Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Joseph Michael Haskovec, 2015 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 88

Joseph M. Haskovec, an Iowa attorney (admitted 1985) drafted new estate documents for his aunt, Edith Benson, including a will, on July 8, 2010; Haskovec and one witness (Pint) were present but Pint did not sign at that time.
The will’s attestation clause stated two witnesses signed in the presence of the testator and each other; Haskovec did not use self-proving wills.
After Benson’s health declined and she died on August 26, 2010, Haskovec mailed the will to Pint in Arizona so she could sign it; Pint signed outside the presence of Benson and the other witness.
Haskovec then gave the will to the named executrix (Randall) in mid-September without disclosing Pint’s out-of-presence signature; Randall sought probate and another attorney (Dunbar) requested an affidavit from Haskovec.
Haskovec admitted sending the will to Pint and later told Dunbar the signature was obtained outside the testator’s presence; the will was ultimately not probated and an earlier 2005 will was probated.
The Disciplinary Board charged violations of Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct 32:4.1(b) and 32:8.4(c); the Grievance Commission found both violations and recommended a public reprimand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Haskovec violated rule 32:4.1(b) by failing to disclose a material fact to a third person to avoid assisting a fraud/crime	Board: Haskovec gave the will to Randall (a third person) and failed to disclose the defective witness signature while representing her, thus assisting fraud	Haskovec: He represented Benson, not Randall; no evidence Benson committed fraud or crime; giving the will after death did not assist a criminal/fraudulent act	Court: No violation — rule requires that silence would assist a client’s criminal/fraudulent act, which was not shown here; Haskovec’s client was Benson only
Whether Haskovec violated rule 32:8.4(c) by engaging in dishonesty, deceit, or misrepresentation	Board/Commission: Sending the will to Pint to sign outside the testator’s presence and delivering the will without disclosure was deceitful and misleading to third parties and court	Haskovec: (stipulated violation but argued mitigating facts — disclosed to Dunbar voluntarily; no prior discipline; public service)	Court: Violation — Haskovec knowingly caused a false attestation, intended to mislead Pint and Randall, and failed to disclose the defect; public reprimand imposed

Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. Bieber, 824 N.W.2d 514 (finding Rule 32:4.1(b) violation where attorney assisted client’s real‑estate fraud)
Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. Engelmann, 840 N.W.2d 156 (holding attorney violated Rule 32:4.1(b) by preparing documents that facilitated client fraud)
Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. Dunahoo, 799 N.W.2d 524 (recognizing failure to disclose material facts can violate Rule 32:8.4(c))
Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. Liles, 808 N.W.2d 203 (sixty‑day suspension for attorney who attempted to probate a will with a known forged witness signature under Rule 32:8.4(c))
Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. Newman, 748 N.W.2d 786 (public reprimand for filing an order with a forged judge’s signature under Rule 32:8.4(c))
Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Gailey, 790 N.W.2d 801 (parties’ stipulations to violations/sanctions are not binding on the court)
Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Powell, 726 N.W.2d 397 (framework for sanctioning—nature of violation, protection of public, deterrence, lawyer fitness, integrity of profession)