Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Theodore Fredrick Sporer, 897 N.W.2d 69

Background

Attorney Theodore F. Sporer represented Gary Propstein in a 2012 divorce; the district court awarded the ex-wife (Linda) substantial retirement benefits and ordered Gary to pay ~$23,835 for home equity. Gary failed to pay on time, prompting a contempt action.
Settlement communications occurred in late Sept.–Oct. 2012: Duffy (Linda’s counsel) sent a Sept. 24 letter reserving QDRO/retirement issues; Sporer purportedly annotated that letter and later produced a marked-up copy dated by him to Sept. 27.
On Oct. 9–10, 2012, Gary’s $27,000 check was retrieved from Sporer’s office by Duffy’s secretary, Teresa Young, who signed a short-form receipt; Linda cashed the check and later added handwritten exceptions to preserve QDRO rights.
Sporer claimed (in court and testimony) that (1) he had sent the Sept. 24 annotated letter to Duffy on Sept. 27 and (2) Young’s signature (and cashing the check) created a binding full release; Duffy and others denied receiving the annotated Sept. 24 letter before April 2013 and denied Young had authority to bind the client.
The district court found Sporer fabricated evidence, lied under oath, and there was no settlement releasing Linda’s retirement claims; the Iowa Attorney Disciplinary Board charged Sporer with multiple ethics violations.
The Grievance Commission found Sporer violated rules prohibiting frivolous claims, false statements to a tribunal, dishonesty/deceit, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, and recommended a six‑month suspension; the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed suspension for six months.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Sporer knowingly made false statements to the tribunal (Iowa R. Prof’l Conduct 32:3.3(a)(1))	Board: Sporer testified falsely that he wrote and sent the Sept. 24 annotated letter on Sept. 27 and falsely asserted belief Young had authority to bind client.	Sporer: He actually believed annotations were made/sent on Sept. 27 and believed Young’s signature plus cashing of check supported accord/ratification/estoppel.	Court: Proven by convincing preponderance/clear and convincing evidence — Sporer knowingly made false statements in violation of 32:3.3(a)(1).
Whether Sporer asserted frivolous claims or controverted issues without basis (Iowa R. Prof’l Conduct 32:3.1)	Board: Sporer unreasonably argued that a clerk’s signature bound the client; that position lacked factual or legal support.	Sporer: Alternative defenses (accord and satisfaction, ratification, estoppel) existed and he did not rely solely on Young’s signature.	Court: Even if other defenses existed, his specific testimony that Young had authority lacked factual/legal basis and violated 32:3.1.
Whether Sporer unlawfully altered, destroyed, or concealed evidence (Iowa R. Prof’l Conduct 32:3.4(a))	Board: The annotated Sept. 24 letter was a manipulated evidentiary document and its handling violated the rule.	Sporer: He created annotations but did not alter an existing submitted document; he produced the annotated copy.	Court: No violation — creation of a new annotated copy did not meet the alteration/destruction standard under 32:3.4(a).
Whether Sporer engaged in dishonesty or conduct prejudicial to administration of justice (Iowa R. Prof’l Conduct 32:8.4(c) and (d))	Board: False testimony and misrepresentations caused unnecessary hearings and wasted judicial resources; dishonest conduct warrants discipline.	Sporer: Denies intentional falsehoods; argues some defenses were legitimately advanced and hearings may have occurred regardless.	Court: Violations of 32:8.4(c) proven (dishonesty/misrepresentation); violation of 32:8.4(d) partially found (for annotated-letter misrepresentations) but not for the Young‑authority argument as to additional hearings. Suspension imposed.

Key Cases Cited

In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N.W.2d 252 (Iowa 1996) (QDRO/defined‑benefit division formula)
Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. McGinness, 844 N.W.2d 456 (Iowa 2014) (six‑month suspension for falsified certificate of service)
Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Thompson, 732 N.W.2d 865 (Iowa 2007) (alteration of documents discipline precedent)
Comm. on Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Hurd, 325 N.W.2d 386 (Iowa 1982) (document alteration misconduct)
Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Netti, 797 N.W.2d 591 (Iowa 2011) (mens rea requirement for misrepresentations)
Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Bowles, 794 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2011) (deference to commission credibility findings)
Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Wright, 857 N.W.2d 510 (Iowa 2014) (burden of proof in discipline proceedings)
Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Rhinehart, 827 N.W.2d 169 (Iowa 2013) (conduct causing delays wastes judicial resources)
Comm. on Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Bauerle, 460 N.W.2d 452 (Iowa 1990) (six‑month suspension for backdating/false notarization)
Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Liles, 808 N.W.2d 203 (Iowa 2012) (discipline for forged signature)
Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Stein, 586 N.W.2d 523 (Iowa 1998) (suspension for altering certificate of service)
Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Khowassah, 837 N.W.2d 649 (Iowa 2013) (cooperation as mitigating factor)
Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Iversen, 723 N.W.2d 806 (Iowa 2006) (sanction factors)
Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Van Beek, 757 N.W.2d 639 (Iowa 2008) (prior discipline as aggravating factor)
Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Hearity, 812 N.W.2d 614 (Iowa 2012) (false statements to tribunal may be oral)