Ethics

An attorney's aggressive use of sensitive information against a former client violated the rule against divulging client confidences even though the information was arguably a matter of public record, the Iowa Supreme Court made clear June 5 (Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. Plumb, Iowa, No. 08-1413, 6/5/09).

The lawyer crossed the boundary of appropriate zealous advocacy, the court said in an opinion by Justice Daryl L. Hecht, when, during a deposition in an unrelated case, he persisted in questioning the former client?over the client's invocation of the attorney-client privilege?about an embarrassing domestic abuse charge.

A client's secrets and confidences include any information a lawyer gains during the attorney-client relationship that would likely be detrimental to the client or that would prove ?embarrassing,? the court said. Regardless of whether the criminal domestic abuse charges were a matter of public record, the court said, the lawyer should have backed off once it became clear to him that his ex-client regarded that history ?as a distinct embarrassment.?

By persisting with this line of questioning despite the client's clear discomfort and distress, the court said, the lawyer violated DR 4?101(B)(1) (revealing confidences or secrets of client), DR 1?102(A)(1) (violation of a disciplinary rule), DR 1?102(A)(5) (conduct prejudicial to administration of justice), and DR 1?102(A)(6) (conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law). The court concluded that a suspension, with no possibility of reinstatement for 18 months, was appropriate when it considered several other serious violations in other matters, including neglecting client matters and misusing client funds.