Case Title: Plaintiff v. Defendant

Citation: 2010 WI 27

Docket Number: 

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2010-04-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
2010 WI 27 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2009AP892-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Naomi E. Soldon, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Naomi E. Soldon, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SOLDON 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
April 16,2010   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2010 WI 27
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2009AP892-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Naomi E. Soldon, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Naomi E. Soldon, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
APR 16, 2010 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review a stipulation executed by 
Attorney Naomi E. Soldon and the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) pursuant to SCR 22.12.1  In the stipulation Attorney Soldon 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.12 provides:  Stipulation. 
(1) The director may file with the complaint a 
stipulation of the director and the respondent to the 
facts, conclusions of law regarding misconduct, and 
discipline to be imposed.  The supreme court may 
consider the complaint and stipulation without the 
appointment of a referee.   
No. 
2009AP892-D   
 
2 
 
admits 
that 
she 
committed 
eight 
counts 
of 
professional 
misconduct.  She agrees with the OLR's request that her license 
to practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for a period of six 
months.  After thoroughly reviewing the matter, we accept the 
stipulation and impose the requested discipline.  Because 
Attorney Soldon entered into a comprehensive stipulation prior 
to the appointment of a referee, we do not require her to pay 
the costs of this proceeding. 
¶2 
According to the State Bar of Wisconsin's website, 
Attorney Soldon was admitted to the practice of law in Wisconsin 
in 1990.  She most recently practiced in Milwaukee.  Her law 
license is currently administratively suspended for a number of 
reasons, including the failure to pay bar dues and assessments. 
¶3 
Attorney Soldon's professional misconduct primarily 
stems from a series of retail thefts and her subsequent 
interactions with law enforcement.  These incidents cover a 
period of time from the spring of 2007 through the spring of 
2008. 
                                                                                                                                                             
(2) If the supreme court approves a stipulation, 
it shall adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of 
law and impose the stipulated discipline. 
(3) If the supreme court rejects the stipulation, 
a referee shall be appointed and the matter shall 
proceed as a complaint filed without a stipulation. 
(4) A stipulation rejected by the supreme court 
has no evidentiary value and is without prejudice to 
the respondent's defense of the proceeding or the 
prosecution of the complaint. 
No. 
2009AP892-D   
 
3 
 
¶4 
On May 24, 2007, Attorney Soldon was arrested for 
retail theft at a department store in Greendale, Wisconsin.  She 
was subsequently convicted of misdemeanor retail theft (loss 
under $2,500).  The circuit court imposed and stayed a sentence 
of 30 days in the Milwaukee County House of Correction and one 
year of probation.  Attorney Soldon's husband timely notified 
the OLR of this conviction.  See SCR 21.15(5).2  In Count 1 of 
the complaint and stipulation, the parties have agreed that 
Attorney Soldon's conduct leading to this criminal conviction 
violated SCR 20:8.4(b).3 
¶5 
Counts 2 through 4 relate to an incident that began at 
a gas station just off Interstate 94 (I-94) in Windsor, 
Wisconsin in November 2007.  The Wisconsin State Patrol was 
notified that a vehicle registered to Attorney Soldon had driven 
off without paying for gasoline.  A state trooper subsequently 
                                                 
2 SCR 21.15(5) states as follows: 
An attorney found guilty or convicted of any 
crime on or after July 1, 2002, shall notify in 
writing the office of lawyer regulation and the clerk 
of the Supreme Court within 5 days after the finding 
or conviction, whichever first occurs.  The notice 
shall include the identity of the attorney, the date 
of finding or conviction, the offenses, and the 
jurisdiction.  An attorney's failure to notify the 
office of lawyer regulation and clerk of the supreme 
court of being found guilty or his or her conviction 
is misconduct. 
3 SCR 20:8.4(b) states it is professional misconduct for a 
lawyer to "commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the 
lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in 
other respects; . . . ." 
No. 
2009AP892-D   
 
4 
 
stopped Attorney Soldon on eastbound I-94.  Attorney Soldon 
acknowledged that she had not paid for the gas, but claimed that 
it had been an accident.  A second state trooper arrived, and 
while the two officers were discussing the matter, Attorney 
Soldon fled the scene of the traffic stop.  A chase ensued on 
eastbound I-94, which ended when Attorney Soldon drove her car 
over an embankment and into a farm field.  At the local hospital 
Attorney Soldon stated she had fled the scene of the traffic 
stop because she was afraid that she was going to be arrested. 
¶6 
Attorney Soldon pled guilty to one count of felony 
fleeing and eluding an officer.  A charge of misdemeanor retail 
theft was dismissed and read in for sentencing purposes.  The 
Dane County circuit court sentenced Attorney Soldon to pay a 
$6,430 fine, which she paid within 60 days.  Attorney Soldon 
failed to advise the OLR of this conviction within five days. 
¶7 
With 
respect 
to 
this 
incident, 
the 
stipulation 
provides that Attorney Soldon committed three violations of the 
Wisconsin Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys.  First, 
her conduct of fleeing and eluding an officer constituted a 
violation of SCR 20:8.4(b).  Likewise, although the criminal 
charge on this subject was dismissed, her conduct in driving off 
without paying for gasoline also constituted a violation of SCR 
20:8.4(b).  Finally, her failure to report her criminal 
conviction in writing to the OLR within five days constituted a 
violation of SCR 21.15(5). 
¶8 
Counts 5 through 7 of the complaint and stipulation 
arise out of two more retail theft incidents that occurred in 
No. 
2009AP892-D   
 
