the
foregoing factors does not violate par. (i)."
10
MRPC Rule 3.1 provides:
A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding,
or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there
is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not
frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an
extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.
A lawyer for a defendant in a criminal proceeding, or
the respondent in a proceeding that could result in
incarceration, may nevertheless so defend the
proceeding as to require that every element of the
case be established.
11
MRPC Rule 4.4(a) provides that "[i]n representing a
client, a lawyer shall not use means that have no substantial
purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third
person, or use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the
legal rights of such a person."
12
MRPC Rule 8.2(a) provides that "[a] lawyer shall not make
a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless
disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the
qualifications or integrity of a judge, adjudicatory officer, or
public legal officer, or of a candidate for election or
appointment to judicial or legal office."
13
MRPC Rule 8.4(d) provides that it is professional
misconduct for a lawyer to "engage in conduct that is
prejudicial to the administration of justice."
14
MRPC Rule 8.4(g) provides that it is professional
misconduct for a lawyer to "harass a person on the basis of sex,
race, age, creed, religion, color, national origin, disability,
sexual orientation, or marital status in connection with a
lawyer’s professional activities."
11
No. 2014AP495-D
¶23 The referee further concluded, as to Count Two, that
"[b]y inserting offensive language that violated the Minnesota
Rules of Professional Conduct into a draft memorandum supporting
a motion, and directing another counsel to file the altered
pleading with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court (D. Minn.) on November
25, 2011, [Attorney] Isaacson violated MRPC Rule 20:8.4(a)."15
¶24 The referee recommended that the court dismiss Count
Three of the OLR's complaint. The OLR alleged that Attorney
Isaacson had stated in three affidavits or declarations, filed
in the U.S. District Court, Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin, and the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Minnesota, that a Shawano County circuit court judge
had appointed a receiver in an ex parte hearing while knowingly
failing to disclose that she had previously signed loan papers
that expressly consented to the appointment of a receiver
without any notice. The OLR asserted that this conduct violated
SCR 20:3.3(a)(1),16 SCR 20:8.4(c),17 MRPC Rule 3.3(a)(1),18 and
MRPC Rule 8.4(c).19
15
MRPC Rule 8.4(a) provides that it is professional
misconduct for a lawyer to "violate or attempt to violate the
Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce
another to do so, or do so through the acts of another."
16
SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) provides that a lawyer shall not
knowingly "make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal
or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law
previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer."
17
SCR 20:8.4(c) provides that it is professional misconduct
for a lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
deceit or misrepresentation."
12
No. 2014AP495-D
¶25 The referee concluded that the allegations of the
complaint, alone, were insufficient to establish that Attorney
Isaacson knowingly failed to disclose that she had expressly
consented to the appointment of a receiver without notice. The
referee therefore recommended dismissal of Count Three. The OLR
has not appealed this recommendation. We accept the
recommendation and dismiss Count Three.
¶26 Finally, the OLR alleged in Count Four of the
complaint that Attorney Isaacson failed to cooperate with the
OLR's investigation into this matter. The referee concluded
that:
By failing to timely respond to OLR's initial
investigative inquiry, by belatedly providing a reply
that did not fully and fairly respond to OLR's
questions and failed to include supporting evidence as
requested, and by subsequently submitting
approximately 3,000 photos and 4,000 pages of
newspaper clippings and miscellaneous documents having
no discernible substantial relevance to OLR's
inquiries, [Attorney] Isaacson violated SCR 22.03(2)20
18
MRPC Rule 3.3(a)(1) provides that a lawyer shall not
knowingly "make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal,
or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law
previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer."
19
MRPC Rule 8.4(c) provides that it is professional
misconduct for a lawyer to "engage in conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation."
20
SCR 22.03(2) provides:
Upon commencing an investigation, the director
shall notify the respondent of the matter being
investigated unless in the opinion of the director the
investigation of the matter requires otherwise. The
respondent shall fully and fairly disclose all facts
(continued)
13
No. 2014AP495-D
and SCR 22.03(6),21 which are enforced via
SCR 20:8.4(h).22
¶27 The record supports the referee's findings of fact and
conclusions of law. They are unchallenged and this court adopts
them.
