909 N.W.2d 155
Wis.2018Background
- Wendy Nora, admitted in Wisconsin (1975) and Minnesota (1985), practiced from Minneapolis and had a prior 1993 disciplinary suspension for misconduct.
- RFC/GMAC filed foreclosure against Nora’s Madison home in March 2009; Nora negotiated a proposed Foreclosure Repayment Agreement but altered material terms, creating a counteroffer.
- Nora faxed the state court judge on August 26, 2009, stating the Agreement stayed the foreclosure, despite knowing the counteroffer had been rejected.
- After summary judgment was entered for foreclosure (Feb. 2010), Nora filed meritless federal suits: an ADA suit against Judge Colas and RICO suits against opposing counsel, aimed at overturning or delaying the foreclosure and harassing opponents.
- Federal courts dismissed her suits (Rooker‑Feldman and claim preclusion); Nora later filed and then settled a similar adversary action in a bankruptcy court.
- Referee found Nora violated multiple Rules of Professional Conduct (making false statements to a tribunal; filing frivolous/harassing suits) and recommended a one‑year suspension; the Supreme Court affirmed and imposed a one‑year suspension.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (OLR) | Defendant's Argument (Nora) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nora knowingly made a false statement to a tribunal (SCR 20:3.3(a)(1)) by claiming the Agreement stayed the foreclosure | Nora knowingly misrepresented that a binding repayment agreement stayed proceedings | Nora argued she did not receive opposing counsel’s rejection email and disputed factual basis | Court affirmed violation; Nora’s altered agreement was a counteroffer so her facsimile claim was knowingly false |
| Whether Nora filed unwarranted claims and actions to harass (SCR 20:3.1(a)) in suing Judge Colas | Filing ADA suit seeking disqualification and vacatur of state judgment had no good‑faith basis and was intended to harass/obstruct foreclosure | Nora claimed she sought disability accommodations and invoked First Amendment/petition rights | Court held suits were unwarranted and pursued to harass; violation of SCR 20:3.1(a) affirmed |
| Whether Nora’s RICO and bankruptcy adversary complaints against opposing counsel were meritless/harassing (SCR 20:3.1(a)) | RICO suits duplicated barred collateral attacks on state judgment, knowingly violating Rooker‑Feldman and pursued to harass | Nora contended legal theories could support RICO claims; challenged OLR procedures and panel conflicts | Court held Nora understood Rooker‑Feldman, pursued suits to undo foreclosure, and violated SCR 20:3.1(a) |
| Appropriate sanction for multiple, repeated misconduct | OLR sought substantial discipline given pattern, prior discipline, and failure to acknowledge wrongdoing | Nora attacked procedures, claimed bias, due process and First Amendment violations, and other procedural errors | Court upheld referee’s findings, rejected procedural and bias claims, and imposed one‑year suspension to protect public and deter repetition |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Nora, 173 Wis. 2d 660 (Wis. 1993) (prior disciplinary suspension of Nora)
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 261 Wis. 2d 45 (Wis. 2003) (six‑month suspension for frivolous suit used for improper purposes)
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Carroll, 248 Wis. 2d 662 (Wis. 2001) (factors guiding discipline analysis)
- Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) (judicial rulings/remarks usually not basis for bias disqualification)
- Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626 (1985) (no First Amendment protection for false or misleading commercial speech in disciplinary context)
- Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974) (false statements of fact carry no constitutional value)
- McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, Dist. 1, 486 U.S. 429 (1988) (counsel may not deliberately mislead court or advance frivolous arguments)
- Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923) (federal courts lack jurisdiction to review state court judgments)
- District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983) (limits on federal review of state court judicial decisions; basis for Rooker‑Feldman doctrine)