Wednesday, March 26, 2014
The New York Appellate Division for the Second Judicial Department imposed disbarment of an attorney convicted of offenses relating to the following
The respondent admitted that between February 2006 and June 2011, he was a member of Congregation Aish Kodesh. In or about that time, the respondent was lay treasurer of the congregation. As such, he had authority to transfer monies between bank accounts maintained by the congregation. Admittedly, the respondent transferred $634,960 from accounts of the congregation to accounts under his control, for personal use, without authority. In mitigation, the respondent asserted that he had been unable to maintain his law practice due to a series of family illnesses and had used the funds to pay personal expenses, with the expectation that he would repay it.
On April 9, 2013, the Supreme Court sentenced the respondent, inter alia, to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 1⅓ to 4 years, and ordered him to make restitution in the sum of $634,960.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court, in its words, exonerated a criminal prosecutor on allegations of misconduct during the course of a rape trial:
The complainant, Oklahoma Bar Association (Bar Association), charged the respondent, Jennifer Adina Layton (respondent/Layton), with one count of professional misconduct associated with her prosecution of three men in a rape trial. The Bar Association alleged that the respondent: 1) neglected to disclose to the court and opposing counsel that her witness was going to testify inconsistently with his previous police statement; and 2) falsely denied that she had spoken to the witness before and/or during the trial. The Bar Association sought the "appropriate" imposition of discipline and the payment of costs. After the Professional Responsibility Tribunal (PRT) recommended a public censure, the Bar Association argued that "some length" of suspension is more appropriate. The respondent argues that she should not be disciplined because: 1) the circumstances surrounding the alleged events involved a miscommunication/misunderstanding with the trial judge; and 2) if she violated any rules, because it was an inadvertent mistake, she did not do so with any intent or for any ulterior motive. Upon de novo review,we agree with the respondent. The cumulative circumstances show that trial court failed to create a transcribed record of bench conferences and chamber conferences in this serious first degree rape trial. That, coupled with the complaining defense attorney's in-court behavior, and the contemporaneous testimony of the respondent, reflect the nature of the proceedings. Under the facts presented, the respondent's violation does not require the imposition of discipline. The bar disciplinary proceeding is dismissed. The respondent is exonerated of the charges, and the application to assess costs is denied.
Justice Watt dissented
The majority attempts to make Layton's lack of candor with the court everyone's fault except that of the respondent, the one and only individual who had control over what came out of her mouth. Furthermore, it imposes upon the trial court an unwarranted measure of blame.
At all times concerning the charges of misconduct respondent, an assistant district attorney, was not only an officer of the court but was the representative and the face of the Sovereign State of Oklahoma in prosecuting this case. According to Layton's profile, she served in this position for some eight (8) years. It is difficult to believe that, as an experienced prosecuting attorney, the chaos in the courthouse the day she encountered her witness was much different than any contested criminal proceeding in which she had participated. It is common knowledge that our County Courthouses are, for the most part, completely inadequate and provide little opportunity for "quiet conversations" with anyone. Most often, attorneys are forced to conduct such interviews in hushed tones and in crowded hallways filled with other parties and their attorneys attempting to do the same.
When directly asked by the trial judge if she had spoken to her witness, Antral Miller, prior to trial, she lied to the court in answering his question - "NO."!
In response to the charges brought against the respondent, she wants this court to believe that she was confused by the trial court's question; that she did not intend to mislead the court; and that her answer produced no harm and, therefore, no foul.
The record reflects that respondent had at least two other opportunities to proffer the correct and truthful answer (that she had, in fact, talked to Mr. Miller). Once during Mr. Miller's testimony at trial, and also during a meeting in the judge's chambers with and in the presence of the judge and opposing counsel. Yet, respondent continued to perpetuate her original lie to the court...
As a former prosecutor, criminal defense lawyer, and trial court judge, it has been and is my continuing opinion that the one unforgivable sin of any attorney/officer of the court is - "TO LIE TO THE COURT.".
The majority acknowledges that '[t]he record is clear that Layton was not clearly candid to the trial court that she spoke with Miller before his testimony, or what was discussed.' Nevertheless, it adopts the respondent's sugarcoated version of this transgression and the majority opinion signs off by dismissing the charges against her. Accordingly, I would impose costs against this respondent and further impose a lengthy period of suspension based upon the facts before us and for that reason I respectfully dissent.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court has lifted an interim suspension and imposed a deferred two-years and a day suspension of an attorney for alcohol-related traffic offenses.
