Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Robert Allan Wright Jr.
2013 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 123
Iowa2013Background
- Wright is an Iowa attorney, admitted in 1981, whose practice included criminal, family, personal injury, and workers’ compensation matters.
- In 2011, while representing Madison in a Nigerian inheritance scheme, Wright learned of purported funds and agreed to represent for a 10% fee to facilitate transfer of $18.8 million upon Nigerian taxes paid.
- Wright solicited and arranged loans to Madison from Rynearson ($12,000) and then additional $12,500, depositing both in his trust account.
- Wright informed other clients (Linda Putz) of the Nigerian plan and obtained loans totaling $12,500, all proceeds deposited in his trust account.
- Disclosures later revealed further solicitations from Toryan White, Vern Stodden, and Bob Nunneman for loans; Board later charged Wright with multiple rule violations.
- Wright’s license has been suspended since August 16, 2012 for failure to cooperate with a trust account audit; the Grievance Commission recommended a lengthy suspension, and the Supreme Court imposed a 12-month suspension beginning after temporary suspension is lifted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Wright’s conduct a violation of competence (Rule 32:1.1)? | Board argues Wright failed to competently analyze the Nigerian matter. | Wright contends he relied on the information provided by Madison and acted in good faith. | Yes; Wright violated 32:1.1. |
| Did Wright disclose an adverse pecuniary interest and obtain informed consent (Rule 32:1.8(a))? | Board asserts Wright had an undisclosed contingent fee and failed to obtain independent counsel for Rynearson and Putz. | Wright argues voluntary disclosure and lack of intent to harm clients. | Yes; Wright violated 32:1.8(a). |
| Did Wright engage in deceit or misrepresentation (Rule 32:8.4(c))? | Board contends failure to disclose risks and his contingent interest constitutes deceit. | Wright disputes that his conduct amounted to deceit. | Yes; Wright violated 32:8.4(c). |
| Whether the Board’s charges under Rule 32:1.7 and 32:1.8(b) were decided or reserved for future sanctioning (scope of ruling)? | Board contends issues relate to potential sanctions; the record supports sanctioning. | Wright argues these issues should be resolved separately or were not essential to the sanction. | Not decided here; sanctions addressed under other rules. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct, 606 N.W.2d 5 (Iowa 2000) (solicitation of a loan from former client; pattern of misconduct considered for discipline)
- Beckman v. Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct, 674 N.W.2d 129 (Iowa 2004) (consideration of witness credibility and scope of de novo review in ethics actions)
- Earley v. Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct, 774 N.W.2d 301 (Iowa 2009) (no standard sanction; case-specific sanction analysis)
- Jones v. Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct, 606 N.W.2d 5 (Iowa 2000) (reiterating conflicts of interest and deceit considerations)
- Jay v. Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct, 606 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2000) (harm to clients; aggravation in sanction context)