IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA 

No. 102 / 07-0286 

Filed September 21, 2007 

IN THE MATTER OF 

MICHAEL PATRICK NASH, 

 Applicant for the Iowa Bar Examination. 

On review of the decision of the Iowa Board of Law Examiners. 

 Petitioner seeking permission to take the Iowa bar examination 

requests judicial review of Iowa Board of Law Examiners’ adverse decision. 

PETITION FOR PERMISSION TO TAKE BAR EXAMINATION GRANTED. 

Mark McCormick of Belin Lamson McCormick Zumbach Flynn, P.C., 

Des Moines, for applicant. 

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Jeanie Kunkle Vaudt, 

Assistant Attorney General, for Iowa Board of Law Examiners. 
2

HECHT, Justice. 

Michael Nash seeks review of the Iowa board of law examiners’ denial 

of his application to take the Iowa bar examination. After holding an 

evidentiary hearing on the question whether Nash possesses the requisite 

character and fitness to practice law, the board denied Nash’s application. 

We conclude Nash has satisfied his burden to demonstrate his good moral 

character and fitness to practice law. We therefore reverse the board’s 

denial of his application and grant his petition for permission to take the 

bar examination. 

 I. Background Facts and Proceedings. 

On February 24, 2006, Michael Nash, a third-year law student at 

Creighton University School of Law, submitted an application to take the 

July 2006 Iowa bar exam. Question 32(h) of the application inquired 

whether Nash had ever been “formally or informally investigated, 

reprimanded, disciplined, discharged or asked to resign by an employer or 

educational institution for misconduct, including . . . actions in disregard 

for health, safety and welfare of others.” Nash responded in the affirmative, 

disclosing in 2002 he was accused of sexually abusing a minor 

approximately twenty years earlier while he was employed as a Roman 

Catholic priest in Juneau, Alaska. 

 Upon receipt of Nash’s application, the board initiated an 

investigation of his moral character and fitness to practice law. See Iowa 

Ct. R. 31.9(1) (2006)1 (“The Iowa board of law examiners shall make an 

investigation of the moral character and fitness of any applicant and may 

procure the services of any bar association, agency, organization, or 

 

1All references are to the Iowa Court Rules that were in effect at the time Nash filed 

his application in 2006. 
3

individual qualified to make a moral character or fitness report.”). After 

completing its initial investigation into the sexual abuse allegations, the 

board notified Nash that his application to take the bar examination had 

been denied. See Iowa Ct. R. 31.11(3). 

 Nash filed a timely written request for a hearing before the board. He 

also requested, and the board granted, leave to take the bar examination 

pending the hearing.2 The board set a hearing date and appointed one of its 

attorney-members as the hearing officer. See Iowa Ct. R. 31.11(3)(d). 

Following the hearing, the hearing officer prepared a summary of the 

testimony and exhibits which he provided for consideration by the other 

members of the board. See Iowa Ct. R. 31.11(3)(h). The following is a brief 

summary of the relevant hearing evidence. 

 Nash was ordained a Roman Catholic priest in May 1980 and 

assigned to a church in Juneau, Alaska. During his early years as a priest, 

Nash was primarily involved in youth ministry in the Juneau diocese. In 

that capacity, Nash organized and led trips outside of Alaska for children in 

the diocese during the 1980s. Nash arranged the trips to occur during his 

personal summer vacation time, when he would be traveling to visit friends 

in the lower forty-eight states. While on the trips, the groups visited tourist 

sites, cathedrals, amusement parks, and an occasional play or show. Nash 

used the trips to give the children, many of whom hailed from logging 

camps, a “crash course” in basic manners, a broader world view, and a 

larger sense of the church. Nash invited only teenagers on these trips 

because they were able to take care of their own basic needs. On occasion, 

Nash piloted an airplane owned by the diocese to facilitate the trips. 

 

2Nash took the Iowa bar examination in July 2006, but the result has not been 

published pending our determination of his character and fitness to be a member of the 

Iowa bar. 
4

 Nash admitted he used spanking, tickling, push-ups, and sit-ups as 

disciplinary techniques during the trips. Nash further conceded he 

sometimes required the boys to remove their trousers prior to the spanking, 

tickling, or calisthenics. Nash denied he was sexually motivated in his 

choices of these disciplinary techniques, but stated he intended the 

experience to humiliate the children and encourage them to modify the 

behaviors for which they were disciplined. Nash employed the spankings 

and calisthenics as disciplinary techniques because as an adolescent he 

had experienced similar forms of punishment at a Catholic summer camp. 