The court's opinion notes an interesting biographical fact
The respondent was admitted to the Oklahoma Bar Association and his name was entered on the Roll of Attorneys in 1986. He practiced law in Tulsa from 1986 until 1996. He is presently an author who published his first book while still practicing law and subsequently published 31 books, including many legal thrillers. He has over ten million books in print, which have been translated into more than two-dozen languages. He has won many prestigious awards for his writing. He also teaches private fiction-writing seminars, teaches writing at Rose State College and legal education courses throughout the country. The trial panel reports in its October 31, 2013, report that within the past year, the respondent has taught CLEs in Wisconsin, New Mexico, Alaska, Ohio, Missouri, Nevada, California, and Indiana.
Two dissents joined by three justices would impose an active suspension in light of the felony conviction.
The attorney does not actively practice law and suffers from alcoholism. characterized by binge drinking.
His Wikipedia page is linked here. (Mike Frisch)
An attorney who gambled away his law license has accepted revocation from the Wisconsin Supreme Court
In November 2012 Attorney W. self-reported to the Milwaukee County District Attorney's Office (MCDA) and to the OLR that he had stolen money from his IOLTA client trust account to fund a severe gambling addiction and to pay personal bills. The funds in Attorney W.'s trust account were generated from money judgments that Attorney W. secured on behalf of various clients. Attorney W. admitted that he had taken a significant amount of money from his trust account over the past several years; he was not certain of the exact amount.
In March 2013 Attorney W. provided the MCDA with a partial accounting in which he identified dozens of clients from whom he had taken funds totaling $450,923.04. In May 2013 Attorney W. provided the OLR with a second partial accounting showing that Attorney W. had taken $784,734.87 from numerous clients. Attorney W. estimated this second partial accounting was "90% complete."
As to sanction
We agree that revocation is warranted and necessary. This has never been in dispute. Attorney W. admitted he used his law practice to misappropriate over three-quarters of a million dollars from numerous persons and entities. Attorney W. acknowledged that he cannot successfully defend against misconduct allegations and further acknowledges that he will owe restitution to the clients he has harmed. He notes that he is represented by counsel regarding his criminal liability and has opted to proceed pro se in this disciplinary matter. We grant the petition and we revoke Attorney W.'s license to practice law in Wisconsin.
Because of the attorney's cooperation, the court declined to impose costs. (Miwe Frisch)
A recent decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court:
This case presents an issue of first impression: whether an association that has provided support for litigation, without being a named party in that litigation, has engaged in protected petitioning activities for the purposes of G.L. c. 231, § 59H. The defendant, the New England Regional Council of Carpenters, appeals from a Superior Court judge's denial of its special motion to dismiss a suit by the town of Hanover (town) claiming that the defendant engaged in abuse of process in prior legal proceedings. Because we conclude that support of litigation constitutes protected petitioning activity within the meaning of G.L. c. 231, § 59H, and that here, the town did not demonstrate that the defendant's right to petition was "devoid of any reasonable factual support or any arguable basis in law," Office One, Inc. v. Lopez, 437 Mass. 113, 123 (2002), we allow the defendant's special motion to dismiss.
The case is
TOWN OF HANOVER vs. NEW ENGLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS, SJC-11396.
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
The District of Columbia Board on Professional Responsibility has approved and forwarded to the Court of Appeals a motion for consent disbarment of an attorney convicted of criminal conflict of interest charges.
Gazette.net had this report:
A Potomac lawyer faces up to 10 years in jail after he pleaded guilty Monday to criminal conflict of interest and filing a false disclosure form when he worked as both a legal counsel for the federal government and a representative of a foreign corporation trying to sell military hardware to the U.S. Army, according to the U.S. Attorney for the District Court of Maryland.
Jeffrey Ross Williams, 51, of Potomac was charged in December for earning money from an unnamed company lobbying to supply the U.S. Army while employed as an attorney with the Consumer Product Safety Commission, a Bethesda-based a federal agency.
Williams held a dual position with the commission as an assistant general counsel for enforcement and information and assistant general counsel for regulatory affairs, between 2005 and 2008, according to his plea entered in U.S. District Court in Greenbelt. The Consumer Product Safety Commission tests and reports on the safety of products such as toys, power tools and household chemicals.
