Title: OLR v. Naomi Dawn Isaacson

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

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, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Naomi Dawn Isaacson, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
MAR 20, 2015 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
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   
 
2 
 
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. 
No. 
2014AP495-D   
 
3 
 
¶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.  
No. 
2014AP495-D   
 
4 
 
¶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.  
No. 
2014AP495-D   
 
5 
 
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 
No. 
2014AP495-D   
 
6 
 
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 
No. 
2014AP495-D   
 
7 
 
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."  
No. 
2014AP495-D   
 
8 
 
¶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 
No. 
2014AP495-D   
 
9 
 
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 
No. 
2014AP495-D   
 
10 
 
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 
SCR 20:8.2(a),6 
SCR 20:8.4(g),7 
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." 
No. 
2014AP495-D   
 
11 
 
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." 
No. 
2014AP495-D   
 
12 
 
¶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." 
No. 
2014AP495-D   
 
13 
 
¶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) 
No. 
2014AP495-D   
 
14 
 
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)." 
No. 
2014AP495-D   
 
15 
 
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.  
No. 
2014AP495-D   
 
16 
 
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.  
No. 
2014AP495-D   
 
17 
 
¶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. 
 
 
No. 
2014AP495-D   
 
 
 
1