Opinion ID: 1785231
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Count ICommission of Second-Offense OWI.

Text: As noted above, the Commission concluded Weaver's second commission of drunk driving was an ethical infraction in violation of DR 1-102(A)(6) (conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law). Pointing out his OWI offense was only an aggravated misdemeanor, Weaver contends operating while intoxicated is an ethical infraction only when the crime is classified as a felony. He relies on our decision in Iowa Supreme Court Board of Professional Ethics & Conduct v. Marcucci, 543 N.W.2d 879 (Iowa 1996). In Marcucci, the respondent had been convicted of third-offense OWI, a class D felony. 543 N.W.2d at 880. In concluding the respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(6), we agreed with the reasoning of the Grievance Commission, quoting with approval from its report: `[T]he [Commission] is concerned with the public perception of an attorney with serious alcohol abuse problems and feels that such abuse adversely reflected on his fitness to practice law.' Id. at 881. Noting that the offense of which the respondent was convicted was a felony, we stated [w]e need not decide the gravity of a first-offense conviction for OWI for purposes of applying DR 1-102(A)(6). Id. at 882. Contrary to Weaver's arguments, this court clearly did not hold that an OWI offense is an ethical violation only when it constitutes a felony. Whether an attorney's criminal behavior reflects adversely on his fitness to practice law is not determined by a mechanical process of classifying conduct as a felony or a misdemeanor. The term fitness as used in DR 1-102(A)(6) embraces not only one's legal competency, but also one's character and one's suitability to act as an officer of the court. Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Mulford, 625 N.W.2d 672, 683 (Iowa 2001). This disciplinary rule focuses on matters that `lessen[] public confidence in the legal profession.' Iowa Supreme Ct. Att'y Disciplinary Bd. v. Johnston, 732 N.W.2d 448, 454 (Iowa 2007) (quoting Marcucci, 543 N.W.2d at 882). Therefore, we examine the attorney's conduct and the surrounding circumstances in determining whether there is an ethical violation. We found a violation of DR 1-102(A)(6) for misdemeanor conduct in Iowa Supreme Court Board of Professional Ethics & Conduct v. Thompson, 595 N.W.2d 132 (Iowa 1999). In that case, the attorney was convicted of two simple misdemeanors, assault and trespass, arising out of the attorney's threatening of his daughter's boyfriend with a loaded shotgun. Thompson, 595 N.W.2d at 132, 133. Holding this conduct reflected adversely on the attorney's fitness to practice law, we observed: [W]hen those licensed to operate the law's machinery knowingly violate essential criminal statutes, there inexorably follows an intensified loss of lay persons' respect for the law. As lawyers we take an oath to uphold the law. When, as lawyers, we violate criminal statutes, we violate that oath. Id. at 134 (quoting Comm. on Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Patterson, 369 N.W.2d 798, 801 (Iowa 1985)). Turning to the present case, we agree with the Commission that Weaver's commission of second-offense drunk driving reflected adversely on his fitness to practice law. Weaver was arrested shortly after noon on a Saturday after a motorist reported that he had nearly caused a collision. Weaver tested .185, more than twice the legal limit of .08. Notwithstanding the wide margin by which he exceeded the legal limit, he repeatedly denied to the arresting officer that he had been drinking. Moreover, Weaver again and again asked the officer to just let him go, and at one point asked, Come on, isn't there anything we can do to forget about this? In summary, Weaver drove a vehicle after a morning of clearly excessive drinking, nearly caused an accident, disputed any responsibility for the near collision, repeatedly denied any drinking, and tried to wheedle his way out of an arrest. We think Weaver's conduct was a negative reflection on his character and his suitability to serve as an officer of the court. His actions would also tend to lessen public confidence in the legal profession. Consequently, we do not hesitate to agree with the Commission that Weaver's actions constituted a violation of DR 1-102(A)(6).