Williams earned an $8,000 per month retainer through the Washington-D.C. based law firm he founded, Williams Law Firm, PLLC, which represented the foreign company in 2006 while it tried to reach an agreement with the U.S. Army to supply it with batteries for armored personnel vehicles, wrote U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein in a Dec. 13 outline of charges.
As a federal employee, Williams was required to disclose his position with the foreign company and the income he earned, U.S. Department of Justice spokeswoman Marcia Murphy wrote in a statement.
Williams pleaded guilty to both counts. He was not indicted for either charge.
In a statement, Williams' attorney, Peter Fayne of the Riverdale firm of Rosenberg & Fayne, LLP wrote his client hopes to move past these violations after sentencing.
"Mr. Williams deeply regrets his actions but he has attempted to correct his misjudgment and acknowledged the mistake he made," he wrote.
Williams faces a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine, on each of the two counts. He sentencing is scheduled for June 13.
The board had sent the matter to a hearing committee to determine if the offense involved moral turpitude on the facts. The consent rendered the inquiry moot. (Mike Frisch)
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has revoked the license of an attorney for serious financial misconduct committed against the assrts of a client who suffered from Alzheimer's disease.
The court declined to run the sanction concurrently with a previously-imposed nine month suspension:
Revocation of an attorney's license to practice law is the most severe sanction this court can impose. It is reserved for the most egregious cases. We agree that in this case, no sanction short of revocation would be sufficient to protect the public, achieve deterrence, and impress upon Attorney Elverman the seriousness of his misconduct...
We agree with the referee's recommendation that the revocation of Attorney Elverman's license not be made retroactive. Although Attorney Elverman's actual theft of D.P.'s money may have ended in 2004, it appears that he continued to take actions to the detriment of her estate past the time that his license to practice law was suspended in 2008. In addition, both Attorney Elverman and the OLR disregard the fact that in July of 2011 Attorney Elverman was convicted of disorderly conduct as the result of a domestic violence incident that occurred in May 2011. Attorney Elverman's failure to timely report that conviction to this court, and his failure to cooperate with the OLR's investigation into that incident, is yet another indication of Attorney Elverman's true character...The misconduct at issue in this case is extremely serious. Attorney Elverman took advantage of an elderly woman who was suffering from Alzheimer's disease and stole a large amount of money from her. Accordingly, we decline the parties' request to make revocation of his license retroactive.
This earlier report is from the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. (Mike Frisch)
Bret Crow of the Ohio Supreme Court web page has this report on two bar discipline matters decided today.
In separate disciplinary cases announced today, the Ohio Supreme Court disbarred one northeast Ohio attorney and suspended another from the practice of law.
- The Supreme Court disbarred Warren attorney Kenneth N. Shaw, finding that he represented clients while suspended and paid himself fees in probate actions without first receiving court approval.
- The Supreme Court suspended Cleveland attorney David A. Streeter Jr. for two years with 18 months stayed on conditions for misappropriating $230,000, engaging in a Ponzi-like scheme, and not promptly owning up to his misconduct.
In Disciplinary Counsel v. Shaw, the court found that Shaw failed to advise four clients that he had been suspended from the practice of law and that in two estate matters he did not receive the required court approval – pursuant to local probate rules – before paying himself attorney fees. The court’s per curiam (not assigned to a specific justice) decision rejected the recommended sanction of an indefinite suspension from the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline. The Supreme Court noted in its decision that “the circumstances here require Shaw’s permanent disbarment.”
The Supreme Court adopted the board’s findings regarding aggravating factors about prior disciplinary actions, a pattern of misconduct, that “Shaw’s actions caused harm to vulnerable clients,” and that “Shaw acted with a dishonest and selfish motive.” However, the Supreme Court added “factors that Shaw committed multiple offenses and failed to make restitution” in the probate matters.
Noting that disbarment is the typical sanction imposed for attorneys who continue to practice law while under suspension, the court found that Shaw’s cooperation in the investigation as a “lone mitigating factor does not justify a departure from the presumption in favor of disbarment.”
The court also differentiated Shaw’s case from the indefinite suspension sanctions imposed in similar cases because Shaw “was previously disciplined for serious misconduct.”
