## Facts

- Robert Clauss, Jr., an Iowa attorney, notarized nine documents between 1996 and 2000 while his notary commission had expired.
- The Attorney Disciplinary Board charged that the expired-notary conduct constituted misrepresentation and adversely reflected on Clauss’s fitness to practice law.
- Separately, National Management Corporation retained Clauss to collect past-due rent from Kay Clark.
- During collection communications, Clark told Clauss she had violated a covenant not to compete and was under an injunction preventing her from operating her recruitment business.
- Clauss discussed potentially representing Clark in efforts to lift the injunction, reasoning that renewed income could help Clark pay National’s judgment.
- Clauss recognized potential conflicts in representing both creditor (National) and debtor (Clark) and consulted an attorney experienced in ethics matters.
- After receiving advice that dual representation could proceed with client waivers, Clauss attempted to obtain conflict waivers from both clients.
- The disclosures supporting the waivers were later found inadequate, rendering the purported consents ineffective.
- The Grievance Commission found violations and recommended a suspension of “not less than ninety days”; it viewed the expired-notary conduct as unintentional, not involving real estate transactions, and causing no shown harm.

## Issues

1. Whether notarizing documents after expiration of a notary commission constitutes professional misconduct under DR 1-102(A)(6).
2. Whether an attorney violates conflict-of-interest rules by attempting dual representation of potentially adverse clients without full disclosure sufficient to obtain informed consent.
3. What sanction is warranted given the violations, prior disciplinary history, and any client harm.

## Decision

- The court affirmed findings that Clauss committed misconduct by notarizing documents while his notary commission was expired.
- The court affirmed findings that Clauss violated conflict-of-interest rules by attempting to represent both National and Clark without full disclosure and valid informed waivers.
- The court increased the recommended sanction and suspended Clauss’s license for a minimum of six months.
- The court considered aggravating factors, including Clauss’s prior disciplinary history and financial harm to National associated with the conflicted representation.

## Legal Principles

- Notarizing documents without a valid commission constitutes misrepresentation and “conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law” under DR 1-102(A)(6), even absent intent to deceive or proven harm.
- Dual representation of clients with potentially adverse interests is permissible only with full disclosure and informed consent from each client.
- Full disclosure requires explaining the reasonably foreseeable ways the conflict may affect the lawyer’s independent professional judgment and the representation of each client; a formal waiver is insufficient if the client is not adequately informed.
- In setting discipline, the court may increase a recommended sanction when multiple violations, prior discipline, and client harm indicate a greater need to protect the public and the integrity of the profession.

## Conclusion

The court suspended Clauss for at least six months after finding he misrepresented his authority by notarizing documents with an expired commission and violated conflict-of-interest rules by pursuing dual representation of potentially adverse clients without the full disclosure necessary for informed consent.


Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Clauss, 711 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2006)