Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board Vs. John W. Gailey
2010 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 114
| Iowa | 2010Background
- Gailey, a 74-year-old Iowa attorney with 45 years’ practice, faced disciplinary action based on his conduct involving his son’s criminal case and related dissolution matter.
- The Grievance Commission recommended a 30-day suspension; the Board and Gailey filed a joint stipulation of facts and sanctions.
- Gailey learned of his son’s kidnapping before surrendering him; after that, he assisted in matters connected to his son in two separate proceedings (criminal and dissolution).
- Gailey met with Dawn (the dissolution client) without Dawn’s attorney’s permission and provided Dawn a letter from Denis asking for Dawn’s help; Gailey discussed testimony incentives.
- Dawn’s testimony could affect Denis’s criminal case; Gailey’s actions led to charges against Gailey for tampering with a witness, suborning perjury, and violating a no-contact order, which the court eventually resolved with Gailey’s conduct being disciplined.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Gailey violate Rule 3.4(b)? | Board contends Gailey offered an inducement to Dawn. | Gailey argues he did not induce false testimony; he only explained consequences. | Yes, some inducement violated Rule 3.4(b)11. |
| Did Gailey violate Rule 4.2(a)? | Board argues Gailey communicated with Dawn without her represented attorney’s consent. | Yes, Gailey violated Rule 4.2(a). | |
| Did Gailey violate Rule 8.4(b)? | Board asserts Gailey’s aiding and abetting a no-contact order conviction reflects dishonesty or fitness issues. | Yes, Gailey violated Rule 8.4(b). | |
| Did Gailey violate Rule 8.4(d)? | Board contends aiding no-contact order violation prejudiced administration of justice. | Yes, Gailey violated Rule 8.4(d). | |
| Did Rule 8.4(c) apply? | Board alleged dishonesty occurred. | No violation of Rule 8.4(c) proven. |
Key Cases Cited
- Box v. Iowa Supreme Court Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct, 715 N.W.2d 758 (Iowa 2006) (communication with represented party without permission warranted reprimand)
- Templeton, 784 N.W.2d 761 (Iowa 2010) (no separate 8.4(a) consideration for sanctions; referenced in sanction analysis)
- Joy, 728 N.W.2d 806 (Iowa 2007) (discipline for aiding/abetting in violation of court orders; emphasis on respect for court orders)
- Vesey, 241 N.W.2d 888 (Iowa 1976) (attorney aid in violating a court order shows lack of fitness to practice)
- Honken, 688 N.W.2d 812 (Iowa 2004) (factors for sanction—aggravating/mitigating; public confidence)
- D’Angelo, 710 N.W.2d 226 (Iowa 2006) (convictions and discipline based on fitness beyond criminality)
- Lett, 674 N.W.2d 139 (Iowa 2004) (interpretation of ethical conduct rules; preponderance standard guidance)
- Clark, 181 N.W.2d 138 (Iowa 1970) (stipulations given effect but not binding on violations/sanctions)
- Briddle, 756 N.W.2d 35 (Iowa 2008) (stipulation considered like settlement in disciplinary actions)
- Gartin, 272 N.W.2d 485 (Iowa 1978) (constitutional power to license and discipline attorneys)