Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Jeffrey S. Rasmussen
823 N.W.2d 404
Iowa2012Background
- Rasmussen, not Iowa bar member, maintained Minnesota offices and represented the Tribe; the Tribe loaned $1 million secured by DNA Today assets including software; Rasmussen and Olson allegedly coordinated to repossess a server; the repossession occurred after tribal court action was filed; the Board alleged multiple disciplinary rule violations; the Grievance Commission found violations and recommended a 60-day cease-and-desist order; the Supreme Court adopts de novo review and dismisses the complaint; the court notes it did not find violations under several rules and denies sanctions.
- The underlying incident involved a planned visit to DNA Today on August 11, 2006, to verify possession of software, during which Rasmussen removed a server; communications with Whitehead and the tribal court action are central to whether violations occurred; the court previously addressed similar issues in Iowa v. Olson.
- The Board conceded tribal court proceedings constitute a tribunal in another jurisdiction; the court does not resolve whether tribal law governs, and ultimately finds no violations even assuming tribal rules apply.
- The court evaluates specific rule violations (4.2(a), 8.4(c), 8.4(d), 4.1(a), 8.4(b)) and concludes Rasmussen did not commit misconduct; the court also notes that self-help repossession and subsequent conduct did not prove prejudicial administration of justice; the complaint is dismissed.
- The decision relies on prior Iowa disciplinary cases (Olson, Van Ginkel, Templeton, Powell, Knopf) and discusses the non-violation of some rules given facts substantially similar to Olson; the Board’s allegations fail to meet the required standard of proof.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 4.2(a) communications with represented person | Board argues Rasmussen aided unauthorized direct contact | Rasmussen and Olson had permission from Whitehead; communications may be authorized | No violation of 4.2(a) |
| Rule 8.4(c) dishonesty or deceit | Rasmussen and Olson misled Whitehead about the visit | No affirmative misrepresentation; plan disclosed only partially | No violation of 8.4(c) |
| Rule 4.1(a) false statements to third person | Rasmussen made false statements to Whitehead | No false statements by Rasmussen before/at the visit | No violation of 4.1(a) |
| Rule 8.4(b) criminal act reflecting on honesty | The repossession constituted theft/trespass | DNA Today default enabled Tribe to repossess; entry authorized | No violation of 8.4(b) |
| Rule 8.4(d) prejudicial to administration of justice | Repossession/self-help prejudiced the administration | Self-help repossession permitted; no breach of peace shown | No violation of 8.4(d) or prejudice to justice |
| Choice of law governing disciplinary rules | Rules of tribal tribunal should apply | Iowa rules apply or choice not clearly resolved | Unnecessary to decide; even assuming tribal rules, no violations |
Key Cases Cited
- Iowa Sup. Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Olson, 807 N.W.2d 268 (Iowa 2011) (prior case on similar facts; communications and duties examined)
- Iowa Sup. Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Van Ginkel, 809 N.W.2d 96 (Iowa 2012) (standard for disciplinary review and non-binding to board findings)
- Iowa Sup. Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Templeton, 784 N.W.2d 761 (Iowa 2010) (prejudice to administration of justice considerations)
- Iowa Sup. Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Powell, 726 N.W.2d 397 (Iowa 2007) (duty to disclose relevant facts in representations)
- Iowa Sup. Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Knopf, 793 N.W.2d 525 (Iowa 2011) (standards for proving ethical misconduct)