In Disciplinary Counsel v. Streeter, the court again imposed a more severe sanction than recommended by the board, which did not include an actual suspension from the practice of law. In doing so, the court sustained an objection by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
The Disciplinary Counsel alleged that Streeter misappropriated more than $230,000 in funds from real estate closings that he conducted in the operation of his business, Statewide Title Agency, Ltd., to cover personal and business expenses. In a per curiam opinion, the court distinguished Streeter’s misconduct from that of another attorney who received a fully stayed suspension on the ground that Streeter “took affirmative action to cover up his theft by repaying the money with more misappropriated money rather than with his own funds.” The other attorney, in contrast, disclosed the full extent of his misappropriation in response to relator’s first letter of inquiry.
The Supreme Court noted that Streeter misappropriated more than three times the amount that the other attorney had taken and that “he continues to minimize the extent of his theft by arguing that his Ponzi-like scheme to repay the funds resulted in a net misappropriation of just $75,001.99.”
In addition, the Supreme Court emphasized that “Streeter’s misconduct, in contrast, is the result of a crisis that he could have avoided, or at the very least minimized, with the exercise of due diligence,” the opinion states. “He testified that when he and his business partner decided to amicably dissolve their relationship, he assumed full ownership of Statewide Title, its assets, and its liabilities, without making any inquiry into the financial condition of the business. He admitted that he did not understand the accounting side of the business, and that he did not know how to run a business. Streeter viewed sole ownership of Statewide as an opportunity to advance his career and proceeded blindly, without conducting any of the due diligence that one would expect of someone – especially an attorney – entering into a significant business transaction.”
Monday, March 24, 2014
An attorney who filed a false affidavit in connection with a suit against a law school and its Dean was suspended for a year and a day by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
The attorney had filed the suit on behalf of a law school classmate alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. After a confidential settlement was reached, the attorney alleged that the law school and Dean had breached the agreement.
The client then filed two new actions seeking a restraining order against the Dean and the law school's defense counsel, alleging that they were stalking and harassing him. The client sought injunctive and monetary relief.
The affidavit at issue attested that the attorney
...had investigated the dean by interviewing former students and current attorneys who were African American and/or of Caribbean descent and that those students had described the dean (who is African American) as "unprofessional, sophomoric, and silly." The respondent also attested that "[the dean] was given a free house to live in [a named county], which is paid for by the law school and taxpayer dollars.
The above statement was found to be either knowingly or recklessly false. (Mike Frisch)
The Connecticut Supreme Court has addressed the following issue
The principal issue in this appeal is whether allegations that a law firm breached its duty of undivided loyalty to a client and failed to follow the client’s instructions regarding the prosecution of a lawsuit sound in breach of contract, to which a six year statute of limitations applies, or in legal malpractice, to which a three year statute of limitations applies.
The court held that the shorter statute applied and that the plaintiff thus had sued too late
Although the Rules of Professional Conduct specify that the ‘‘[v]iolation of a Rule should not itself give rise to a cause of action against a lawyer nor should it create any presumption that a legal duty has been breached,’’ they also acknowledge that, ‘‘since the Rules do establish standards of conduct by lawyers, a lawyer’s violation of a Rule may be evidence of breach of the applicable standard of conduct.’’ 7 Rules of Professional Conduct, scope. Accordingly, even though the plaintiff does not rely expressly on the Rules of Professional Conduct as a basis for her claim, her allegations that the defendant breached its duty of undivided loyalty and its duty to follow her wishes and instructions in its prosecution and settlement of the prior lawsuit are consistent with a claim of legal malpractice that relies on violations of rules 1.7 (a) and 1.2 (a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct as evidence of a breach of the applicable standard of conduct. See Caffery v. Stillman, supra, 79 Conn. App. 197–98 (concluding that complaint alleged violation of minimum standard of care rather than breach of contract).
We thus conclude that the plaintiff’s allegations sound in tort rather than in breach of contract, and, as a consequence, the plaintiff’s claim is barred by the three year statute of limitations applicable to tort claims.
The judgment of the Appellate Court is affirmed.
A decision of the Maryland Court of Appeals gives the reader insight into the often arcane world of reciprocal discipline.
The case involves an attorney admitted in both Maryland and the District of Columbia. He was suspended in D.C. as a result of his claim that he suffered from a mental illness that made him unable to defend bar charges.
As a result, D.C. imposed what is called a "disability" suspension based on the claim that depression impaired his ability to defend the pending disciplinary charges.
