Iowa Supreme Court Board of Professional Ethics & Conduct v. Lane
2002 WL 535414, 642 N.W.2d 296, 2002 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 45 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney engages in conduct involving dishonesty, deceit, and misrepresentation, and charges a clearly excessive fee, when the attorney plagiarizes a substantial portion of a legal brief, presents it to the court as their own work product, and then bills for the time purportedly spent creating that work.
Facts:
- After a federal trial, attorney William J. Lane submitted a post-trial brief on behalf of his client, Daniel Sicard.
- The legal argument portion of the brief, spanning eighteen pages, was plagiarized almost verbatim from an employment law treatise by Lindemann & Grossman.
- Lane subsequently filed an application for attorney's fees, seeking $16,000 for 80 hours of work he claimed to have spent preparing the brief, at a rate of $200 per hour.
- When questioned by a federal magistrate judge about the brief's origin, Lane admitted he "borrowed liberally from other sources."
- The judge ordered Lane to identify his sources within ten days, but Lane did not comply for over four months.
- When Lane eventually filed his compliance, he buried the name of the treatise within a list of over 200 other sources, failing to draw specific attention to the primary source of his plagiarism.
- A fire occurred at Lane's home, destroying some case files, several days after the judge's initial order to disclose sources.
Procedural Posture:
- The Iowa Supreme Court Board of Professional Ethics and Conduct filed a complaint against attorney William J. Lane with the Grievance Commission.
- The Grievance Commission found that Lane committed misconduct related to the Sicard case.
- The Commission recommended that the Iowa Supreme Court suspend Lane’s license to practice law for three months.
- The case came before the Iowa Supreme Court for a required 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 violate professional rules of conduct involving dishonesty, misrepresentation, and excessive fees by plagiarizing a legal brief, misrepresenting it as his own work, and billing 80 hours of time for its preparation?
Opinions:
Majority - Streit, Justice.
Yes. An attorney's plagiarism of a legal brief and subsequent billing for time not actually spent on original work constitutes a violation of professional rules against dishonesty, misrepresentation, and charging excessive fees. The court found Lane's plagiarism was a clear misrepresentation to the court, akin to the unethical practice of ghost-writing, as it involved passing off another's work as one's own. This act of deceit fundamentally compromises the honesty required of the legal profession. Furthermore, billing for eighty hours to copy material is a 'clearly excessive fee' and was part of an intentional scheme to defraud the court. The court noted that Lane's attempt to hide the plagiarized source within a list of 200 other titles demonstrated his intent to deceive, rather than simple negligence. Personal difficulties, such as a house fire, do not excuse such serious, knowing misconduct.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a strong precedent in attorney ethics, equating professional plagiarism with intentional deceit and fraud upon the court. It clarifies that such misconduct is not merely an academic or technical failing but a serious ethical breach that strikes at the core of an attorney's duty of candor. By linking the plagiarism directly to fraudulent billing, the court reinforces that attorneys cannot claim fees for time spent on dishonest work. This case serves as a warning that courts will scrutinize fee applications for evidence of misrepresentation and will impose significant sanctions, like license suspension, to deter such conduct and uphold the integrity of the legal profession.
Unlock the full brief for Iowa Supreme Court Board of Professional Ethics & Conduct v. Lane