examining whether an attorney’s sexual contact with a client at prison amounted to conduct that reflected adversely on her fitness to practice law in violation of previous ' ethical rules
How later courts described this case
- examining whether an attorney’s sexual contact with a client at prison amounted to conduct that reflected adversely on her fitness to practice law in violation of previous ' ethical rules
- reprimand of attorney who engaged in inappropriate, but consensual, physical contact with inmate at state penitentiary
- publicly reprimanding attorney who had inappropriate physical contact with client during prison visit with client
- vagueness challenge to EC 1-5, EC 9-6, and DR 1-102(A)(6); Behnke, 276 N.W.2d at 843, appeal dismissed, 444 U.S. at 805, 100 S.Ct. at 27, 62 L.Ed.2d at 19 (vagueness challenge to former version of EC 5-5
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HARRIS, Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur in divisions I, II, IV, and the result.
In division III of the majority opinion the court responds to a contention raised by the National Lawyers Guild. Although I have no quarrel with the legal conclusion suggested in the majority opinion, I believe it is inappropriate for the majority to respond at all. We have said that we should not respond to contentions made in amicus curiae briefs but rather limit ourselves to the contentions raised by parties to the action. Sauerman v. Stan Moore Motors, Inc., 203 N.W.2d 191, 194 (Iowa 1972); Lorentzen v. Deere Mfg. Co., 245 Iowa 1317, 1322 , 66 N.W.2d 499, 502 (1954); State v. Martin, 210 Iowa 207, 210 , 230 N.W. 540, 542-543 (1930).
I agree that respondent should be publicly reprimanded and admonished for her unprofessional conduct, but would limit the grounds to those detailed in divisions I, II, and IV. I therefore concur in the result.
McCORMICK, J., joins in this special concurrence.