The charges were thus held in abeyance.
Maryland does not have such a procedure.
The court thus placed the attorney on inactive status as "the most appropriate analogous response" to the D.C. suspension.
The court noted that the attorney had claimed in Maryland that the depression was the result of "a perfect storm of emotional issues in which he was ensnared" and that his counsel had argued that "the perfect storm has passed now and, thus, the reason for suspension no longer exists."
The attorney sought a hearing in Maryland on whether reciprocal discipline would result in a "grave injustice."
The court concluded that the attorney's effort to continue to practice in Maryland despite the disability concession in D.C.
would convert Maryland into an asylum for attorney's wishing to flee from pending disciplinary matters in other jurisdictions....[n]either financial difficulties to Respondent due to his inability to practice law while on inactive status nor 'forum-shopping' for the quickest reinstatement creates a 'grave injustice' warranting a finding that reciprocal discipline is inappropriate...
The court found the nearest comparable sanction to impose and determined that it would contravene the spirit of reciprocity to give the attorney a Maryland license in light of his D.C. status. (Mike Frisch)
Not a legal profession case but worthy of note is a decision last week from the New York Appellate Division for the First Judicial Department finding that dismissal of a tenured teacher was a "strikingly disproportionate" sanction for the behavior at issue:
Petitioner taught Spanish at James Madison High School (JMHS) from 2003 until November 20, 2009. On Friday, November 20, 2009, she ate dinner with colleagues and returned to the school later that evening to watch a musical competition in the first floor auditorium, although she was not required to do so. During the performance, petitioner was allegedly observed in an upstairs classroom "partially undressed (Specification 2) and "engaging in what appeared to be sexually inappropriate behavior with a colleague" (Specification 3). These actions allegedly "caused widespread negative publicity, ridicule and notoriety to [JMHS] and the New York City Department of Education (DOE) when [petitioner's] misconduct was reported in New York area news reports and papers" (Specification 4).
But in mitigation
Petitioner was present at the school as an audience member and not in any official capacity. The incident involved a consenting adult colleague and was not observed by any student. Before the incident, petitioner, a tenured teacher who had made many positive contributions to the school, had an unblemished disciplinary record, and, moreover, was described by her supervisor as one of the best teachers she had ever worked with...
While petitioner's behavior demonstrated a lapse in judgment, there is no evidence that this incident, was anything but a one-time mistake...
Nor is there is any indication in the record that petitioner's conduct will affect her ability to teach or that she intended to inflict any damage on any student. While it is unfortunate that the incident garnered so much attention and was exploited in the media, that in and of itself does not warrant the penalty of termination...
The matter was remanded for imposition of a lesser penalty. (Mike Frisch)
We regularly encounter cases where an attorney is disbarred for violating Rule 1.15 by misappropriating entrusted funds.
The Maryland Court of Appeals ordered disbarment today for a different type of escrow account dishonest misuse
The gravamen of Respondent’s misconduct is his dishonest and fraudulent practice of depositing personal funds into an attorney escrow account in order to shield those funds from creditors—namely the IRS. We have said before, and it bears repeating here, that “[c]andor and truthfulness are two of the most important moral character traits of a lawyer.” (citation omitted)
I suspect that, if this attorney also is admitted in the District of Columbia, a lesser sanction will be imposed as reciprocal discipline if he objects to an identical sanction. (Mike Frisch)
The Indiana Supreme Court imposed a public reprimand of an attorney who assisted in a violation of a witness sequestration order
Respondent represented a client who was under an order to have no contact with a victim or either of her two sons. After the client allegedly approached one of the sons in a park near the victim's house, a bond revocation hearing was set. At the hearing, the judge entered a separation of witnesses order, admonishing the witnesses not to speak about potential testimony and not to discuss what happened in the courtroom after testifying. Both of the victim's sons testified that the client was in the park in violation of the no contact order. At the end of the hearing, but while the separation of witnesses order was still in effect, one of the prosecutors heard Respondent give details of the State's witnesses' testimony to the defense witnesses.
