Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Clauss
2006 WL 358264, 711 N.W.2d 1, 2006 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 23 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a client's waiver of a conflict of interest to be valid, an attorney must provide full disclosure, which requires not only informing the clients of the dual representation but also explaining in detail the potential negative effects and pitfalls that may arise from it.
Facts:
- National Management Corporation retained attorney Robert Clauss to collect past-due rental payments from Kay Clark.
- During a collection call, Clauss learned Clark was enjoined from operating her business due to a covenant not to compete, which prevented her from earning money to pay the debt.
- Clauss proposed to represent Clark to lift the injunction, which would theoretically enable her to earn income and pay her debt to National Management.
- After consulting another attorney, Clauss sent letters to both National Management and Clark asking them to waive any conflict of interest arising from the dual representation.
- Both Clark and National Management consented to the dual representation based on Clauss's letters.
- Clauss subsequently represented Clark in other matters and collected substantial sums for her, but he failed to remit any funds to National Management to satisfy Clark's debt.
- Separately, Clauss notarized nine documents between 1996 and 2000 while his notary commission was expired.
Procedural Posture:
- The Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board cited Robert Clauss, Jr. for violations of the code of professional ethics.
- The Grievance Commission of the Iowa Supreme Court held a hearing on the matter.
- The Grievance Commission found that the violations were established by the board.
- The Grievance Commission recommended that Clauss's license to practice law be suspended for a minimum of ninety days.
- The Iowa Supreme Court then reviewed the findings and recommendation of the Grievance Commission.
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 a lawyer obtain a valid conflict of interest waiver under the disciplinary rules by merely informing two clients with adverse interests that he is representing both and securing their consent, without detailing the potential adverse effects of the dual representation on his independent professional judgment?
Opinions:
Majority - Larson, J.
No. A waiver of a conflict of interest is not valid unless the attorney makes a full disclosure of the possible consequences of the dual representation. The rules require an attorney to do more than simply warn clients of potential conflicts and ask for a waiver. Full disclosure necessitates that the attorney explain in detail the potential pitfalls of the arrangement, such as how the attorney's loyalty to one client might compromise their ability to zealously represent the other. Clauss's letters to National and Clark failed to meet this standard because they did not explain the possible effect the dual representation would have on the exercise of his independent professional judgment. For example, an unconflicted lawyer for National would have pursued a debtor's examination to find Clark's assets, but Clauss failed to take such action, demonstrating how his judgment was impaired to National's detriment.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the 'full disclosure' requirement for conflict of interest waivers, establishing that a generic notice of dual representation is insufficient. It mandates that attorneys must proactively educate their clients on the specific, tangible risks and potential negative outcomes of such representation to ensure consent is truly informed. The ruling reinforces the high fiduciary standard of undivided loyalty owed to clients and serves as a strong precedent against structuring waivers that obscure the inherent dangers of dual representation. This case underscores that the attorney's own financial interest in representing both parties can itself be a conflict that must be fully disclosed and managed.
Unlock the full brief for Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Clauss