IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA

No. 47 / 07-1692 

Filed May 2, 2008 

IOWA SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD, 

 Appellant, 

vs. 

MARK A. NEWMAN, 

 Appellee. 

 Appeal from report of the Grievance Commission. 

 Board appeals Grievance Commission’s private admonishment of 

an attorney. ATTORNEY REPRIMANDED.

Charles L. Harrington and Elizabeth E. Quinlan, Des Moines, for 

appellant. 

 Mark McCormick of Belin Lamson McCormick Zumbach Flynn, 

P.C., Des Moines, for appellee. 
 2

STREIT, Justice. 

An attorney presented a judge with two orders to approve. The 

judge agreed to both orders but overlooked signing one of them. The 

attorney realized what had happened when he returned to his office. He 

forged the judge’s signature on the unsigned-but-approved order and 

filed it with the clerk of court. When confronted, the attorney admitted 

the forgery and apologized. The Grievance Commission privately 

admonished the attorney for this ethical violation. The Board appealed 

arguing forgery is a serious violation and warrants public discipline. We 

agree and publicly reprimand the attorney. 

I. Facts and Prior Proceedings. 

 In 1994, Mark A. Newman graduated from law school and was 

admitted to the Iowa bar at the age of forty. He and his family moved to 

Forest City where he has been a solo practitioner since that time. His 

practice involves real estate, criminal defense, probate, and corporate 

work. 

 In October 2006, Newman agreed to assist a Davenport attorney 

with a conservatorship in Winnebago County. The Davenport attorney 

sent Newman certain documents to be filed as well as two proposed 

orders to be presented for a judge’s signature. One day in January 2007, 

Newman drove to Garner, Iowa for court service day. Newman presented 

the two proposed orders to Judge James M. Drew. One order approved 

Newman’s appointment as guardian ad litem. The second order 

approved a wrongful death settlement. Judge Drew and Newman 

discussed the case, and Judge Drew agreed to sign the orders. Judge 

Drew dated and signed the order appointing Newman as guardian ad 

litem. He dated but did not sign the order approving the wrongful death 

settlement. He returned the orders to Newman for filing. 
 3

 Newman returned to his office, forged the judge’s signature, and 

filed the order. Two days later, Judge Drew telephoned Newman and told 

him he had an order in his hand with a signature he did not recognize. 

Newman admitted signing the judge’s name. Thereafter, both Judge 

Drew and Newman reported the incident to the Board. Judge Drew 

stated his failure to sign the order was an oversight. He also noted 

Newman was remorseful and apologetic. 

 The Board filed a complaint against Newman as a result of this 

incident. Newman’s answer admitted the facts and ethical violations 

alleged in the complaint. The Commission held a hearing to determine 

the appropriate sanction. The Commission found Newman to have a 

“record of a life of service and integrity” before this incident. It found 

Newman’s forgery of Judge Drew’s signature to be “an isolated instance 

of unethical conduct.” The Commission privately admonished Newman 

and requested he accept 120 hours of court-appointed criminal cases 

with pay by the end of 2008. 

 The Board subsequently applied for permission to appeal the 

Commission’s decision. See Iowa Ct. R. 35.11(2). It argued due to the 

serious nature of Newman’s misconduct, a suspension of his law license 

would be the more appropriate sanction. We sustained the Board’s 

application and now publicly reprimand Newman for his actions. 

II. Scope of Review. 

We review the findings of the Commission de novo. Iowa Ct. R. 

35.10(1). We give weight to the Commission’s findings, but we are not 

bound by those findings. Iowa Supreme Ct. Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. 

McGrath, 713 N.W.2d 682, 695 (Iowa 2006). The Board has the burden 

to prove disciplinary violations by a convincing preponderance of the 

evidence. Iowa Supreme Ct. Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. D’Angelo, 710 
 4

N.W.2d 226, 230 (Iowa 2006). This burden is “ ‘less than proof beyond a 

reasonable doubt, but more than the preponderance standard required 

in the usual civil case.’ ” Id. (quoting Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l 

Ethics & Conduct v. Lett, 674 N.W.2d 139, 142 (Iowa 2004)). 

III. Sanction. 

We find the Board proved by a convincing preponderance of the 

evidence Newman violated Iowa Rule of Professional Conduct 32:8.4(c), 

which prohibits an attorney from engaging in conduct involving 

dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. See Iowa Supreme Ct. 

Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. Thompson, 732 N.W.2d 865, 867 (Iowa 2007) 

(stating forging a signature on a court document is conduct involving 

dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation). We now must 

determine the appropriate sanction. We consider “the nature of the 

violations, protection of the public, deterrence of similar misconduct by 

others, the lawyer’s fitness to practice, and our duty to uphold the 

integrity of the profession in the eyes of the public.” Iowa Supreme Ct. 

Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Fleming, 602 N.W.2d 340, 342 (Iowa 

1999) (citing Comm. on Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Havercamp, 442 N.W.2d 

67, 69 (Iowa 1989)). We also consider both aggravating and mitigating 

circumstances. Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Ruth, 

656 N.W.2d 93, 99 (Iowa 2002) (citing Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l 

Ethics & Conduct v. Sherman, 637 N.W.2d 183, 187 (Iowa 2001)). 

Ultimately, the form and extent of a disciplinary sanction “must be 

tailored to the specific facts and circumstances of each individual case.” 

Comm. on Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Rogers, 313 N.W.2d 535, 537 (Iowa 

1981). 

 Based on the record, Newman appears to be a person of good 

moral character who committed a serious lapse in judgment. He has 
 5

never been subjected to attorney discipline before this occasion. Several 

people either testified or provided affidavits attesting to his good 

character. He accepted responsibility for his actions and is very 

remorseful. Nevertheless, forgery is a serious ethical violation. See Iowa 

Supreme Ct. Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. Rickabaugh, 728 N.W.2d 375, 

382 (Iowa 2007) (revoking the license of an attorney who, among other 

things, forged his clients’ signatures and was previously disciplined for 

fabricating documents and forging a judge’s signature); Iowa Supreme Ct. 

Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Rylaarsdam, 636 N.W.2d 90, 93 (Iowa 

2001) (suspending an attorney’s license for six months for forging clients’ 

signatures and falsifying a court document); Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of 

Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Clauss, 530 N.W.2d 453, 455 (Iowa 1995) 

(suspending an attorney’s license for three years because he, among 

other things, forged and notarized a signature on a return of service). 

The Board notes Newman’s conduct was similar to the conduct in 

Thompson. There, we suspended an attorney’s license for nine months 

for forging a judge’s signature on an order “without the knowledge or 

authorization of the judge.” Thompson, 732 N.W.2d at 866. However, 

unlike Newman, Thompson had a history of prior discipline which 

included a sanction for altering a court document. Id. Thompson also 

forged the judge’s signature and filed the order without ever presenting it 

to a judge. We find the totality of the circumstances in this case less 

egregious than those in Thompson. Nevertheless, we believe a public 

reprimand is necessary to signal Iowa lawyers and the citizens of Iowa 

that forging a judge’s signature is a serious ethical violation under any 

circumstances. 
 6

IV. Conclusion. 

Newman is hereby publicly reprimanded for forging Judge Drew’s 

signature on an approved-but-unsigned order. Costs are taxed to 

Newman pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 35.25(1). 

ATTORNEY REPRIMANDED.