Isom had a quick response: a $4.2 million lawsuit. An innocent click on an icon titled “gifts” on a computer shared by Isom and Boyd resulted in “pictures of naked women appear[ing] on the screen,” he claimed in the suit. Isom’s lawyer argued his client’s ouster severely hampered his 12-year-old business, and accused Boyd and Underwood of rescheduling his patients for themselves.

At first, the staff thought the claim so preposterous they couldn’t wait to see how it would play out in court. In December 2009, however, arbitrators ordered Boyd and Underwood to pay Isom $619,726 toward lost earnings, plus his share of office equipment and software. By then, Isom had already revived his practice nearby to become a competitor.

One month later, Webb received notice from the Oregon Board of Dentistry about a new state law requiring employees to report any misconduct toward patients by medical professionals, or face discipline. So she filed a complaint against Isom. But the board, which sets standards for dentists and hygienists, ruled that the dentist had done nothing worthy of discipline.

The ethical and legal line between personal rights and public wrongs has always been blurry when it comes to pornography. Boyd, Underwood, and their female staff entered a hall of mirrors as they tried to rid their office of a business colleague whose porn-cruising was potentially creating a hostile workplace and a harmful environment for patients. The staff members could have sued under federal sexual harassment law, but they feared such a high-profile action would harm the other two dentists. Thus, Isom’s actions, the arbitrators’ ruling, and the subsequent inaction by the state dental board left them exhausted, disheartened, and seemingly without redress.

The staff was stunned by the arbitrators’ and dental board’s rulings. “We couldn’t believe when [they] came back and said Dr. Isom had a right to be in the office,” Shelly Casson, the dentists’ office manager, recalled. “It’s surprising that such important details like this would be kept hushed, even by the dental board,” said Riverman. “This is serious.”

Isom declined numerous requests to be interviewed for this story. In an e-mail, he wrote: “In response to your inquiry, these matters are now closed, and I have nothing to add.” Later, through an attorney, he provided written statements denying any intentional pornography use at work and blaming his ouster on his former partners, saying their business was in decline and they were trying to steal his clients. Isom said he has no difficulty keeping pornography out of work and his life.

Portland Monthly sought other records regarding the case from the Oregon Board of Dentistry to shed light on the decision to not discipline the dentist. The effort ultimately became a prolonged and divisive battle, one the board and Isom aggressively fought. However, the Office of the Attorney General ruled in the magazine’s favor.