Attorney disciplinary board vs. Moothart - Essay Example

Iowa Supreme Court Attorney disciplinary board vs. Gerald Anthony Lyman Moothart In this case, the lawyer’s actions were multiple ethical violationsof disciplinary rules with regard to relationships and interactions with five women. These interactions and relationships occurred between 20006 and 2011 and includes allegations of sexual relations, sexual harassment and conflicts of interests as a result of the relationship between the attorney and one of the victims. The complaint alleged that Moothart, the respondent in this case, engaged in sexual harassment with the five women while in the practice of law, which was a violation of Iowa’s rule of professional conduct.

The attorney sexually harassed the first woman when he made crude sexual comments about her body. He also gave her alcohol during a late office visit and while she was intoxicated, he asked her to expose her breasts and made sexual suggestions to her. He also sexually harassed and had sexual relationships with the second woman, which resulted in a conflict of interest because the woman was a victim in a case the attorney was handling. He sexually harassed and had sexual relations with the third woman.

There were also allegations of sexual harassment of the fourth and the fifth women. After hearing the allegations against the attorney, the grievance court found the attorney had committed the violations(Justia Law, 2015). The disciplinary action taken against the attorney was an indefinite suspension of his practicing license without a possibility of reinstatement for at least 30 months. Additionally, the attorney was required to undergo evaluation by a health professional and provide prove of participating in sexual harassment counseling before being considered fit to practice law again.

This decision was based on the nature of the violations committed by the attorney, his fitness to continue practicing law and the desire to protect the public from the unethical practice of law. Moreover, it is important to maintain confidence in the justice system, maintain the reputation of the bar and deter the occurrence of such behavior. The decision was also influenced by aggravating factors such as the vulnerability of the women who believed they needed the attorneys help, and the attorney’s pattern of unsuitable behavior over the years.

The conduct was harmful to the women the attorney interacted with and those he represented and, therefore, the disciplinary action was appropriate(Justia Law, 2015).It is unprofessional and violates rules of professional conduct for a lawyer to engage in sexual harassment while in the practice of law. In this context, an attorney client relationship is not required provided the lawyer is engaged in the practice of law. Sexual harassment includes both verbal and physical conduct of a sexual nature and includes sexual requests, favors and advances.

Where there is attorney-client relationship, consent cannot be a defense for sexual harassment because the client is considered vulnerable. An attorney should also not represent a client if there is the likelihood of a conflict of interest occurring. Such a conflict of interest arises where the attorney’s representation of the client will materially affect the attorney’s relationship with a third party, another client, a former client or if the attorney has other personal interests. Reference listJustia Law, (2015).

IOWA SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD vs. GERALD ANTHONY LYMAN MOOTHART. Retrieved 13 June 2015, from http://law.justia.com/cases/iowa/supreme-court/2015/141708.html