Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Eric Jonathon Palmer
825 N.W.2d 322
Iowa2013Background
- Eric J. Palmer, admitted to practice in 1986, had prior public service and community involvement.
- In 2009 Palmer helped Linette and Steve Paulos establish a conservatorship for their minor child to settle a personal injury claim.
- Palmer directed his secretary to sign Linette Paulos’s name on three conservatorship-related documents and notarized them.
- Judges issued orders appointing a guardian ad litem and conservators; subsequent orders authorized settlement and sealing of records.
- In 2011 Palmer sought to withdraw; Mrs. Paulos disputed some signatures and memory issues arose due to brain injury and Paxil use.
- The Iowa Attorney Disciplinary Board charged Palmer with Rule 32:3.3(a)(1) and Rule 32:8.4(d) violations; the Grievance Commission recommended a 30-day suspension.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Palmer violate 3.3(a)(1) by filing documents with false or undisclosed signatures? | Palmer relied on authority and urgency; signatures may have been provided by Paulos with permission. | Palmer had express authorization due to time constraints and Paulos’s circumstances; signatures were authorized. | Yes; violated 3.3(a)(1) by filing without disclosing non-authentic signatures and by false notarization. |
| Did Palmer violate 8.4(d) by conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice? | False notarization and misrepresentation harmed court proceedings and acknowledgment of authentic signatures. | No deliberate prejudice shown beyond the signing issue. | Yes; violated 8.4(d) due to false notarization and failure to disclose authentic signatures. |
| Is a 30-day suspension an appropriate sanction for Palmer’s conduct? | Prior disciplinary history and seriousness of misconduct justify suspension. | A lesser sanction could be warranted given mitigating factors and the nature of the offenses. | Yes; Commission’s 30-day suspension is appropriate. |
| Were the signatures actually forged or authorized by Mrs. Paulos? | Palmer’s testimony suggested authorization; Paulos memory compromised but possible authorization. | Paulos’s testimony indicated the signatures were not hers, or at least not knownly authorized. | Board proved signatures were not Mrs. Paulos’s; Palmer’s notarization misrepresented attendance and authority. |
| Do aggravating or mitigating factors affect the discipline? | Past reprimands and the gravity of misrepresentation support stricter discipline. | Mitigating factors exist; violations are less extensive than in some precedents. | Mitigating factors present but disciplinary history supports suspension. |
Key Cases Cited
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Clauss, 530 N.W.2d 453 (Iowa 1995) (false notarization deemed a serious ethical violation)
- Comm. on Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Bauerle, 460 N.W.2d 452 (Iowa 1990) (false notarization and backdated documents severely sanctionable)
- Comm. on Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Seff, 457 N.W.2d 924 (Iowa 1990) (forgery and false attestations involving probate context)
- Comm. on Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. West, 387 N.W.2d 338 (Iowa 1986) (forging signatures and misrepresentation in notarization)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Liles, 808 N.W.2d 203 (Iowa 2012) (de novo review standard and weight given to commission findings)