IN RE: DISCIPLINE OF JENNIFER ISSO (2026)

ORDER APPROVING CONDITIONAL ADMISSION AGREEMENT

This is an automatic review of a Southern Nevada Disciplinar Board hearing panel's recommendation that this court approve, pursuant to SCR 113, a conditional admission agreement in exchange for a stated form of discipline for attorney Jennifer Isso. Under the agreement, Isso admitted to violating RPC 3.4(c) (fairness to opposing party and counsel); RPC 3.5(b) (impartiality and decorum of the tribunal and relations with the jury); RPC 4.4(a) (respect for rights of third persons); RPC 8.2(a) (judicial and legal officials); and RPC 8.4(d) (misconduct). Isso agreed to a six-month-and-one-day suspension, stayed for eighteen months subject to certain conditions.¹

Isso admitted to failing to demonstrate respect for the court, witnesses, opposing litigants, and opposing counsel. For example, during an evidentiary hearing Isso told a departing witness, “Thank you for wasting our time and wasting your own time.” Isso also admitted to making statements she knew were false or with a reckless disregard for their truth or falsity concerning the qualifications and integrity of Judge Stephanie Charter, Judge Mari Parladé, and Judge Paul Gaudet. Isso also admitted to an impermissible ex parte communication with Judge Charter's chambers. Finally, Isso admitted to failing to comply with EDCR 5.218 (civility).

The issue for this court is whether the agreed-upon discipline sufficiently protects the public, the courts, and the legal profession. See In re Discipline of Arabia, 137 Nev. 568, 571, 495 P.3d 1103, 1109 (2021) (stating the purpose of attorney discipline). In determining the appropriate discipline, we weigh four factors: “the duty violated, the lawyer's mental state, the potential or actual injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct, and the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors.” In re Discipline of Lerner, 124 Nev. 1232, 1246, 197 P.3d 1067, 1077 (2008); see also SCR 102.5(1).

Isso admitted to knowingly violating duties owed to the legal system (abuse of the legal process and improper communications with individuals in the legal system). Isso further admitted the conduct caused moderate actual and potential injury to the legal system. The baseline sanction for such violations, before considering the aggravating or mitigating circumstances, is suspension. See Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, Compendium of Professional Responsibility Rules and Standards, Standard 6.22 (Am. Bar Ass'n 2023) (providing that suspension is appropriate “when a lawyer knows that he or she is violating a court order or rule, and causes injury or potential injury to a client or a party, or causes interference or potential interference with a legal proceeding”); Standard 6.32 (providing that suspension is appropriate when a lawyer communicates “with an individual in the legal system when the lawyer knows that such communication is improper, and causes injury or potential injury to a party or causes interference or potential interference with the outcome of the legal proceeding”). The record supports three aggravating-circumstances (a pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, and substantial experience in the practice of law) and three mitigating circumstances (absence of a prior disciplinary record, personal or emotional problems, and imposition of other penalties or sanctions). Considering the relevant factors, we conclude that the agreed-upon discipline is appropriate.

Accordingly, we hereby suspend attorney Jennifer Isso from the practice of law in Nevada for six months and one day, with the suspension stayed for eighteen months, from the date of this order, subject to the conditions outlined in the panel's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation. These conditions include requirements that Isso select a law practice mentor, who shall submit quarterly reports to the Office of Bar Counsel; complete nine additional hours of continuing legal education in the areas of substance abuse, addictive disorders, mental health issues that impair professional competence, and/or ethics; participate in counseling and submit quarterly counseling reports to the Office of Bar Counsel; not engage in further professional misconduct; and maintain current contact information with the Office of Bar Counsel. Isso shall also pay the cost of the disciplinary proceedings, including $2,500 under SCR 120, within 30 days from the date of this order. The State bar shall comply with SCR 121.1.

It is so ORDERED.

Bell, J.

Stiglich, J.

Cadish, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We grant Isso's motion to strike the letter filed on March 20, 2026, for two reasons. First, “any request for relief from this court must be presented by way of a formal, written motion.” In re Discipline of Serota, 129 Nev. 631, 637 n.5, 309 P.3d 1037, 1041 n.5 (2013); NRAP 27(a) (“An application for an order or other relief is made by motion unless these Rules prescribe another form.”). Second, nothing in SCR 105(3) contemplates this court considering information that was not presented to the hearing panel or otherwise included in the record of the hearing panel proceedings. The clerk of this court shall strike the letter filed on March 20, 2026.