In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Wendy Alison Nora, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0165906.
Jurisdiction Office of Appellate Courts
M. Humiston, Director, Nicole S. Frank, Assistant Director,
Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility, Saint Paul,
Minnesota, for petitioner.
Alison Nora, Minneapolis, Minnesota, pro se.
attorney-discipline proceedings conducted in Wisconsin were
fundamentally fair and consistent with due process.
indefinite suspension with no right to petition for
reinstatement for 1 year is not unjust or substantially
different from the discipline warranted in Minnesota for
knowingly making a false statement of material fact to a
tribunal, and for filing three frivolous lawsuits to harass
or maliciously injure another.
and decided without oral argument.
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.), 909 N.W.2d 155 (Wis. 2018), cert.
denied, ___ U.S. ___, 139 S.Ct. 609 (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
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.
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)
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). See Nora v. Residential
Funding Co., LLC, 543 Fed.Appx. 601 (7th Cir. 2013);
Nora Wis., 909 N.W.2d at 158. The law firm of Gray
and Associates, SC 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
Fed.Appx. at 601.
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.
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
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 ...