Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board Vs. William T. Morrison
2007 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 9, 727 N.W.2d 115 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney's sexual relationship with a current client, especially a vulnerable one in a dissolution proceeding, is a patent violation of professional ethics that warrants suspension of the attorney's law license.
Facts:
- In October 2004, attorney William Morrison began representing a female client in a dissolution of marriage proceeding.
- From November 2004 through March 2005, Morrison and the client engaged in a sexual relationship on several occasions.
- Morrison did not have a personal relationship with this client prior to the start of their sexual relationship in November 2004.
- The client's dissolution proceeding involved at least one minor child.
- In March 2004, approximately eight months prior to this incident, Morrison had received a private admonition from the Disciplinary Board for soliciting a different dissolution client for a social relationship due to her 'attractiveness.'
- In June 2005, Morrison self-reported his sexual relationship with the client to the Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board.
Procedural Posture:
- Attorney William Morrison self-reported to the Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board ('Board') that he had engaged in a sexual relationship with a client.
- The Board filed a complaint against Morrison with the Grievance Commission.
- The Board and Morrison submitted the matter to the Commission on a joint stipulation of facts, in which Morrison admitted his conduct was unethical.
- The parties jointly recommended a sixty-day suspension of Morrison's law license.
- The Grievance Commission, after reviewing the matter, recommended a six-month suspension and mandatory counseling.
- The Iowa Supreme Court then conducted a de novo review to determine the appropriate final sanction.
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's consensual sexual relationship with a client during a dissolution proceeding violate the Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers and warrant a suspension of his license to practice law?
Opinions:
Majority - Streit, J.
Yes, a lawyer's sexual relationship with a client during a dissolution proceeding is a patent violation of professional conduct rules that warrants a license suspension. Such conduct is prohibited because of the inherent power imbalance in the attorney-client relationship, which makes true client consent impossible, and because it creates a significant risk of harm to the client's legal interests. The court reasoned that emotional involvement can impair a lawyer's objective professional judgment, which is critical in sensitive matters like divorce, and that it erodes the client's trust. Citing precedents like Hill I, the court emphasized the particular danger in dissolution cases where issues like reconciliation, child custody, and visitation are at stake. A significant aggravating factor in this case was Morrison's prior admonition for similar conduct just eight months earlier, demonstrating he had not learned his lesson. Therefore, a three-month suspension was deemed a necessary and appropriate sanction to protect the public and deter similar misconduct.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strict-liability nature of the prohibition against attorney-client sexual relationships, making it clear that a client's consent is not a valid defense due to the inherent power imbalance. The case establishes that an attorney's prior disciplinary history, even a private admonition for related misconduct, will serve as a powerful aggravating factor, justifying a more severe sanction like suspension over a reprimand. The ruling signals to the bar that repeated failures to maintain professional boundaries with vulnerable clients will not be tolerated. Future disciplinary cases involving similar facts will likely look to this decision to justify suspension as a baseline sanction, particularly where there is a history of prior warnings.
