In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Soldon

2010 WI 27, 782 N.W.2d 81, 324 Wis. 2d 4, 2010 Wisc. LEXIS 26
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court
DecidedApril 16, 2010
Docket2009AP892-D
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 2010 WI 27 (In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Soldon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Soldon, 2010 WI 27, 782 N.W.2d 81, 324 Wis. 2d 4, 2010 Wisc. LEXIS 26 (Wis. 2010).

Opinion

*6 PER CURIAM.

¶ 1. 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 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.

*7 ¶ 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.

¶ 4. On May 24, 2007, Attorney Soldon was arrested for retail theft at a department store in Green-dale, 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 (1-94) 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 stopped Attorney *8 Soldon on eastbound 1-94. 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 1-94, 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 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 em *9 ployee asked her to come hack 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 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 *10 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

¶ 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 *11 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Schwitzer
2017 WI 53 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2017)
STATE ex rel.OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. HART
2014 OK 96 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2014)
STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. HART
2014 OK 96 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2014)
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Arik J. Guenther
2014 WI 120 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2014)
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Naomi E. Soldon
2014 WI 24 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2014)
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Maria J. Schreier
2013 WI 35 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2013)
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Soldon
2012 WI 122 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2012)
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Butler
2012 WI 37 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2012)
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Addison
2012 WI 38 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2010 WI 27, 782 N.W.2d 81, 324 Wis. 2d 4, 2010 Wisc. LEXIS 26, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-matter-of-disciplinary-proceedings-against-soldon-wis-2010.