The attorney had a record of prior discipline but believed that the witnesses she talked to would not be called. (Mike Frisch)
The Louisiana Supreme Court has imposed a three-year suspension of an attorney by consent:
The Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent was arrested and charged with simple possession of marijuana and that he misrepresented his history of marijuana use to the Committee on Bar Admissions and to a Lawyers Assistance Program evaluator. Following the filing of formal charges, respondent and the ODC submitted a joint petition for consent discipline, in which the parties stipulated that respondent has violated Rules 8.1(a), 8.1(b), 8.4(b), and 8.4(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
I have been quite critical of late of what I perceive to be an unduly lenient system of lawyer discipline in New Jersey.
So it is with relief I report this from the Disciplinary Review Board in a case involving, among other things, misappropriation:
..,respondent has a serious ethics history: a three-month suspension in 2012 and a six-month suspension in 2013. In both of those matters, he displayed dishonest conduct: in the first, by making a misrepresentation to the ethics investigator that he was safekeeping property that was required to be maintained inviolate, and lying under oath at the ethics hearing; and, in the second, by authorizing his paralegal to make false statements to third parties. In all of his disciplinary utter disrespect for ethics authorities. He was found guilty of violating RPC 8.1(b) in his prior matters and in this one, his second default.
Respondent’s pervasive dishonesty, his refusal to cooperate with ethics authorities, and the overriding need to protect the public from attorneys who, like him, demonstrate a deficiency of character require that he be disbarred. We so recommend to the Court.
The Supreme Court agreed. (Mike Frisch)
Friday, March 21, 2014
The North Carolina State Bar has filed a motion to dissolve the stay of disciplinary proceedings against former Durham County District Attorney Tracey Cline.
The matter has been stayed since September 2012 while Cline sought appellate review of an order removing her from office.
The State Bar attached to the motion the appellate orders affirming the removal and asserted that the stay is no longer appropriate.
This weekend is a special one for fans of college sports.
For me, the basketball takes a back seat to the NCAA wrestling championships.
In Iowa, wrestling is king.
The attorney represented the plaintiff in a civil action.
A few days before the scheduled deposition of his client, he realized that he had not served discovery requests and, as a result, "embarked on a course of dishonest conduct that he will regret for the remainder of his legal career. "
The deception was uncovered when opposing counsel checked document metadata.
The coverup -- which involved a series of elaborate and persistent falsehoods --was far worse than the mistake with respect to the initial failure to serve discovery requests. (Mike Frisch)
The Indiana Supreme Court agreed with an appointed hearing officer that ethics charges against a prosecutor were not proven.
The prosecutor faced allegations that she had failed to turn over exculpatory information to the defense.
Although the court incorporated the hearing officer's findings by reference, it not not attached those findings to its order. (Mike Frisch)
Thursday, March 20, 2014
The web page of the Iowa Supreme Court announces that a decision will be issued tomorrow in a disciplinary case described by KORG.com, an ABC channel
An Iowa City attorney and school board member sought to appeal a law license suspension before the Iowa Supreme Court Wednesday. The Iowa Supreme Court Grievance Commission recommended Jeff McGinness should be fined following evidence of professional misconduct.
Cedar Rapids attorney Gregory Lederer, who represented McGinness, didn't deny McGinness had lied but argued his law license suspension should be reduced citing McGinness' character, work in public service and positive professional record outside of the incident.
“He made a terrible decision but that does not mean he’s without character, that he cannot function as a valuable member of this profession and provide services, quality services, in an ethical manner to clients in the state of Iowa,” Ledrer said.
McGinness faces a six-month suspension of his law license after the Grievance Commission found he had falsified documents in a 2012 civil case and repeatedly lied about it to an opposing attorney and judge. He later admitted to the violations.
Teresa Vens, who represented the Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board, argued honesty is pivotal in the legal profession and McGinness committed a series of lies over the course of two months in 2012 despite opportunities to confess.
"This is not just about Mr. McGinness being sorry for his actions but it's about you speaking to all Iowa attorneys and to the public about the importance of honesty in our profession," she said.
Supreme Court Justice David Wiggins said he was concerned McGinness carried the lie for so long.
“Do we want someone practicing law in this state that would go to this extreme to protect the lie?” he said.
Lederer said there was no doubt McGinness had made a career-changing decision but argued the court give McGinness a chance to salvage his career and reduce the suspension to “anything less than six months".
The court did not issue a ruling on the matter Wednesday but will announce its decision sometime before their session concludes June 30.
Read more: http://www.kcrg.com/home/top-9/Iowa-High-Court-241518391.html#ixzz2wXAFO8Ut