Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. James Robert Keele
2011 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 16
| Iowa | 2011Background
- Keele is a 62-year-old attorney practicing solo in West Liberty, Iowa.
- He developed crack cocaine addiction starting in 2006–2007 while continuing to practice law.
- In July 2007 Keele had an OWI first offense and possession of drug paraphernalia, for which he later received a public reprimand from the board.
- In November 2007 Keele was federally convicted of knowingly possessing a firearm while being an unlawful user of, or addicted to, a controlled substance, with sentencing and probation following in 2008.
- During a 2007 search of Keele’s home, officers discovered an unloaded firearm in a closet; Keele had previously held the firearm for a client in 2006.
- The Attorney Disciplinary Board filed the present complaint; the Grievance Commission recommended a nine-month suspension with no reinstatement; on de novo review, the court dismissed the complaint and did not find a new Rule 8.4(b) violation based on the firearm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Keele’s firearm conviction establish a new 8.4(b) violation? | Board argues conviction reflects dishonesty/fitness. | Keele contends no new violation; not a basis for new discipline. | Not established; no new 8.4(b) violation. |
| Does illegal firearm possession reflect adversely on fitness to practice law (nexus)? | Board cites lack of fitness due to criminal conduct. | Keele argues nexus is tenuous; isolated incident not affecting practice. | Nexus not shown; does not adversely reflect on fitness. |
Key Cases Cited
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Templeton, 784 N.W.2d 761 (Iowa 2010) (convincing preponderance standard; de novo review in attorney discipline)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Hoglan, 781 N.W.2d 279 (Iowa 2010) (per curiam; respect for commission findings)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Barry, 762 N.W.2d 129 (Iowa 2009) (recognizing standards for professional conduct)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Mulford, 625 N.W.2d 672 (Iowa 2001) (attorney fitness and character considerations)
- Templeton, 784 N.W.2d 761 (Iowa 2010) (see above; cited for standards on preponderance and scope)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass’n v. Armstrong, 848 P.2d 538 (Okla. 1992) (link between criminal conduct and fitness to practice)
- In re Pleva, 525 A.2d 1104 (N.J. 1987) (linking attorney’s illegal firearm possession to professional duties)