 Nash also admitted that from 1981 to 2002 he often requested or 

“cajoled” boys under his watch to massage his feet and neck. He typically 

requested the massages when he was tired from flying, driving, or walking 

for a long period of time. Nash admitted the massages occasionally may 

have occurred behind closed doors with only one boy present, but denied 

any sexual motivation for such conduct. Nash remained clothed at all times 

during the massages. 

 The board presented other evidence of alleged improprieties that were 

denied by Nash. One witness, Tracy Mettler, alleged Nash disciplined him 

on at least three occasions by spanking his bare buttocks. Mettler claimed 

his genitals were touched by Nash during these spankings which allegedly 

occurred in the late 1970s or early 1980s. Nash denies recollection of any 

contact with Mettler, but admits he occasionally issued bare-bottom 

spankings to children during that time period. Nash denies ever touching a 

boy’s genitals while administering a spanking.3

 

3In 2002 a former youth parishioner in Juneau, Joel Post, reported to the Juneau 

Diocese that Nash sexually abused him repeatedly in the early 1980s. Nash steadfastly 

denied the accusation. The allegations made by Post were investigated by the Juneau 

Diocesan Review Board over a period of five months. The review board found Post’s 

allegations were lacking in credibility and did not communicate them to the Vatican as part 
5

 In 1989, after receiving a complaint by a parent upset about the 

disciplinary techniques used on her child during a summer trip, the bishop 

of the Juneau Diocese met with Nash. Nash told the bishop he was 

experiencing “burn-out” and was considering leaving the priesthood. In lieu 

of resignation, the bishop and Nash agreed that Nash would undergo an 

evaluation at a voluntary, long-term, custodial care residential center for 

Roman Catholic priests. Nash entered, and completed in 1990, a fivemonth residential holistic health program recommended in the evaluation 

report. The later stages of Nash’s therapy sessions focused on the 

appropriateness of his disciplinary techniques and the parameters of 

appropriate pastoral boundaries. The therapist recommended Nash redirect 

the focus of his ministry in order to become less closely involved with 

children. The record evidences that Nash complied with this 

recommendation when he resumed his parish responsibilities. 

 There are no allegations of improper conduct by Nash after the 

summer of 1989. In 1995, he was named diocese administrator by his 

fellow priests. Nash served in this capacity managing the day-to-day 

activities of the diocese until a permanent bishop was selected and installed 

in 1996. In July 1999, after taking a two-year sabbatical to earn a Master’s 

degree in theology with an emphasis in Christian ethics from the University 

of Louvain in Belgium, Nash returned to pastor a parish in Juneau. In 

2001, he was appointed vicar general of the diocese and was authorized to 

take certain administrative actions in the Bishop’s absence. 

______________________________ 

of the review board’s report that later led to Nash’s separation from the priesthood. The 

board of law examiners does not rely on the Post allegations to support its determination 

that Nash presently lacks the moral character to practice law in Iowa. Upon our de novo 

review, we find Post’s allegations are not supported in the record, and therefore we assign 

no weight to them. 
6

 In 2002, the Juneau Diocese investigated allegations that Nash 

engaged in inappropriate conduct with parish youths in the 1980s. The 

bishop appointed a review board consisting of parishioners to investigate 

the allegations. Before the review board, as he later did before the Iowa 

board of law examiners, Nash admitted using the disciplinary techniques 

described above. Although Nash steadfastly denied his conduct was 

sexually motivated, the information developed during the investigation was 

forwarded to the Vatican. On November 18, 2005, Nash was dismissed 

from the clerical state ex officio et pro bono Ecclesiae (for the good of the 

church). 

 At the hearing before the board of law examiners, Nash offered 

testimony of twelve individuals who attested to his good moral character. 

These witnesses included adults from the Juneau diocese, individuals who 

went on trips with Nash as youths during the 1980s, the dean and another 

faculty member from the Creighton University School of Law, and a law 

school classmate. In addition to the live testimony at the hearing, the board 

received nearly eighty letters of support for Nash’s application. 

 At the conclusion of the board hearing, counsel for the board of law 

examiners requested Nash be required to undergo a full sexual abuse 

evaluation. The hearing officer declined that request, but allowed Nash to 

supplement the hearing record with an evaluation from a Des Moines 

psychiatrist, Dr. Michael Taylor. The evaluation was performed and Dr. 

