Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Richard S. Kallsen
2012 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 42
| Iowa | 2012Background
- The Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board filed a complaint against Richard S. Kallsen for representing Elvin Farris in an OWI second offense, culminating in a forged guilty plea filed with the district court.
- Farris ultimately served seven days in jail; Kallsen admitted, at least in part, to drafting or facilitating the forged plea papers and notarizing the signature.
- The Board alleged violations of four Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct related to attorney–client authority, candor toward a tribunal, and administration of justice.
- The Grievance Commission found violations and recommended a two-year suspension; the court conducted a de novo review and imposed a one-year suspension.
- Kallsen failed to file a responsive pleading or respond to admissions; the allegations were deemed admitted under court rules, and Kallsen did not participate in the evidentiary hearing.
- Kallsen had a prior suspension in 2003 and reinstated in 2009; he placed his license on inactive status in 2011, and the court considered aggravating and mitigating factors in imposing sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Kallsen violate Rule 32:1.2(a)? | Kallsen ignored client’s plea decision to not plead guilty. | Kallsen disputes that he violated the rule by claiming he acted in the client’s best interests. | Yes, violation found. |
| Did Kallsen violate Rule 32:3.3(a)(1)? | Kallsen knowingly forged and filed papers misrepresenting client’s signatures. | Kallsen denied directing forgery and disputed the extent of his knowledge. | Yes, violation found. |
| Did Kallsen violate Rule 32:8.4(c)? | Kallsen engaged in dishonesty by facilitating a forged plea and notarizing it. | Kallsen contends dishonesty was not proven beyond the asserted rule violations. | Yes, violation found. |
| Did Kallsen violate Rule 32:8.4(d)? | Kallsen’s conduct prejudiced the administration of justice by causing unnecessary proceedings and jail time. | Kallsen argues the conduct did not impede justice beyond the specific violations. | Yes, violation found. |
Key Cases Cited
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Dunahoo, 799 N.W.2d 524 (Iowa 2011) (de novo review; board must prove misconduct by preponderance)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Boles, 808 N.W.2d 431 (Iowa 2012) (scope of sanction adjustment; board can impose more/less severe sanction)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Adams, 749 N.W.2d 666 (Iowa 2008) (allegations deemed admitted for failure to respond)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Hearity, N.W.2d _ (Iowa 2012) (admission and weight of evidence when respondent does not answer)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Rickabaugh, 728 N.W.2d 375 (Iowa 2007) (grave and serious breach; integrity of legal system requires honesty)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Seff, 457 N.W.2d 924 (Iowa 1990) (noting grave consequences for forging documents and the like)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Hutcheson, 504 N.W.2d 899 (Iowa 1993) (suspension for notarizing signatures not subscribed in presence)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Bauerle, 460 N.W.2d 452 (Iowa 1990) (suspension for backdating and false notarizations)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Schall, N.W.2d _ (Iowa 2012) (serious consequences for forging a plea and related misconduct)