Committee on Professional Ethics and Conduct of Iowa State Bar Ass'n v. Floy

• Decision Date: 15 June 1983
• Docket Number: No. 69188,69188
• Citation: 334 N.W.2d 739
• Parties: The COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL ETHICS AND CONDUCT OF the IOWA STATE BAR ASSOCIATION, Complainant, v. Kent R. FLOY, Respondent.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

Page 739

334 N.W.2d 739

The COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL ETHICS AND CONDUCT OF the IOWA STATE BAR ASSOCIATION, Complainant, v. Kent R. FLOY, Respondent.

No. 69188.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

June 15, 1983.

John R. Hearn, Des Moines, for appellant.

Frank A. Comito and Hedo M. Zacherle, Des Moines, for appellee.

Considered en banc.

HARRIS, Justice.

Respondent, an attorney, appeals from the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the grievance commission in this disciplinary proceeding. On the basis of two obscene phone calls he made, the commission recommended Floy's license to practice law be suspended for at least 18 months. Floy does not dispute that he was involved but believes the evidence is not sufficient to support the disciplinary action and argues the proposed suspension is excessive.

Because they had been receiving obscene phone calls at their residence, two young women arranged with the Des Moines police and the phone company to trace and record future calls. On September 13, 1981, respondent made two such calls which were recorded and traced to him. He subsequently entered a guilty plea to a charge of violating a city ordinance prohibiting telephone harassment. The violation was a simple misdemeanor. He was given a suspended 30 day jail sentence and placed on probation under an agreement to continue psychological treatment.

We choose not to quote here the remarks to which the young ladies were subjected during the calls. Suffice it to say that, whatever their psychological explanation, the "hard core" utterances here were outrageous and shocking. Floy did not know the women to whom the phone calls were made. The grievance commission found, and we agree, that respondent's conduct violated a number of professional canons, including DR 1-102(A)(3) and (6).

Respondent was 25 years old at the time of the proceedings before the commission. After admission to practice in 1981 he became associated with a respected and prominent law firm. His work with that firm was described as exemplary. He has no juvenile or criminal record. As a result of the telephone incident he resigned from the firm and has not practiced law since.

Floy undertook the required psychological treatment and believes he has benefited from it. The psychologist testified that the telephone incident was an isolated occurrence. Respondent agreed and stated such an incident would not occur again. He takes the position that the incident in no way affected his professional...