Opinion ID: 2094094
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Bad Check Charge

Text: The Board charged Walters with violating DR 1-102(A)(4) which proscribes conduct including dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. The Commission found that writing the bad check to the Diegels violated this disciplinary rule. The Board cites Committee on Professional Ethics & Conduct v. Cody, 412 N.W.2d 637 (Iowa 1987), to support this charge. In Cody, the lawyer defendant pled guilty to two counts of theft in the third degree for writing bad checks to obtain office supplies for a corporate business he owned. We held the ethical violations were proved and ordered a license suspension of two and one-half years. In testimony before the Commission, Walters stated that he did not intentionally write a check to the Diegels with the knowledge that it was not going to clear the bank. The check was returned for insufficient funds, and Walters testified he did not know why there was not sufficient money in the bank when he wrote the check. He also stated he did not do anything to try to make the check good. In Cody, we noted the defendant claimed he did not intend to defraud anyone. Nevertheless, Cody was dishonest in his business dealings. We also stated that it is not necessary for the Board to prove the respondent was acting as a lawyer at the time of the alleged misconduct. Lawyers do not shed their professional responsibility in their personal lives. Cody, 412 N.W.2d at 639. We have considered in other cases actions by lawyers that bear on our analysis here. In Committee on Professional Ethics & Conduct v. Hall, 463 N.W.2d 30 (Iowa 1990), a lawyer signed promissory notes falsely representing to the bank that the loans were to be used to purchase laying hens. The money was used for other purposes and was never repaid. The Commission found this conduct violated numerous disciplinary rules and we agreed. In Iowa Supreme Court Board of Professional Ethics & Conduct v. Hansel, 558 N.W.2d 186 (Iowa 1997), the lawyer was in default on a bank debt and entered into an agreement with the bank to sell calves, collect payment for corn and apply the proceeds to the bank debt. Instead, he used the money for other purposes. We found these transactions were dishonest and violated DR 1-102(A)(4), the charge in the case at bar, which prohibits lawyers from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. Other states have viewed similar acts as violations of a lawyer's disciplinary rules. The Minnesota Supreme Court, in In re Pokorny, 453 N.W.2d 345 (Minn.1990), commented as follows: Respondent admittedly issued an insufficient funds check in payment of fees assessed for one of his nonappearances and then failed to issue a substitute check until an ethics complaint was filed against him. The referee concluded this conduct violated Minn.R.Prof. Conduct 8.4(c) (dishonest, deceitful or fraudulent conduct). Further, because the debt was directly related to respondent's law practice, the referee considered it conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of Minn.R.Prof. Conduct 8.4(d). Respondent maintains he should not be subject to discipline because the insufficient funds check was inadvertent and isolated. See In re Gubbins, 380 N.W.2d 810, 811-12 (Minn. 1986) (four-month suspension for issuing 217 NSF checks, along with other misconduct, although no client loss); In re Larson, 324 N.W.2d 656, 658-59 (Minn. 1982) (series of NSF checks, misrepresentation and misappropriation warrants disbarment). The Director concedes issuance of one bad check by itself arguably would not warrant public discipline. Respondent's misconduct, however, is not isolated but occurred in conjunction with other rule violations. Moreover, while anyone may mistakenly write an insufficient funds check, the context here is more serious. Respondent failed to pay the fees within the requisite time period, then issued the bad check. After being notified the check was returned for insufficient funds, he failed to issue a substitute checkalthough he said he woulduntil Wilson filed an ethics complaint against him. Pokorny, 453 N.W.2d at 347. The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals took a similar view. Here, the lawyer issued a bad check to a travel agency. The court said: Where an attorney writes a worthless check under circumstances that demonstrate dishonesty ... or misrepresentation under DR 1-102(A)(4) or conduct that adversely reflects on [the] fitness to practice law under DR 1-102(A)(6), disciplinary punishment is warranted. It should be shown that the attorney was either aware that the check was worthless when it was written or failed to make it good within a reasonable period of time after the attorney was aware that there were insufficient funds. .... His action, at the very least, reflects adversely on his fitness to practice law under DR 1-102(A)(6). It requires no extensive discussion to demonstrate that an attorney who either knowingly issues a bad check or delays making it good indulges in conduct that dishonors the practice of law. The public perception of lawyers cannot be served when they fail to pay their checks. Committee on Legal Ethics v. Taylor, 187 W.Va. 39, 415 S.E.2d 280, 283 (W.Va.1992); see also Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. Swisher, 203 W.Va. 603, 509 S.E.2d 884 (W.Va.1998) (failure to make any payment on a note signed by the lawyer as part of an agreement settling a legal malpractice case during five years following the agreement dishonors the practice of law). In the case at bar, Walters, by means of the settlement agreement with the Diegels, was able to forestall the progress and determination of their suit commenced for the payment of Walters' notes. Ultimately, the Diegels were forced to continue their lawsuit and obtain a judgment to collect the debt owed. We find that Walters' conduct in this matter constituted a violation of DR 1-102(A)(4), as charged by the Board.