Iowa Supreme Ct. Atty. Disc. Bd. v. Kaiser
| Citation | 736 N.W.2d 544 |
| Decision Date | 27 July 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 07-0581.,07-0581. |
| Parties | IOWA SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD, Complainant, v. Steven C. KAISER, Respondent. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Charles L. Harrington and Wendell J. Harms, Des Moines, for complainant.
Frank A. Comito and Kent A. Gummert of Gaudineer, Comito & George, L.L.P., West Des Moines, for respondent.
The Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board filed a complaint with the Grievance Commission of the Supreme Court of Iowa against Steven C. Kaiser alleging he violated the Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers when he entered into business ventures with his client without properly making the required disclosures to the client. The Board charged Kaiser with violations of Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-102(A)(1) (); DR 1-102(A)(6) (); DR 5-101(A) (); DR 5-104(A) (); and DR 5-105(C) ().
The parties filed a joint stipulation of facts and their exhibits. Within the stipulation Kaiser and the Board agreed Kaiser violated DR 1-102(A)(1), DR 1-102(A)(6), DR 5-101(A), and DR 5-104(A). The Board also agreed to drop its charge that Kaiser violated DR 5-105(C). The parties stipulated a proper sanction would be a suspension of Kaiser's law license with no possibility for reinstatement for at least three months. The parties waived a hearing, filed briefs, and submitted the matter to the Commission with the stipulation and exhibits as the record.
The Commission found "[Kaiser] entered into the business ventures with [his client] with nothing less than honorable intentions" and these business ventures "caused [Kaiser] considerably more financial pain than profit." However, the Commission found Kaiser did not meet his "very heavy burden of disclosure." Instead, the Commission pointed out, "[Kaiser] acknowledges that there is no documentation that verifies adequate disclosure of the possible conflicts and consequences inherent in his business venture with [his client]." The Commission noted Kaiser has never previously been the subject of a disciplinary proceeding, but also that "the primary aggravating factor in this case is the fact that a client that clearly needed independent advice and advocacy was undoubtedly denied that commodity due to [Kaiser]'s understandable self-interest in the operation of the lawyer/client business venture." The Commission recommended that Kaiser's license to practice law be suspended for at least sixty days.
On our de novo review of the record we agree with the stipulation and the Commission's finding that Kaiser violated DR 1-102(A)(1), DR 1-102(A)(6), DR 5-101(A), and DR 5-104(A) in connection with his involvement in creating, running, and funding businesses with his client without the client's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. Powell
...Thus, suspensions for violating the conflict-of-interest rules ordinarily range from one month, see Iowa Supreme Ct. Att'y Disciplinary Bd. v. Kaiser , 736 N.W.2d 544, 546 (Iowa 2007) ; Fay , 619 N.W.2d at 327, to one year, see Wright , 840 N.W.2d at 304. We have recently imposed sixty-day ......