Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Monroe

784 N.W.2d 784 (2010)

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 was acquainted with Doe, having represented her in a prior legal matter. Monroe (D) represented Jane Doe in a divorce action. D and Doe began a sexual relationship in late May 2007. D continued to represent Doe, and after various misdemeanor criminal charges were filed against her in the summer of 2007. The intimate relationship ended in mid-August 2007 by mutual agreement. Doe decided she was not interested in having a serious relationship at that time. Both recognized that their relationship might be detrimental to Doe in the dissolution action and may interfere with D's representation of Doe. Doe's husband became aware of the relationship with D. He told his attorney who then reported the situation to the disciplinary authorities (P) in the fall of 2007, resulting in the filing of the charges. The assistant county attorney told D what she had heard and suggested that D should not represent Doe in the criminal matters. D withdrew from the dissolution case in early fall 2007; he continued to represent Doe in the criminal matters until they were resolved in October 2007. D periodically injected himself into the dissolution case through phone calls to Doe's new attorney regarding suggestions and information pertinent to the dissolution proceeding. After Doe was billed for her new attorney's conversations with D, Doe asked D to refrain from contacting her new attorney. P charged D with violating rule 32:1.8(j) where a lawyer shall not have sexual relations with a client . . . unless the person is the spouse of the lawyer or the sexual relationship predates the initiation of the client-lawyer relationship. P also charged a violation of rule 32:8.4(d) where it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. Doe testified that it was consensual and she experienced no ill effects and that she remained good friends with D. D admitted in the disciplinary case that he had a sexual relationship with Doe and that his conduct violated rules 32:1.8(j) and 32:8.4(d).