## Facts

- The Iowa State Bar Association’s disciplinary committee filed an original proceeding against attorney William R. Crary for unethical conduct.
- Crary engaged in a sexual relationship with Sue Evans Curtis while she was married and while he participated as counsel in her divorce case.
- Curtis filed for divorce seeking custody and support, asserting she had been a dutiful spouse; William O. Gray was counsel of record, and Crary assisted as Gray’s associate.
- During a discovery deposition in the divorce matter, Curtis testified falsely about a period when she had actually stayed with Crary.
- Crary was present for the deposition, knew the testimony was false, and did not correct it or take steps to stop it; opposing counsel also knew it was false.
- Crary asserted his silence was justified because correcting the perjury could incriminate him (adultery) and because attorney–client privilege barred disclosure.
- A grievance committee took evidence and issued a report; the Iowa Supreme Court independently reviewed the record.

## Issues

1. Whether an attorney violates professional duties by remaining silent while a client gives perjured testimony in a proceeding in which the attorney participates.
2. Whether an attorney’s concern about self-incrimination excuses failure to prevent or rectify known client perjury.
3. Whether attorney–client privilege permits an attorney to refrain from disclosing or correcting known client perjury.
4. Whether it matters that opposing counsel already knows the testimony is false.

## Decision

- The Iowa Supreme Court found, by a convincing preponderance of the evidence, that Crary committed professional misconduct by permitting and failing to remedy his client’s perjured deposition testimony.
- The court rejected Crary’s arguments based on self-incrimination and attorney–client privilege.
- The court held opposing counsel’s knowledge of the falsity did not negate Crary’s duty of candor in the proceeding.
- Crary was suspended from the practice of law in Iowa.

## Legal Principles

- A lawyer may not knowingly participate in, acquiesce in, or “sit by” while a client offers false testimony in a proceeding in which the lawyer is acting as counsel; the lawyer must take reasonable remedial steps.
- A lawyer’s personal exposure to criminal liability does not justify allowing perjury; when a conflict arises, withdrawal or other lawful measures are required rather than facilitating false evidence.
- Attorney–client privilege protects confidential communications but does not authorize a lawyer to assist in presenting or maintaining false testimony in a judicial proceeding.
- The duty of candor is owed to the tribunal and the integrity of the process; it is not eliminated because the adversary already knows the truth.

## Conclusion

The court disciplined Crary for knowingly allowing a client to commit perjury during a deposition in litigation in which he participated, holding that neither self-protection nor attorney–client privilege permitted silence that left false testimony in the record, and that the duty of candor applies even when the opposing side is aware of the falsity.


Comm. on Pro. Ethics & Conduct of Iowa State Bar Ass’n v. Crary, 245 N.W.2d 298 (Iowa 1976)