Opinion ID: 2038742
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Harm or Detriment to the Public.

Text: Franich claims that his marketing plan will cause no harm or detriment to the public and therefore cannot be prohibited by the Commission. In the exercise of its rulemaking authority, however, the Commission has determined that any practice falling within rule 193E1.31 is, by definition, unethical conduct or a practice that is harmful or detrimental to the public. Thus, contrary to Franich's contention, it is not necessary for the Commission to make a specific finding in a particular case that the practice at issue is unethical or is harmful or detrimental to the public. The only question, then, is whether the Commission's rule defining a practice as per se unethical or as harmful or detrimental to the public is an irrational, illogical, or wholly unjustifiable interpretation of section 543B.29(3). See Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)( l ). Focusing on paragraphs (6) and (7), as those are the only provisions involved in the matter before us, we conclude the Commission's interpretation of the statute is not irrational, illogical, or wholly unjustifiable. Franich's primary argument with respect to this issue is that he would never be swayed from his duty of loyalty by his self-interest arising from his dual capacity as a real estate broker and a mortgage broker. The Commission's regulatory view is much broader. It has fashioned rules that are preventative and prophylactic, prohibiting practices that it deems are unethical or carry a high risk of harm or detriment to the public. It is not irrational for the Commission to take this approach, rather than that apparently advocated by Franich, which would seem to allow any practice so long as it does not result in actual harm to a particular person. Importantly, the Commission's interpretation of section 543B.29(3) is consistent with the legislature's statement in that statute that [p]roof of actual injury need not be established. Id. § 543B.29(3). For these reasons, the Commission's interpretation of section 543B.29(3), as reflected in rule 193E1.31(6), (7), is not irrational, illogical, or wholly unjustifiable. We find no basis for reversal in this assignment of error.