## Facts

- Marc R. Engelmann, an Iowa lawyer licensed since 1976, practiced primarily in real-estate matters.
- In nine real-estate closings, Engelmann represented the seller while the parties used HUD-1 settlement statements and related loan documents that reported a higher, fictitious sales price than the actual agreed purchase price.
- The inflated prices (often $30,000 to $35,000 above the true price) enabled buyers to obtain larger mortgage loans than the transactions supported.
- A federal jury found Engelmann knowingly submitted false HUD-1 statements with intent to deceive lenders and to cause financial loss or detriment.
- Engelmann was convicted in federal court on nine felony counts (including bank fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracy), sentenced to 36 months’ imprisonment, and ordered to pay $392,937.73 in restitution; the convictions were affirmed on appeal.
- While the criminal appeal was pending, disciplinary proceedings were held in abeyance and Engelmann’s license was temporarily suspended.
- After the convictions became final, the Board filed a disciplinary complaint seeking revocation; the Grievance Commission found rule violations but recommended only an additional six-month suspension.

## Issues

1. Whether Engelmann’s conduct underlying his federal felony fraud convictions constituted violations of the Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct.
2. Whether the appropriate sanction was revocation (as sought by the Board) or a limited additional suspension (as recommended by the Grievance Commission).

## Decision

- The court found Engelmann violated multiple Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct based on his knowing participation in the submission of false closing and loan documents to lenders.
- The court rejected the Grievance Commission’s recommended additional six-month suspension.
- The court revoked Engelmann’s license to practice law in Iowa.

## Legal Principles

- Attorney discipline is reviewed de novo; the court gives respectful consideration to, but is not bound by, the Grievance Commission’s recommendation and may impose a lesser or greater sanction.
- The Board must prove misconduct by a convincing preponderance of the evidence (more demanding than ordinary civil proof, less than beyond a reasonable doubt).
- Lawyers may not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, including knowingly making false statements of material fact to third persons.
- Criminal conduct reflecting adversely on a lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness to practice supports severe discipline.
- The primary purpose of attorney discipline is protection of the public and preservation of confidence in the legal profession, not punishment.
- Repeated intentional misconduct, significant third-party financial harm, and abuse of a position of professional trust are strong aggravating factors supporting revocation, even where the lawyer’s personal financial gain is limited.

## Conclusion

Because Engelmann knowingly participated in a repeated scheme to misrepresent real-estate sales prices through false HUD-1 statements to obtain inflated loans causing substantial lender losses, the Iowa Supreme Court concluded that revocation was necessary to protect the public and maintain trust in the legal profession.


Iowa Supreme Court Att'y Disciplinary Bd. v. Engelmann, 840 N.W.2d 156 (Iowa 2013)