Iowa Supreme Court Board of Professional Ethics and Conduct v. Jones
606 N.W.2d 5 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney engages in misrepresentation when they fail to disclose material facts, such as known risks and their own financial interest, to an unrepresented person in a business transaction, even if the attorney has no actual intent to deceive.
Facts:
- In 1995, Leon Currie hired attorney Oscar E. Jones, claiming he was owed $25.3 million from a Nigerian pipeline contract.
- Currie told Jones he needed to raise $25,300 for an insurance premium to release the funds and was short by $5,000.
- Currie offered to purchase a $2 million annuity for Jones if Jones successfully secured the $5,000 loan and the contract payment was received.
- Jones, without independently verifying Currie's story, was informed by several banks that they would not provide a loan because they considered Nigerian ventures too risky.
- On May 17, 1997, Jones contacted Delbert Jones, a 74-year-old former client, about making the loan.
- Jones presented the loan as an opportunity for Delbert to make "fast money," promising a $15,000 repayment on the $5,000 loan within thirty days.
- Jones failed to inform Delbert that banks and other individuals had refused to make the loan due to the high risk, nor did he disclose his own potential $2 million annuity.
- Relying on Oscar Jones's assurances that Currie was "good" for the money, Delbert borrowed $5,000 from his credit union and gave it to Jones; Delbert was never repaid.
Procedural Posture:
- The Iowa Supreme Court Board of Professional Ethics and Conduct filed a complaint against attorney Oscar E. Jones.
- The complaint was heard by the Grievance Commission, a lower disciplinary body.
- The complaint charged Jones with violating DR 1-102(A)(4) (misrepresentation), DR 1-102(A)(6) (conduct reflecting adversely on fitness to practice), and DR 7-102(A)(7) (assisting client in fraud).
- Following an evidentiary hearing, the Grievance Commission found Jones had violated DR 1-102(A)(4) and DR 1-102(A)(6), but not DR 7-102(A)(7).
- The Grievance Commission recommended a public reprimand as the appropriate discipline.
- The Iowa Supreme Court exercised its authority to review the commission's findings and recommendation de novo.
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 engage in conduct involving misrepresentation in violation of professional ethics rules when he persuades an unrepresented former client to loan money to a current client without disclosing the significant risks of the venture, that other potential lenders had refused, and his own substantial financial stake in the transaction's success?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. An attorney’s failure to recognize and correct a potentially misleading situation with an unrepresented person constitutes misrepresentation, even without an intent to deceive. Jones's actions and omissions misled Delbert into making the loan. Knowing that Delbert was unsophisticated and trusted him, Jones had a duty to disclose material information, including that banks had deemed the venture too risky and that Jones himself had a significant financial stake in the outcome. Instead of disclosing these facts, Jones vouched for his client's creditworthiness and rushed Delbert into a decision, which constitutes misrepresentation in violation of DR 1-102(A)(4) and conduct reflecting adversely on his fitness to practice law under DR 1-102(A)(6).
Dissenting - Lavorato, J.
Yes, the conduct was a violation, but the discipline of suspension is too severe. The dissent argues that several mitigating factors were not given enough weight: Jones's nearly unblemished 47-year career, the fact that Jones was also a victim of his client's scam, Delbert's own interest in risky ventures, and Jones's full cooperation with the investigation. The dissent contends the misconduct was no more egregious than that in prior cases where only a reprimand was issued, and that a suspension would unfairly besmirch the record of a lawyer on the verge of retirement. A public reprimand, as recommended by the commission, would be more appropriate.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that an attorney's ethical duties of honesty and fair dealing extend beyond the formal attorney-client relationship to business transactions with unrepresented parties. The court establishes that misrepresentation can occur through material omissions, not just affirmative falsehoods, and that a lack of fraudulent intent is not a defense. This case serves as a significant warning to practitioners about the dangers of facilitating transactions where there is a clear information and power imbalance, particularly when the attorney has a personal financial interest at stake. It broadens the scope of conduct that can be deemed to reflect adversely on an attorney's fitness to practice law.
