Committee on Professional Ethics & Conduct v. Crary
1976 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 1231, 245 N.W.2d 298 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney commits sanctionable misconduct by knowingly permitting a client to commit perjury, as the duty to maintain the integrity of the fact-finding process supersedes duties to the client. An attorney also commits misconduct by participating with a client in an effort to nullify or disobey a valid court decree.
Facts:
- Attorney William R. Crary engaged in an adulterous affair with Sue Evans Curtis while she was married to Maury Wetzel Curtis.
- Sue Curtis filed for divorce from Maury Curtis, with Crary serving as associate counsel in her case.
- During a discovery deposition, Sue Curtis, in Crary's presence, gave false testimony under oath to conceal her affair with Crary.
- Crary knew the testimony was false but remained silent and took no action to correct the record or stop his client from lying.
- After a one-day recess, the deposition resumed, and Sue Curtis continued to provide false testimony, with Crary again knowingly acquiescing.
- The court in the divorce case issued a decree granting custody of the three Curtis children to Maury Curtis.
- After the divorce was final, Crary married the former Sue Curtis.
- Crary then actively assisted his new wife in nullifying the custody decree by staging events for a photographer, financing an out-of-state trip for a child, and otherwise preventing Maury Curtis from exercising his custody rights.
Procedural Posture:
- The Committee on Professional Ethics and Conduct of The Iowa State Bar Association filed a complaint against attorney William R. Crary before the Grievance Commission of the Supreme Court of Iowa.
- The complaint charged Crary with unethical conduct related to his client's perjury and his subsequent actions to frustrate a court's custody decree.
- The Grievance Commission held a hearing and found that Crary had committed misconduct, but it only issued a reprimand.
- Neither the Committee nor Crary filed exceptions to or appealed the Commission's report.
- The Supreme Court of Iowa, on its own initiative after a preliminary review of the report, set the matter for full briefing and oral argument to determine the appropriate disposition.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an attorney commit sanctionable unethical conduct by knowingly allowing his client to commit perjury during a deposition and by actively helping that client frustrate a court's child custody decree?
Opinions:
Majority - Uhlenhopp, Justice
Yes. An attorney commits sanctionable unethical conduct by knowingly allowing a client to commit perjury and by helping to frustrate a court's decree. Regarding the perjury, an attorney's fundamental duty is to the integrity of the fact-finding process, and he cannot knowingly suffer a witness to lie. The vice of Crary's conduct was not in failing to reveal the truth to opposing counsel but in participating in the corruption of the justice system by knowingly permitting his client to lie. The attorney-client privilege provides no protection for a client's perjury, as such conduct falls outside the legitimate scope of the attorney-client relationship. Regarding the custody decree, while an attorney may challenge a court order through legal means, he cannot counsel or participate in its disobedience. The evidence overwhelmingly showed that Crary acted in concert with his new wife to nullify the custody order in fact, which is a direct violation of his duties as an officer of the court.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces that an attorney's duty of candor to the court and the integrity of the legal system is paramount, superseding any duty of loyalty to a client engaged in fraudulent or illegal conduct. It establishes a clear precedent that an attorney's passivity in the face of known client perjury constitutes active participation in the deceit, warranting severe discipline. The ruling also clarifies that an attorney cannot be a party to the subversion of a court order, drawing a sharp line between permissible legal challenges and impermissible defiance. The case serves as a stark reminder that an attorney's personal involvement with a client can create conflicts that lead to profound ethical violations with severe consequences, including disbarment.
