Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Gordon Liles
2012 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 1
| Iowa | 2012Background
- Liles forged the subscribing witness signature (Andrusyk) on Maxine Puckett's will in 2008.
- Liles signed Andrusyk’s name as a subscribing witness and later filed the will for probate.
- A clerk doubted Andrusyk’s signature; Andrusyk admitted it was not his and reported Liles to the Board.
- The probate proceeding led to a small-estate petition, its dismissal, and later a Medicaid lien dispute.
- Liles admitted the forgery and expressed remorse; the Board alleged multiple ethical rule violations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Liles violate 8.4(c) by forging signatures? | Liles forged Andrusyk’s signature on the will. | Liles contends the signatures were clinical practice? (Not explicitly in record; summarized as Liles’s position is admission of forgery.) | Yes; violated 8.4(c). |
| Did filing the forged will constitute misrepresentation to a tribunal under 3.3(a)(1)? | Liles knowingly misrepresented authenticity to the court. | Liles disputes the accuracy of the representations? (Admitted misrepresentation in record.) | Yes; violated 3.3(a)(1). |
| Did Liles knowingly offer false evidence under 3.3(a)(3)? | Liles offered evidence he knew was false regarding the will’s authentication. | Liles admits wrongdoing; no viable defense to falsified evidence. | Yes; violated 3.3(a)(3). |
| Did Liles’ conduct prejudice the administration of justice under 8.4(d)? | Forgery and filing caused court inefficiency and improper probate actions. | Remorse and nondispositive mitigating factors argued; no defense to prejudice. | Yes; violated 8.4(d). |
| What discipline is appropriate given the violations and aggravating/mitigating factors? | Discipline tailored to deter forgery with consideration of prior reprimand. | Remorse mitigates; prior discipline as aggravation; | Sixty-day license suspension. |
Key Cases Cited
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Newman, 748 N.W.2d 786 (Iowa 2008) (public reprimand for forged signature on unsigned order)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Thompson, 732 N.W.2d 865 (Iowa 2007) (suspension for prior similar conduct)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Ruth, 656 N.W.2d 93 (Iowa 2002) (mitigating/aggravating factors considered in discipline)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Steffes, 588 N.W.2d 121 (Iowa 1999) (forgery and prejudice to administration concept)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Borth, 728 N.W.2d 205 (Iowa 2007) (discipline framework; aggravating factors)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Mulford, 625 N.W.2d 672 (Iowa 2001) (weight given to commission findings; de novo review)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Rogers, 313 N.W.2d 535 (Iowa 1981) (discipline tailored to facts and circumstances)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Newman, 748 N.W.2d 786 (Iowa 2008) (public reprimand for forged signature on unsigned order)