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

629 N.W.2d 376 (2001)

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's client, Davis-Jones-Lamb Insurance Agency, Inc. (DJL), was contemplating a business venture with a Waterloo business called Net Worth Advisers, a company managed by a Steve Mulder. Mulder was to become a shareholder in DJL under this plan. However, a DJL employee, Charles Heins, objected to the proposal on the ground it would violate his employment agreement with DJL. Heins ultimately was fired, and he brought two suits against DJL. A reporter from the Waterloo Courier became interested because the dispute affected a Waterloo business. Pat Kinney, called D but they failed to talk. D faxed a letter to the reporter on the same day with the following content: 1. The agency and the individuals were disappointed that Charlie Heins chose to stand in the way of progress by refusing to attend meetings or attend to the agency's work during the time after Davis, Jones & Lamb began to work with Mr. Mulder. 2. The agency was left with no choice but to declare Charlie's employment over after months went by and he refused to meet with the agency or individuals in an effort to understand the benefits of partnering with Net Worth Advisors and how those benefits would help existing Davis, Jones & Lamb clients, including his own. Charlie chose, instead, to be a disruptive influence within the agency, its employees, and customers. 3. The agency is saddened that a confused and angry young man has chosen to embarrass himself further by filing a lawsuit which is unlikely to succeed. One judge has already determined that he is unlikely to succeed on the merits of his far-fetched claims. (See attached copy of ruling.) 4. When a plaintiff brings a lawsuit claiming ten or more legal theories, it is a pretty good indication that he lacks confidence in any one theory. The agency and individuals, while disappointed that Heins is choosing to sue, are confident that his claims will be found groundless. 5. The individual and corporate defendants have well-earned and longstanding reputations for integrity in the eastern Iowa business community and fully expect that a judge or jury will exonerate them from the claims of this unhappy and confused former employee. The Courier article quoted D's letter except for paragraph 4. P alleged violations of DR 7-107(G)(1), (2), and (4) and DR 1-102(A)(1), (4), (5), and (6) of the Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers. D countered that DR 7-107(G) is unconstitutional because it is so broad it impinges on lawyers' First Amendment rights because the rule is susceptible of application to protected expression, i.e., out-of-court statements that do not create any real threat to the fairness of the proceedings. P found that D violated DR 7-107. D appealed.