In re Nora, A18-1574
| Decision Date | 22 May 2019 |
| Docket Number | A18-1574 |
| Citation | 942 N.W.2d 127 |
| Parties | IN RE Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Wendy Alison NORA , a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0165906. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Susan M. Humiston, Director, Nicole S. Frank, Assistant Director, Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for petitioner.
Wendy Alison Nora, Minneapolis, Minnesota, pro se.
Considered and decided without oral argument.
This case involves the question of whether we should impose reciprocal discipline on respondent Wendy Alison Nora. The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility (Director) petitioned to impose reciprocal discipline in Minnesota after Nora was suspended from the practice of law in Wisconsin for 1 year, In re Nora (Nora Wis. ), 380 Wis.2d 311, 909 N.W.2d 155 (2018), cert. denied , ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 609, 202 L.Ed.2d 432 (2018). We conclude that Wisconsin’s disciplinary proceedings were fundamentally fair and that the discipline imposed by the Wisconsin Supreme Court was neither unjust nor substantially different from the discipline that would have been imposed if the proceeding had been filed in Minnesota. We therefore indefinitely suspend Nora from the practice of law in Minnesota with no right to petition for reinstatement for 1 year.
Nora was admitted to practice law in Wisconsin in 1975 and was licensed to practice in Minnesota in 1985. Nora Wis. , 909 N.W.2d at 157. Nora has previously been disciplined four times in Minnesota for professional misconduct: three private admonitions, and one public discipline. In 1988, she was admonished for failing to deposit funds into a trust account in violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.15(a) ; she was admonished twice in 1990, once for practicing law while suspended in violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 5.5(a), and once for incompetence and representing a client despite a conflict of interest in violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1 and 1.7.
In 1990, we suspended Nora indefinitely, with no right to petition for reinstatement for 30 days, for failing to adequately investigate, making misrepresentations (although the referee concluded that she lacked a dishonest or selfish motive), bringing frivolous claims, including litigation that was brought as a delay tactic, and transferring assets in an attempt to impede collection, in violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1, 3.1, 8.4(c), and 8.4(d). In re Nora , 450 N.W.2d 328, 328–30 (Minn. 1990). We reinstated Nora in 2007 and placed her on supervised probation for 2 years. In re Nora , 725 N.W.2d 745, 746 (Minn. 2007) (order).
The Wisconsin disciplinary proceedings at issue involve Nora’s professional misconduct in defending against the foreclosure of her Wisconsin residential property, after she stopped paying the mortgage that she had secured from Aegis Mortgage Corporation (Aegis).1 See Nora v. Residential Funding Co., LLC , 543 F. App'x 601 (7th Cir. 2013) ; Nora Wis. , 909 N.W.2d at 158. The law firm of Gray and Associates, S.C. filed the foreclosure action on behalf of its client, Residential Funding Corporation (RFC), a related entity of GMAC Mortgage Group LLC. Nora vigorously opposed the foreclosure, arguing that RFC did not have standing to seek foreclosure because the assignment of her mortgage to RFC was allegedly fraudulent and designed to avoid the effect of Aegis’ pending bankruptcy. Nora , 543 F. App'x at 601.
In July 2009, D.P.—an attorney at the law firm of Bass & Moglowsky, S.C.—filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of the foreclosure of the mortgage. In August 2009, Nora and RFC discussed a possible "Foreclosure Repayment Agreement" (the Agreement) that RFC had offered to Nora. On August 23, 2009, Nora executed a copy of the Agreement but also modified a number of material terms.
On August 25, 2009, D.P. informed Nora, via a 4:20 p.m. email, that RFC had rejected her counteroffer and that "no settlement offer existed." The next morning, Nora faxed a letter and a copy of the Agreement to Judge J.C., who was presiding over the foreclosure action. The letter said that as a result of the Agreement, the proceedings in the foreclosure action " ‘are stayed.’ " Her letter implied that, even if the Agreement was not in effect, the proceedings must be stayed because an agreement was imminent.
On September 21, 2009, Judge J.C. denied Nora’s request for oral argument on RFC’s summary judgment motion, but the judge extended her time to file a response to the motion until October 1, 2009. Nora did not file a response. Instead, 3 days before her time to respond expired, she filed a personal bankruptcy petition, which stayed the foreclosure proceedings.
About 3 months later, when the bankruptcy stay was lifted, Nora’s time to respond to the summary judgment motion again began to run. She did not file a response. D.P. notified both Judge J.C. and Nora in writing that Nora’s time to file a response had expired and stated that Nora’s failure to respond to the summary judgment motion meant that the court should treat the motion as unopposed. Shortly thereafter, Nora filed several motions and what she labeled as a "verified response" to RFC’s summary judgment motion.