Taylor opined: 

I find no evidence that Mr. Nash suffers from any diagnosable 

psychiatric disorder of any sort. Further, I find no evidence 

that Mr. Nash presents a risk of perpetrating abuse of any type 

upon any individual, minor or adult. Finally, I find no evidence 

that Mr. Nash possesses any mental disorder or personality 
7

traits which would, in any way, impair his ability to maintain 

the moral character and honesty expected of an Iowa lawyer. 

After considering the hearing evidence, three members of the board 

voted in favor of Nash’s admission, and three members voted against it.4 

Because the vote was evenly divided, the board declared its earlier decision 

affirmed by operation of law. Nash has requested our review of the board’s 

determination. 

 II. Scope of Review. 

This court has exclusive authority to admit persons to the practice of 

law. Iowa Ct. R. 31.9(1). We therefore review the record de novo. In re

Hanus, 627 N.W.2d 223, 225 (Iowa 2001). 

III. Discussion. 

 An applicant for admission to the Iowa bar has the burden to 

demonstrate he or she “is a person of honesty, integrity and 

trustworthiness, and one who appreciates and will adhere to the Iowa Rules 

of Professional Conduct . . . .” Iowa Ct. R. 31.5. The board of law 

examiners makes an initial determination of the applicant’s moral character 

and fitness, but we have the authority to review the board’s decision. Iowa 

Ct. R. 31.9(1). 

 We have previously held a bar applicant must demonstrate the 

requisite moral character and fitness by a convincing preponderance of the 

evidence. Hanus, 627 N.W.2d at 224 (citing In re Peterson, 439 N.W.2d 165, 

166 (Iowa 1989)). Although we queried in Hanus whether it is the 

applicant’s burden to prove character and fitness by a convincing 

preponderance standard or by a mere preponderance of the evidence, we 

concluded the burden of proof did not control the outcome in that case 

 

4The hearing officer and two other attorney-members of the board voted for 

admission; two lay-members and another attorney-member voted against admission. One 

member abstained. 
8

because the applicant failed to establish his good moral character even 

under a preponderance of the evidence standard. Id. We conclude a more 

precise enunciation of the burden of proof is also unnecessary in this case 

because Nash’s proof of his character and fitness satisfies the more exacting 

convincing preponderance standard. 

 Those who apply for admission to the bar must demonstrate their 

honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness. Iowa Ct. R. 31.5(1). We require 

these character traits of bar applicants because attorneys are put in a 

position of considerable influence over their clients, whose trust in them 

must remain inviolate. See Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct 

v. Hill, 540 N.W.2d 43, 44 (Iowa 1995) (“A person acting in a professional 

role can have a disproportionate influence on those they serve. They owe to 

the public a solemn duty to use their considerable influence with utmost 

discrimination. The metes and bounds of propriety in any professional 

relationship must be observed scrupulously because the professional role is 

held in trust.”) (quoting Fisher v. Bd. of Optometry Exam’rs, 510 N.W.2d 873, 

878 (Iowa 1994)); State v. Johnson, 128 N.W. 837, 839 (Iowa 1910) (“The 

relation between an attorney and his client must necessarily be one of great 

confidence, and an attorney who knowingly abuses the trust and confidence 

placed in him by his client is unfit for the profession and unworthy of a 

place therein.”). Nash’s admitted use of questionable disciplinary 

techniques was deemed by clerical authorities an abuse of his parishioners’ 

trust that led to his removal from the priesthood. The board contends these 

abuses of trust were so serious that Nash remains unfit to practice law 

notwithstanding his completion of a treatment program, his many 

subsequent years of appropriate priest-parishioner trust relationships, and 

his apology to those harmed by his earlier actions. We disagree. 
9

 While we certainly do not condone Nash’s disciplinary techniques, we 

do not believe such noncriminal acts from seventeen (or more) years ago 

reflect poorly on his present moral character and fitness to practice law. 

Nash utilized the techniques when he was a relatively young and 

inexperienced priest dealing with misbehaving teenagers in remote logging 

camps of southeast Alaska in the 1980s. While those methods of discipline 

would certainly be considered inappropriate by today’s standards, when 

viewed in the social and historical context in which they were applied, they 

appear significantly less sinister. Bill Chalmers, a high school teacher in 

Juneau, testified he used similar techniques during the same era, and did 

not consider Nash’s behavior extraordinary when placed in historical 

context. 

