Committee on Professional Ethics and Conduct of the Iowa State Bar Ass'n v. Lindaman, 89-1117
| Decision Date | 20 December 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-1117,89-1117 |
| Citation | 449 N.W.2d 341 |
| Parties | The COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL ETHICS AND CONDUCT OF THE IOWA STATE BAR ASSOCIATION, Complainant, v. Douglas K. LINDAMAN, Respondent. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Charles L. Harrington and Norman G. Bastemeyer, Des Moines, for complainant.
Douglas K. Lindaman, Charles City, pro se.
Considered by CARTER, P.J., and LAVORATO, NEUMAN, SNELL, and ANDREASEN, JJ.
Douglas K. Lindaman, an attorney, appeals from the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Grievance Commission in this disciplinary proceeding. Lindaman pleaded guilty to two counts of lascivious acts with a child. The two charges arose from Lindaman's sexual contact with an eleven-year-old boy on two separate occasions. Lindaman was sentenced to an indeterminate term of five years on each count. The district court ordered the sentences to run consecutively. The court of appeals recently affirmed the convictions. State v. Lindaman, No. 9-452 (Iowa Ct.App. Nov. 27, 1989) (). On the basis of these felony convictions, the commission recommended that Lindaman's license to practice law be revoked.
At the time of the proceedings before the commission Lindaman was thirty-three years old and a resident of Charles City, Iowa. He had been in private practice since 1981 and had served for several years as a magistrate in Floyd County.
The Committee on Professional Ethics and Conduct filed a complaint against Lindaman before the grievance commission. The complaint alleged that Lindaman's conduct in connection with the two convictions violated the following provisions of the Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers:
DR 1-102(A)(1) (violating disciplinary rule); DR 1-102(A)(3) ();
DR 1-102(A)(6) ();
and
EC 1-5 (failing to refrain from all illegal and morally reprehensible conduct).
Lindaman filed an answer to the complaint, admitting the conduct that formed the basis for the two criminal charges against him.
However, Lindaman also raised two affirmative defenses in which he attempted to inject homosexuality as an issue in the proceedings. In short, Lindaman claimed that his heterosexual upbringing caused him to deny his homosexual identity since childhood. This denial, he asserts, caused him such internal turmoil and confusion that he was eventually led to commit the two acts to which he pleaded guilty.
Through several maneuvers, Lindaman persisted in his attempt to make homosexuality, and more particularly his own homosexuality, an issue. For example, he directed to the committee several interrogatories dealing with societal attitudes toward homosexuality. In response, the committee lodged relevancy objections. At the hearing before the commission Lindaman called several witnesses and attempted to question them about such attitudes. He also offered into evidence a movie that depicted how easy it is to teach prejudice to children.
Believing that homosexuality was not the issue, the commission rejected all of this proffered evidence as irrelevant, rejected Lindaman's defenses, and found that he was guilty of ethical violations as alleged by the committee. On appeal Lindaman challenges the commission's actions and raises several constitutional questions based on the homosexuality issue.
We agree with the commission that homosexuality is not an issue in these proceedings. Lindaman was charged with, and pleaded guilty to, lascivious acts with a child. See Iowa Code §§ 709.8, 702.5 (1989). Section 709.8 makes it unlawful for any person eighteen years of age or older to fondle or touch the genitals of a child for sexual gratification. Such conduct is a crime whether the perpetrator is homosexual or heterosexual. Society's views toward homosexuality are not relevant on the question whether such a crime has been committed.
Moreover, we reject Lindaman's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Iowa Supreme Court Attorney v. Blazek
...a minor for sex and possession of child pornography fit this definition. See Blazek, 590 N.W.2d at 503; Comm. on Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Lindaman, 449 N.W.2d 341, 342 (Iowa 1989). Moreover, such conduct adversely reflects on the practice of law. As the Commission stated, "[Blazek]'s cond......
-
Committee on Professional Ethics and Conduct of Iowa State Bar Ass'n v. Barrer
...This includes the stress and inner turmoil of attempting to cope with a homosexual identity. See Committee on Professional Ethics & Conduct v. Lindaman, 449 N.W.2d 341, 342 (Iowa 1989) ("we reject Lindaman's suggestion that his inability to deal with his homosexuality somehow excuses the cr......
-
Iowa Supreme Court Bd. of Professional Ethics and Conduct v. Marcucci, 95-1578
...suspension of thirty-six months for three simple misdemeanor convictions for indecent exposure. In Committee on Professional Ethics & Conduct v. Lindaman, 449 N.W.2d 341 (Iowa 1989), we revoked an attorney's license based on two felony convictions for lascivious acts with a child. In none o......
-
Iowa Supreme Court Bd. of Professional Ethics and Conduct v. Blazek, 98-1770
...(Iowa 1996). II. Discipline. We agree that Blazek's sexual assault violated DR 1-102(A)(3) and (6). See Committee on Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Lindaman, 449 N.W.2d 341, 342 (Iowa 1989) (holding attorney's sexual contact with eleven-year-old boy violated both DR 1-102(A)(3) and (6) and warr......