Court Opinion

ID: 9691342
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 20:26:26.883049+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:17.258247
License: Public Domain

HARRIS, Justice
(dissenting in part).
I respectfully dissent from the majority selection of a sanction. It seems inescapable to me that the respondent deliberately attempted to mislead her clients’ creditors by notarizing a document with the wrong date. The record is clear that she believed at the time that the date was critical to her clients’ rights and to those of their creditors. On this record I cannot believe the incorrect date was placed there in error.
I disagree that the facts here square with those in Committee on Professional Ethics & Conduct v. Roberts, 312 N.W.2d 556 (Iowa 1981). In Roberts the misconduct was serious enough, but there was no attempt to mislead. The facts which were furnished in the forged affidavit were true and opposing counsel consented to the procedure. This case is closer to Committee on Professional Ethics & Conduct v. Hurd, 325 N.W.2d 386 (Iowa 1982), where, like here, there was an attempt to deceive and where we ordered a 60-day suspension. Id. at 390.
Under the circumstances, especially in view of respondent’s otherwise unblemished record, I think a 90-day suspension, would be appropriate.
SNELL, J., joins in this dissent.