 We believe Nash’s conduct over the past seventeen years is the best 

indicator of his present moral character and fitness to practice law. While 

passage of time between an act of misconduct and submission of an 

application for admission to the bar alone will usually not be sufficient 

evidence of present good moral character, see In re King, 136 P.3d 878, 885 

(Ariz. 2006), we are convinced Nash came to understand certain disciplinary 

techniques crossed appropriate pastoral boundaries. Following his 

treatment experience, Nash voluntarily avoided one-on-one interactions 

with parish children to avoid the appearance of impropriety. In 2006, as 

soon as the Catholic Church allowed him to speak with anyone involved in 

its investigation, Nash issued a written apology to the children whom he 

had improperly disciplined. He has earned and maintained the support, 

admiration, and trust of nearly eighty individuals who testified and wrote 

letters supporting his admission to the bar. Nash’s testimony at the board 

hearing reflects sincere contrition for his actions in the 1980s. When 
10

compared with the considerable evidence of his good moral character during 

the past seventeen years, the decades-old inappropriate but noncriminal 

acts admitted by Nash are insufficient to support the board’s denial of 

Nash’s application to become a member of the Iowa bar. 

 IV. Conclusion. 

 We have a duty to the citizens of Iowa to ensure the practice of law is 

reserved for individuals who will respect the trust inherent in the lawyerclient relationship. We conclude Michael Nash has established by a 

convincing preponderance of the evidence he possesses the requisite moral 

character and fitness for admission to the Iowa bar. We therefore grant his 

application to take the Iowa bar examination. 

PETITION FOR PERMISSION TO TAKE BAR EXAMINATION 

GRANTED.

 All justices concur except Wiggins, J., who dissents. 
11

#102/07-0286, In re Nash

WIGGINS, Justice (dissenting). 

 I respectfully dissent. As late as October 26, 2006, Nash filed a 

signed document acknowledging the public could consider his prior actions 

as sexual abuse. In this document, he stated: 

I have come to realize that regardless of my intentions, these 

forms of discipline were inappropriate; more recently, these 

forms of discipline have even come to be considered by some to 

be sexually abusive. Indeed, I have since learned that these 

and other actions of mine were subjectively experienced as 

sexually abusive by a few boys with whom I had interacted. 

I agree the acts to which Nash admitted to doing can be characterized as 

sexually abusive. 

 The majority bases its decision that Nash has the requisite moral 

character and fitness for admission to the Iowa bar on Nash’s conduct over 

the last seventeen years of his life. But as the majority notes, the last 

seventeen years occurred after Nash entered a comprehensive five-month 

inpatient treatment program for the complaints Nash acknowledged could 

be construed as sexually abusive. 

 In another signed document, dated October 26, 2006, Nash opines 

the treatment he received allowed him to understand his actions were 

inappropriate. In discussing his treatment, he states: 

You should know that some years ago, I participated in a 

renewal program where I addressed, among many other topics, 

my dealings with young people. I came to understand it was 

inappropriate and wrong of me to treat them as I did. I assure 

you I have not done such a thing for many, many years, nor 

will I in the future. 

Unfortunately, any records of the treatment, diagnosis, or prognosis from 

that comprehensive inpatient program were unavailable to the board of law 

examiners or us for review. 
12

 Due to the prior admitted allegations and the unavailability of the 

prior treatment records, the board asked Nash to submit to a 

comprehensive evaluation to determine if he presents a risk to perpetrate 

sexual abuse. Nash refused, but instead saw a local psychiatrist, Dr. 

Michael Taylor, for an opinion on this subject. Although Dr. Taylor is a 

board certified psychiatrist, the record does not establish that he has 

special training or certification in the area of sexual abuse. Additionally, 

Dr. Taylor reached his conclusions after a brief visit, rather than through a 

comprehensive inpatient evaluation. 

 Under these circumstances, I do not feel Nash met his high burden to 

prove by a convincing preponderance of evidence that he has the requisite 

moral character and fitness for admission to the Iowa bar. However, I 

would not reject Nash’s application at this time. Before making a final 

decision, I would require Nash to complete the comprehensive inpatient 

treatment as requested by the board. Consequently, without such an 

evaluation I am unwilling to take the same chance as the majority to admit 

him as a member of the Iowa bar.