## Facts

- Kevin J. Visser, an Iowa attorney, represented Davis-Jones-Lamb Insurance Agency, Inc. in disputes with former employee Charles Heins.
- In a first lawsuit, Heins obtained a temporary injunction; the district court later dissolved it and stated Heins was “unlikely to succeed on the merits” in that context.
- A second lawsuit involved additional claims relating to Heins’s employment-related disputes with the client.
- A newspaper reporter contacted Visser for comment; Visser responded by faxing a letter on firm letterhead describing the pending litigation and referencing the earlier injunction ruling.
- The disciplinary proceeding centered on Visser’s description of the prior ruling, which was found to be technically accurate but materially incomplete and misleading in the overall impression it conveyed.

## Issues

1. Whether Visser’s extrajudicial statements to a reporter about pending civil litigation violated Iowa DR 7-107(G)(1), (2), and (4) under a constitutionally permissible “substantial likelihood of material prejudice” standard.
2. Whether Visser’s materially incomplete characterization of the prior injunction ruling constituted misrepresentation or other misconduct under Iowa DR 1-102(A)(1), (4), or (5).
3. What sanction was appropriate if a violation was found.

## Decision

- The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the disciplinary matter de novo, giving respectful consideration to the Grievance Commission’s findings.
- The court held the Board did not prove a DR 7-107 violation because the statements did not create a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing the pending adjudicative proceeding.
- The court held Visser violated DR 1-102(A) by making a misleading “half truth” about the earlier injunction order, which materially distorted what the court had decided.
- The court imposed an admonition, rejecting the Commission’s recommended public reprimand that had been premised on the trial-publicity charge.

## Legal Principles

- Restrictions on lawyer speech about pending cases must be applied consistently with the First Amendment and require proof of a substantial likelihood of material prejudice to the proceeding.
- A statement can be a disciplinary misrepresentation even if literally true in part, where omitted context makes the statement materially misleading.
- In attorney discipline, the court may make independent findings and impose discipline on a supported rule violation even if the commission did not do so.
- Sanctions are calibrated to the nature of the misconduct and relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances, including whether the conduct was isolated and the attorney’s disciplinary history.

## Conclusion

The court declined to discipline Visser for trial publicity because the Board failed to show a substantial likelihood of material prejudice, but it admonished him for a misleading, materially incomplete description of a prior court ruling that amounted to a misrepresentation under the professional conduct rules.


Iowa Supreme Court Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Visser, 629 N.W.2d 376 (Iowa 2001)