Opinion ID: 1653251
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Alleged Violations of DR 1-102(A)(5), (6), and DR 7-106(A).

Text: The committee also challenges the commission's findings that the committee did not prove McCullough had violated DR 1-102(A)(5), (6), and DR 7-106(A) when he took the mortgage and confession of judgment in contravention of the injunctive order. The commission thought these rules require scienter. In other words, the committee, according to the commission, had to prove that McCullough knew the mortgage and confession of judgment violated the court order. In contrast, the committee argues no such requirement can be found in the rules and, even if there is such a requirement, the evidence clearly establishes such knowledge by the requisite degree of proof. DR 1-102(A)(5) and (6) provide that [a] lawyer shall not: .... (5) Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. (6) Engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law. DR 7-106(A) provides that [a] lawyer shall not disregard or advise his client to disregard a standing rule of a tribunal or a ruling of a tribunal made in the course of a proceeding, but he may take appropriate steps in good faith to test the validity of such rule or ruling. The importance of complying with court orders is spelled out in Maness v. Meyers, 419 U.S. 449, 458, 95 S.Ct. 584, 590, 42 L.Ed.2d 574, 583 (1975): We begin with the basic proposition that all orders and judgments of courts must be complied with promptly. If a person to whom a court directs an order believes that order is incorrect the remedy is to appeal, but absent a stay, to comply promptly with the order pending appeal. Persons who make private determinations of the law and refuse to obey an order generally risk criminal contempt even if the order is ultimately ruled incorrect. The orderly and expeditious administration of justice by the courts requires that an order issued by a court with jurisdiction over the subject matter and person must be obeyed by the parties until it is reversed by orderly and proper proceedings.... [Nor should the attorney] advise a client not to comply. See also Committee on Professional Ethics & Conduct v. Crary, 245 N.W.2d 298, 307 (Iowa 1976). So a lawyer has a duty to obey a court order and a duty not to advise a client to ignore it. A lawyer does not have the luxury of acting first and asking questions later. These principles are so obvious and basic that we should not have to remind the bar of them. DR 7-106(A) simply underscores the importance of these principles. We need not decide whether the committee had to prove that McCullough knew he was violating the order. The evidence is overwhelming that he in fact knew. The injunctive order was clear: Fred could not mortgage or encumber marital propertyexcept in the ordinary course of businesswithout first giving the court or Wilma's attorney ten days' written notice. The Calhoun County farm was marital property. The mortgage and confession of judgment were encumbrances. Both documents were materially false. McCullough knew all of this. The only question was whether the encumbrances were in the ordinary course of business. The circumstances surrounding the execution of both documents would make it abundantly clear to the most inexperienced lawyer or even a lay person that these two transactions did not occur in the ordinary course of business. No possible legitimate business purpose could have been served by documents falsely purporting that Fred owed substantial sums of money to his lawyer and to his business partner. In addition, ordinary course of business is a widely understood term. It means transact[ing] business according to the usages and customs of the commercial world generally or of the particular community. Black's Law Dictionary 989 (5th ed. 1979). One would scarcely argue that executing materially false security documents is equivalent to transacting business according to the usages and customs of the commercial world or of any particular community. Despite these obvious observations, at the disciplinary hearing McCullough was still maintaining that he believed the mortgage was in the ordinary course of business. He conceded, however, that the confession of judgment was not. We fail to see the difference. We can only speculate as to the real reason why such a knowledgeable and experienced lawyer would counsel his client to flagrantly violate a court order, not once but twice, with materially false documents. We find, contrary to what the commission found, that McCullough violated DR 1-102(A)(5), (6), and DR 7-106(A).