Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Mason James Ouderkirk
845 N.W.2d 31
Iowa2014Background
- No. 13–1124 Iowa Supreme Court case involving Attorney Disciplinary Board vs. Ouderkirk, appealing a grievance commission recommendation of public reprimand.
- Ouderkirk represented Rodney Heemstra in criminal and civil matters following a fatal shooting, including asset transfers to protect assets from creditors.
- The Lyon estate challenged the transfers as fraudulent conveyances; district court unwound several transfers and awarded damages.
- The Grievance Commission concluded some transfers violated ethics rules but recommended a public reprimand, and Ouderkirk’s conduct was reviewed de novo.
- The Supreme Court dismissed the Board’s complaint, finding no violation by a preponderance of the evidence and dismissed with prejudice.
- The opinion discusses whether engaging in transfer drafting and assisting in a sale to a related party constituted fraud or prejudice to the administration of justice, under the 2003 standards (DR 1–102 and DR 7–102).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ouderkirk violated DR 7–102(A)(1). | Board argues knowledge of fraud or Wik; red flags showed. | Ouderkirk argues no actual knowledge of fraud; relied on clients’ representations. | No violation; Board failed to prove knowledge of fraud. |
| Whether Ouderkirk violated DR 1–102(A)(4) & DR 7–102(A)(7). | Board contends knowingly facilitating fraudulent conveyances. | Ouderkirk asserts lack of scienter; relied on clients’ explanations. | No violation; insufficient proof of knowing facilitation. |
| Whether Ouderkirk violated DR 1–102(A)(5). | Board asserts conduct prejudicial to administration of justice. | Ouderkirk’s conduct did not demonstrably disrupt judicial processes. | No violation; Board failed to prove conduct prejudicial to justice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rhinehart v. Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd., 827 N.W.2d 169 (Iowa 2013) (de novo review and evidentiary deference to commission findings in attorney discipline)
- Clarity v. Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd., 838 N.W.2d 648 (Iowa 2013) (credibility and deference to commission testimony in discipline cases)
- Adams v. Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd., 809 N.W.2d 543 (Iowa 2012) (standard of proof—convincing preponderance in discipline)
- Earley v. Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd., 774 N.W.2d 301 (Iowa 2009) (considered commission’s findings and sanctions in de novo review)
- Mirabile v. Missouri State Commission, 975 S.W.2d 936 (Mo. 1998) (parallel ethical analysis of fraud and limitations on sanctions for non-self-dealing lawyers)
- Jacobsen, 511 N.W.2d 611 (Iowa 1994) (sanction for sham mortgage related to fraudulent conveyance and ethics)