Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Monroe
784 N.W.2d 784, 2010 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 77, 2010 WL 2791296 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney's sexual relationship with a client, while a violation of the rule prohibiting such conduct, does not automatically constitute conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. To establish a violation for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, there must be specific proof that the attorney's actions actually hampered the efficient and proper operation of the courts.
Facts:
- In 2007, attorney William Monroe was retained by Jane Doe to represent her in a dissolution of marriage proceeding that involved a child custody issue.
- In late May 2007, while the attorney-client relationship was ongoing, Monroe and Doe commenced a consensual sexual relationship.
- During the summer of 2007, while the sexual relationship continued, Doe faced misdemeanor criminal charges, and Monroe also represented her in those matters.
- Monroe and Doe mutually agreed to end their intimate relationship in mid-August 2007.
- Doe's husband discovered the relationship and his attorney reported Monroe to the disciplinary authorities.
- Monroe withdrew from the dissolution case in the fall of 2007 but continued to represent Doe in her criminal cases until their resolution in October 2007.
- After withdrawing from the dissolution matter, Monroe contacted Doe's new attorney to offer suggestions regarding the case.
Procedural Posture:
- The Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board filed an amended complaint against William Monroe with the Grievance Commission of the Supreme Court of Iowa.
- In his answer, Monroe admitted to the sexual relationship and to violating Rule 32:1.8(j), and further admitted this violation was 'per se prejudicial to the administration of justice' under Rule 32:8.4(d).
- A division of the Grievance Commission held a hearing that focused primarily on the appropriate sanction for the admitted misconduct.
- The commission found Monroe violated both rules and issued a report recommending a thirty-day suspension of his license to practice law.
- The matter then came before the Supreme Court of Iowa for de novo review of the commission's findings and recommendation.
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's sexual relationship with a client, in violation of Iowa Rule of Professional Conduct 32:1.8(j), automatically constitute conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice under Iowa Rule of Professional Conduct 32:8.4(d)?
Opinions:
Majority - Ternus, Chief Justice
No. An attorney's sexual relationship with a client does not constitute a per se violation of the rule prohibiting conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. The court reasoned that Rule 32:8.4(d) prohibits conduct that has the specific effect of hampering the proper operation of the courts, not a particular act in isolation. The court rejected the proposition that such a relationship is automatically prejudicial, noting that not all legal representation involves court proceedings. Furthermore, a per se rule would be inconsistent with the exceptions in Rule 32:1.8(j) for pre-existing relationships or spousal relationships, as an attorney in those situations could still be charged under Rule 32:8.4(d), making the exceptions illusory. Because the Disciplinary Board failed to present evidence that Monroe's conduct actually interfered with the functioning of the court system, it did not prove a violation of Rule 32:8.4(d).
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of conduct considered 'prejudicial to the administration of justice' under the rules of professional conduct. The court's rejection of a per se rule requires disciplinary boards to meet a higher burden of proof, demanding a causal link between the attorney's misconduct and an actual negative impact on the judicial process. This holding prevents the 'prejudicial to justice' rule from becoming a duplicative charge for any other ethical violation. It reinforces the principle that different ethics rules target different harms, and a violation of one does not automatically implicate another without a specific factual showing of the harm the second rule is designed to prevent.