¶28 With respect to the discipline to be imposed, we
determine the appropriate level of discipline given the
particular facts of each case, independent of the referee's
recommendation, but benefitting from it. See In re Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45,
660 N.W.2d 686.
¶29 The OLR sought revocation of Attorney Isaacson's
license to practice law in Wisconsin. The referee recommends
and circumstances pertaining to the alleged misconduct
within 20 days after being served by ordinary mail a
request for a written response. The director may
allow additional time to respond. Following receipt
of the response, the director may conduct further
investigation and may compel the respondent to answer
questions, furnish documents, and present any
information deemed relevant to the investigation.
21
SCR 22.03(6) provides that "[i]n the course of the
investigation, the respondent's wilful failure to provide
relevant information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish
documents and the respondent's misrepresentation in a disclosure
are misconduct, regardless of the merits of the matters asserted
in the grievance."
22
SCR 20:8.4(h) provides that it is professional misconduct
for a lawyer to "fail to cooperate in the investigation of a
grievance filed with the office of lawyer regulation as required
by SCR 21.15(4), SCR 22.001(9)(b), SCR 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6),
or SCR 22.04(1)."
14
No. 2014AP495-D
that this court suspend Attorney Isaacson for one year. The OLR
has not appealed that recommendation.
¶30 The referee was mindful that Attorney Isaacson's
misconduct certainly displays aggravating circumstances. She
engaged in a pattern of intentional misconduct in multiple
tribunals over a period of at least 17 months. Continuing the
offensive conduct after being sanctioned by the courts shows a
lack of remorse. Indeed, the referee observed that Attorney
Isaacson's "conduct displayed an utter disregard and disrespect
for the integrity of the courts and their judges in a brazen and
outrageous fashion."
¶31 The referee was strongly influenced, however, by an
opinion of the Minnesota Supreme Court in In re Disciplinary
Action Against Nett, 839 N.W.2d 716 (Minn. 2013). Attorney Nett
was counsel of record for SIST and its related entities in a
number of the same cases involving Attorney Isaacson. She was
licensed to practice law in both Minnesota and Wisconsin.23 The
Minnesota court imposed discipline for conduct that was
substantially similar to Attorney Isaacson's conduct, namely,
engaging in a pattern of bad faith litigation, including making
false and harassing statements towards judges and others
involved in the litigation. The Minnesota Supreme Court
ultimately determined that Attorney Nett's misconduct warranted
an indefinite suspension with no right to petition for
23
Attorney Nett was counsel of record in the matters
described herein.
15
No. 2014AP495-D
reinstatement for nine months. Id. Attorney Nett was also
licensed in Wisconsin and the OLR filed a complaint with this
court seeking reciprocal discipline identical to that imposed by
the Minnesota Supreme Court. Attorney Nett did not contest the
OLR's complaint. This court imposed reciprocal discipline,
concluding that a comparable suspension here, factoring in
procedural and timing considerations, would be one year.
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Nett, 2014 WI 106,
358 Wis. 2d 300, 852 N.W.2d 486.
¶32 The referee observed that the cases cited by the OLR
in support of revocation were of limited guidance because, while
they involved lawyers who engaged in harassing conduct or filed
frivolous claims, they were distinguishable because other
misconduct was also involved and because none involved an
attorney who had no substantial purpose other than harassment.
¶33 We agree that Attorney Isaacson's misconduct warrants
a one-year suspension of her license to practice law in
Wisconsin. She repeatedly made frivolous and harassing personal
attacks and discriminatory statements in numerous documents
filed in various matters. She continued to make false
statements about members of the judiciary and others after being
formally sanctioned for her conduct. Based on the record
presented, we are satisfied that a one-year suspension is
sufficient in view of the seriousness of her professional
misconduct and will serve to deter similar behavior and protect
the public from similar misconduct in the future.
16
No. 2014AP495-D
¶34 The referee further recommended that Attorney Isaacson
be required to pay all costs of the disciplinary proceeding,
which total $6,634.96 as of December 23, 2014. There is no
claim that the costs requested by the OLR are excessive or
unreasonable, and we order Attorney Isaacson to pay the costs of
this proceeding, as recommended by the referee.
¶35 No restitution was sought and none is ordered in this
proceeding.
¶36 IT IS ORDERED that Naomi Dawn Isaacson's license to
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for one year, effective
the date of this order.
¶37 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date
of this order, Naomi Dawn Isaacson shall pay to the Office of
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding.
¶38 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent she has not
already done so, Naomi Dawn Isaacson shall comply with the
provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose
license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended.
17
No. 2014AP495-D
1