Iowa Supreme Court Board Of Professional Ethics And Conduct v. Jones

606 N.W.2d 5 (2000)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D has practiced law in Iowa for approximately forty-seven years. He has a general practice, consisting of personal injury work, family law, probate, and real estate. In 1995 Currie contacted D. Currie told D that he had negotiated a contract with the Nigerian National Petroleum Company to build a pipeline in Nigeria. He also told D that he had completed his end of the contract, but had yet to be paid what was owed him--$25,300,000. Currie told D he needed $25,300 to pay for risk insurance for delivery of the $ 5,300.000. He also told Jones he had obtained most of the $25,300 for the premium, but was short $5000. Currie asked D to find a lender to cover this remaining amount. Currie agreed to purchase a two million dollar annuity for D if D were successful in securing a lender and obtaining payment of the $25,300,000. D accepted Currie's story at face value. Currie told D that American banks wanted no part of any activities concerning Nigerian ventures because the banks considered such ventures 'quite risky.' Several banks that D contacted confirmed Currie's statement. D tried, unsuccessfully, to borrow the $5000 from several individuals, but they were not interested. D contacted Delbert. D has known Delbert for over thirty years, and according to D, Delbert 'liked to venture into things like this as long as he was satisfied that he could make some money off of it.' D had represented Delbert in a divorce more than twenty years before but was not representing him at the time of the call. Delbert, a carpenter, is seventy-four years old with a high school education. D told Delbert that, if Delbert, loaned Currie $5000 within two days to pay the premium, Currie would repay Delbert $15,000 within thirty days. Jones described the venture as an opportunity 'to make some fast money . . . some good money.' D showed Delbert two letters. One letter, dated March 7, 1997, was addressed to Currie and purportedly came from the Nigerian Deposit Insurance Co., Ltd. The letter stated that the company was prepared to issue Currie risk insurance 'for delivery of your funds' in the amount of $25,300,000. The other letter, dated March 26, 1997, purportedly came from the director of investigations for the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The letter was not addressed to anyone but purported to be a 'Letter of Clearance and Confirmation of Funds.' The letter stated that the director had 'thoroughly investigated the source of the sum of U.S. $ 25.3 million belonging to Mr. Leon Currie as proceeds due for a contract executed in Nigeria in 1985.' The letter also stated that 'the payment is not for laundering or drug business. You may accept the funds in the beneficiary's account as it has been certified genuine and incontroversial [sic].' Delbert asked D why he could not make the loan. D replied, 'I can't do that. He's my client.' D never told Delbert that banks and other individuals had refused to loan money for the endeavor or that the transaction was risky. D did not mention the two-million-dollar annuity. When Delbert commented that he did not know Currie, D replied, 'Well, he's my client. He's good. He's good.' Delbert borrowed $5000 for thirty days from his credit union and obtained a cashier's check in that amount payable to Jones. Delbert delivered the check to D, who endorsed it and forwarded it to Currie. When Delbert commented that he had no guarantee of repayment, D signed on Currie's behalf, a handwritten, thirty-day promissory note payable to Delbert. Delbert has not received any money from the transaction. At the end of ninety days, Delbert paid the loan together with interest at nine percent. D was charged with violation of DR 1-102(A)(4) (lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving misrepresentation); DR 1-102(A)(6) (lawyer shall not engage in conduct reflecting adversely on fitness to practice law); and DR 7-102(A)(7) (lawyer shall not counsel or assist client in conduct that lawyer knows to be illegal or fraudulent). P found that D's actions and omissions in obtaining the $5,000 loan from Delbert constituted a misrepresentation. P concluded that D had violated DR 1-102(A)(4) and DR 1-102(A)(6). P recommended a public reprimand.