Iowa: Lawyer Suspended for Engaging in a Sexual Relationship with a Client and Disclosing Privileged Information.

In In re Marzen, 779 N.W.2d757 (Iowa 2010), the Iowa Supreme Court suspended a lawyer for a period of not less than 6 months with no possibility of reinstatement during that time for disclosing client confidences, ethical violations and engaging in sexual acts with a client. Upon application for reinstatement, the attorney shall have the burden to prove he has not practiced during the suspension and meets all requirements for reinstatement provided in Iowa Court Rule 35.13

The Iowa State Supreme Court affirmed the grievance commissions finding that the lawyer violated Iowa R. Prof’l Conduct 32:1.6(a) and overturned the grievance commissions finding that the attorney did not engage in sexual relations with his client. The Iowa State Supreme Court found that the attorney violated Iowa R. Prof’l Conduct 32:8.1(j) by engaging in sexual acts at least 4 times with a client.

The lawyer disclosed privileged information regarding his client during a news interview of which the client states she never gave him permission to do. He used the interview to defame his client during his successful bid to become county attorney. The court found that a lawyer can only disclose confidential information in the appropriate forum and only to the extent necessary to offer protection. The revelation of information to the reporter was needed to defend the bid for county attorney not to defend against the allegations of the disciplinary hearing. See In re Bryan, 61P.3d at 658 (Kansas 2003).

The lawyer engaged in sexual relations with the client at least four times. The relations occurred twice at his home, once at her home and once at his office. Both sides presented conflicting testimony and witnesses. The court found that the lawyer’s sexual relationship with his client was particularly offensive to the notions of trustworthiness and professionalism because the attorney met the client as her court-appointed attorney during her involuntary mental health commitment hearing. He displayed an egocentric attitude that was apparent. See also In re Mcgrath, 713N.W.2d 682, 703-04 (Iowa 2006).

This case teaches the importance of the lawyer’s duty under rule 32:1.6(a) that states that a lawyer “shall not reveal information related to the representation of the client unless the client gives informed consent.” In addition, Iowa R. Prof. Conduct 32.8.1(j) states that “an attorney is prohibited from having sexual relations with a client when the client is not the lawyer’s spouse or when the sexual relationship did not predate the initiation of the attorney-client relationship.”