On February 9, 2010, Judge J.C. granted RFC’s summary judgment motion, allowing RFC’s foreclosure on Nora’s residential property. Judge J.C. also struck Nora’s "verified response" as untimely and lacking arguments and supporting affidavits; Judge J.C. characterized the response as a " ‘mixture of argument, motions, and allegations of fact.’ "
Two weeks later, Nora filed a request in the Wisconsin Circuit Court seeking accommodations, including by re-litigating the summary judgment motion, based on an alleged disability. She also requested that the court appoint a guardian ad litem for her. On March 29, 2010, Judge J.C. denied Nora’s requests to reconsider his decision granting summary judgment to RFC and for the appointment of a guardian ad litem. Nora sought recusal of Judge J.C. and reconsideration of her guardian ad litem request. Judge J.C. denied her motions for recusal and reconsideration.
On November 15, 2010—2 weeks before the scheduled sheriff’s sale of her Wisconsin residential property—Nora sued Judge J.C. personally in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 – 213 (2012). Nora requested several forms of relief, including the removal of Judge J.C. from the foreclosure action and vacation of his summary judgment order. Within 1 week of suing him, Nora filed a motion to disqualify Judge J.C. from the foreclosure action because he had become an adverse party to Nora in a lawsuit. In March 2011, Nora dismissed the federal action against Judge J.C.
On November 29, 2010—the day before the sheriff’s sale of her Wisconsin residential property—Nora filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin against opposing counsel in her foreclosure action, alleging, in part, that opposing counsel had violated the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 – 68 (2012), by creating a fraudulent assignment of her mortgage and note to RFC, and for bringing the foreclosure action while knowing of the fraudulent assignment. See Nora v. Residential Funding Co., LLC , No. 10-CV-748-WMC, 2012 WL 12995759 (W.D. Wis. Sept. 30, 2012). The proceedings continued for nearly 2 years. The federal district court eventually dismissed Nora’s claim as barred by the Rooker - Feldman doctrine.2 Nora appealed, and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Nora , 543 F. App'x at 601.
Several months after the federal district court dismissed Nora’s RICO complaint as barred by the Rooker - Feldman doctrine, Nora filed an adversary proceeding against the same defendants in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. Nora’s allegations were nearly identical to those that she asserted in the prior action. Nora dismissed the adversary proceeding as part of the settlement agreement with the defendants.
In March 2013, the Wisconsin Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a disciplinary complaint against Nora, which was amended in December 2013 to include a claim related to the bankruptcy court adversarial proceeding. Counts 1, 3, and 4 of OLR’s amended complaint alleged that Nora’s claims in the ADA, RICO, and bankruptcy matters violated Wis. Sup. Ct. R. 20:3.1(a).3 Count 2 of the amended complaint alleged that Nora’s facsimile informing the court that a settlement was imminent and that the proceedings in her foreclosure action should be stayed violated Wis. Sup. Ct. R. 20:3.3(a)(1).4
OLR moved for summary judgment on Count 2. After hearing oral argument spanning 2 days in November 2014 and receiving briefing from the parties, the referee granted summary judgment in favor of OLR because Nora had admitted, either in her answer to OLR’s amended complaint or during oral argument on OLR’s summary judgment motion, all of the allegations underlying Count 2.
On the remaining counts, the referee held a 4-day evidentiary hearing in April 2016 and received pre- and post-hearing briefing from the parties. In January 2017, the referee made factual findings and recommendations. She found that Nora lacked a good-faith basis for pursuing her ADA action against Judge J.C. and her RICO action and bankruptcy adversary proceeding against opposing counsel. Regarding the ADA action, the referee found that Nora had not requested an accommodation before Judge J.C. ruled on the summary judgment motion, that she had no need for accommodation when she filed the ADA action, and that she filed the ADA action in an attempt to obstruct her foreclosure case. Concerning both the RICO suit and the bankruptcy adversary proceeding, the referee found that, based on Nora’s 40 years as an attorney and her comments...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Nora
...with no right to petition for reinstatement for 1 year, after the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended her for 1 year. In re Nora , 942 N.W.2d 127, 128 (Minn. 2019). Respondent remains suspended in Minnesota.The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility has filed another pe......
-
In re Disciplinary Action Against Nora
...with no right to petition for reinstatement for 1 year, after the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended her for 1 year. In re Nora, 942 N.W.2d 127, 128 (Minn. 2019). Respondent remains suspended in Minnesota. The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility has filed another pe......