## Facts

- An Iowa attorney represented a woman in a dissolution action involving temporary custody of three children.
- At the outset of the representation, the client was financially destitute and described as unemployed, drug dependent, and emotionally unstable.
- During discussions about how she would pay for legal services, the client proposed sexual intercourse as consideration for representation.
- The attorney proceeded to have sexual intercourse with the client in close connection with the formation of the attorney–client relationship and the fee/payment discussion.
- The client later dismissed the dissolution action and reconciled with her husband.
- The disciplinary authority filed a complaint alleging the attorney’s conduct violated the Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility and reflected adversely on his fitness to practice law.
- The Grievance Commission found rule violations and recommended a three-month suspension; the Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the matter de novo.

## Issues

1. Whether a lawyer’s sexual involvement with a current client, when connected to fee/payment discussions and the client’s vulnerability, constitutes misconduct under DR 1-102(A).
2. Whether attorney discipline for such conduct violates a lawyer’s privacy rights when the conduct is claimed to be consensual and personal.
3. What sanction is appropriate for exploiting a client’s emotional and financial vulnerability in the course of representation.

## Decision

- The court found the attorney committed professional misconduct by engaging in sexual conduct with a vulnerable client in a manner intertwined with representation and payment discussions.
- The court held the conduct violated DR 1-102(A), including provisions addressing moral turpitude, conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
- The court rejected the attorney’s privacy defense, concluding the conduct was not purely private because it was bound up with the fiduciary attorney–client relationship.
- The court imposed a license suspension more severe than the commission’s recommended three-month suspension.

## Legal Principles

- The attorney–client relationship is fiduciary and involves a power imbalance; a lawyer may not exploit a client’s dependency, desperation, or emotional instability.
- Sexual conduct may constitute professional misconduct when it is connected to representation, fee/payment arrangements, or the client’s inability to obtain legal services through ordinary means.
- “Moral turpitude” for disciplinary purposes can be established by serious professional misconduct reflecting a lack of integrity and judgment; criminal liability is not required.
- Constitutional privacy protections do not bar discipline where the conduct is linked to the practice of law and the court’s authority to regulate the profession.
- In attorney discipline, the court conducts de novo review and may impose a sanction different from, and more severe than, the commission’s recommendation to protect the public and the legal system.

## Conclusion

The Iowa Supreme Court disciplined an attorney for engaging in sexual conduct with a financially and emotionally vulnerable client during fee-related discussions, holding the conduct was professional misconduct subject to regulation despite claims of privacy and imposing a suspension exceeding the commission’s recommendation.


Comm. on Pro. Ethics & Conduct of the Iowa State Bar Ass'n v. Hill, 436 N.W.2d 57 (Iowa 1989)