Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Steven F. Olson
807 N.W.2d 268
Iowa2011Background
- Olson, an attorney licensed in Minnesota and South Dakota (not Iowa), had an office in Minnesota and represented the Sac & Fox Tribe in various matters; he prepared and negotiated a Tribe-DNA Today debenture that loaned $1 million to DNA Today secured by all assets, including source code, with Whitehead personally guaranteeing repayment.
- DNA Today defaulted on the loan and later sought additional financing; the Tribe contemplated providing funds, while DNA Today sought cash and an ongoing financing commitment.
- Olson filed a UCC financing statement (August 2, 2006) and a tribal court complaint (August 7–8, 2006) seeking default remedies and restraining orders related to the collateral.
- Olson engaged in communications with DNA Today and Whitehead, including direct contact on August 10, 2006, after initial dealings had occurred with the tribal counsel, and copied counsel on many communications.
- August 11, 2006 meeting at DNA Today involved Tribe representatives (including Janice Eagle Hawk) and Olson; a server containing DNA Today’s software was removed by a Tribe member, triggering a police response and disputes about possession of the software.
- Olson, while not Iowa-admitted, faced Iowa disciplinary proceedings for actions taken in connection with representing Tribe in Iowa-based matters and related to the alleged misconduct during the August 10–11 time frame.
- The Commission found no convincing preponderance of evidence of misconduct on Olson’s part, and the Iowa Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, applying de novo review and equitable considerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Olson violated Rule 4.2(a) by contacting a represented party without consent | Board: Olson had no express consent to contact Whitehead; implied consent debated | Olson: sought information; Stone’s memory uncertain; Whitehead’s account inconsistent | No convincing preponderance to prove violation |
| Whether Olson violated Rule 4.1(a) by misrepresenting the Tribe's financing intentions | Board: alleged misrepresentation about supplemental financing | Olson: statements were ambiguous; not knowingly false | Not proven by convincing preponderance |
| Whether Olson violated Rule 8.4(c) by deceit or fraud in conduct towards Whitehead | Board: deception implied by withholding Tribe’s repossession plan | Olson: disclosure obligations restricted; facts complex | Not proven by convincing preponderance; cannot conclude deceit |
| Whether the Board’s claims justify discipline given the evidentiary standards | Board: established misconduct | Olson: record insufficient for violations | Complaint dismissed; no disciplinary violation shown by convincing preponderance |
Key Cases Cited
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Fields, 790 N.W.2d 791 (Iowa 2010) (board bears burden to prove misconduct by convincing preponderance)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Lickiss, 786 N.W.2d 860 (Iowa 2010) (de novo review; respect for commission but not bound by it)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Gailey, 790 N.W.2d 801 (Iowa 2010) (consent to contact with represented party; implied vs express)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Herrera, 626 N.W.2d 107 (Iowa 2001) (protects represented party; prohibits improper communications)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Powell, 726 N.W.2d 397 (Iowa 2007) (duty to disclose in transactions; organic scope of disclosure obligations)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. v. Carpenter, 781 N.W.2d 263 (Iowa 2010) (equitable disciplinary authority; cross-jurisdictional discipline)