5 
 
Waukesha County in January and February 2008.  On January 14, 
2008, Attorney Soldon left a department store in Brookfield with 
some stolen merchandise.  As she entered her vehicle, a store 
employee asked her to come back to the store to discuss the 
theft.  Attorney Soldon told the employee to get out of the way 
or the employee would get hurt.  She then drove off, but was 
subsequently arrested.  For this incident, Attorney Soldon was 
again charged with misdemeanor retail theft.  That charge was 
ultimately 
dismissed 
and 
read 
in 
at 
sentencing 
for 
the 
conviction discussed in the succeeding paragraph. 
¶9 
On February 14, 2008, Attorney Soldon was arrested for 
stealing boxed sets of compact discs at a music store in 
Brookfield.  She falsely told police that her name was Maree 
Sheridan and gave a series of false birth dates.  With respect 
to this incident, Attorney Soldon ultimately pled guilty to one 
count of misdemeanor retail theft.  A count of misdemeanor 
resisting or obstructing an officer was dismissed and read in 
for sentencing purposes, as was the retail theft charge for the 
January 14, 2008, incident.  The Waukesha County circuit court 
sentenced Attorney Soldon to 30 days in jail, but stayed that 
sentence and placed Attorney Soldon on one year of probation, as 
well as imposed fines and costs totaling $602.  Attorney Soldon 
did report her arrest and the proposed plea agreement in this 
matter to the OLR. 
¶10 For these two acts of retail theft and the act of 
obstruction of law enforcement by providing a false name to the 
No. 
2009AP892-D   
 
6 
 
police, the stipulation provides that Attorney Soldon committed 
three violations of SCR 20:8.4(b). 
¶11 Count 8 of the stipulation addresses Attorney Soldon's 
failure to cooperate with the OLR's investigation of her conduct 
following the notification of her first retail theft conviction 
by her husband in December 2007.  Beginning approximately two 
weeks after that notification, the OLR began sending a series of 
letters to Attorney Soldon asking her to provide a written 
response about the retail theft incident.  The OLR sent two such 
letters, in December 2007 and February 2008, but Attorney Soldon 
did not respond.  The OLR then granted a series of extensions of 
time over the next several months for Attorney Soldon to 
respond, but she failed to do so.  Ultimately, on May 14, 2008, 
the OLR filed a motion with this court seeking an order to show 
cause why Attorney Soldon's license should not be temporarily 
suspended.  The order to show cause was issued, and Attorney 
Soldon ultimately submitted a suitable written response to the 
OLR, which then withdrew its motion.  The stipulation provides 
that these facts show a willful failure to cooperate with an OLR 
investigation, in violation of SCR 22.03(2),4 enforced via 
20:8.4(h).5 
                                                 
4 SCR 22.03(2) states: 
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 
and circumstances pertaining to the alleged misconduct 
within 20 days after being served by ordinary mail a 
No. 
2009AP892-D   
 
7 
 
¶12 In the stipulation Attorney Soldon verifies that she 
understands the misconduct allegations against her and her right 
to 
contest 
those 
allegations; 
that 
she 
understands 
the 
ramifications of the requested discipline in the event the court 
accepts the stipulation; that she understands her right to 
consult counsel; and that she is entering into the stipulation 
knowingly and voluntarily.  The stipulation further provides 
that Attorney Soldon is admitting her misconduct and agreeing to 
the level of discipline sought by the OLR, namely, a six-month 
suspension of her license to practice law in Wisconsin. 
¶13 We approve the stipulation and adopt the stipulated 
facts and legal conclusions of professional misconduct.  Her 
series of retail thefts and her related attempts to avoid arrest 
or conviction evince a serious disregard for the law.  We 
therefore impose the six-month suspension requested in the 
stipulation.  In light of the SCR 22.12 stipulation, we do not 
impose costs. 
¶14 The imposition of a six-month suspension will require 
Attorney 
Soldon 
to 
complete 
successfully 
the 
formal 
                                                                                                                                                             
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. 
5 SCR 20:8.4(h) states 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); . . . ." 
No. 
2009AP892-D   
 
8 
 
reinstatement process in order to regain her license to practice 
law in Wisconsin.  See SCRs 22.29-22.33.  In addition, before 
her license can be reinstated, she will be separately obligated 
to meet the requirements to terminate the various administrative 
suspensions of her license.  The reinstatement of her license 
cannot occur until she successfully completes each applicable 
reinstatement process. 
¶15 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Naomi E. Soldon to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of six 
months, effective as of the date of this order. 
¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent she has not 
already done so, Naomi E. Soldon 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. 
No. 
2009AP892-D   
 
 
 
1