11 Iowa opinions name it 1 courts 2011–2023 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Iowa courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Curt N. Danielsgreen2 sentences2021Under the rule, “knowing” means “actual knowledge of the fact in question” and can “be inferred from circumstances.” Id. r. 32:1.0(f); see also Iowa Sup. Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Barnhill, 847 N.W.2d 466, 486 (Iowa 2014). “[T]he omission of information by a lawyer can [also] give rise to a false statement to the court.” Daniels, 838 N.W.2d at 677 . 3. 2021Under the rule, “knowing” means “actual knowledge of the fact in question” and can “be inferred from circumstances.” Id. r. 32:1.0(f); see also Iowa Sup. Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Barnhill, 847 N.W.2d 466, 486 (Iowa 2014). “[T]he omission of information by a lawyer can [also] give rise to a false statement to the court.” Daniels, 838 N.W.2d at 677 . 3. | 2 | 2 |
Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Kathryn S. Barnhillgreen2 sentences2021Under the rule, “knowing” means “actual knowledge of the fact in question” and can “be inferred from circumstances.” Id. r. 32:1.0(f); see also Iowa Sup. Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Barnhill, 847 N.W.2d 466, 486 (Iowa 2014). “[T]he omission of information by a lawyer can [also] give rise to a false statement to the court.” Daniels, 838 N.W.2d at 677 . 3. 2021Under the rule, “knowing” means “actual knowledge of the fact in question” and can “be inferred from circumstances.” Id. r. 32:1.0(f); see also Iowa Sup. Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Barnhill, 847 N.W.2d 466, 486 (Iowa 2014). “[T]he omission of information by a lawyer can [also] give rise to a false statement to the court.” Daniels, 838 N.W.2d at 677 . 3. | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State of Iowa v. Lavelle Lonelle McKinley
green
2 sentences2016Id. r. 32:1.7 cmt. 8. 2016The comments to the rule expand on the definition of material limitation: Id. r. 32:1.7 cmt. 8. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Donald N. Laing and D. Scott Railsback
green
2 sentences2014The comments to the rule state “a lawyer should maintain on a current basis books and records in accordance with generally accepted accounting practice and comply with any recordkeeping rules established by law or court order.” Id. r. 32:1.15(a) cmt. 1. 2014The comments to the rule state “a lawyer should maintain on a current basis books and records in accordance with generally accepted accounting practice and comply with any recordkeep-ing rules established by law or court order.” Id. r. 32:1.15(a) cmt. 1. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Samuel Zachary Marks
green
1 sentence2023Comment [1] states, in part, “Under this rule, for example, a lawyer could not properly seek to rescind on behalf of a new client a contract drafted on behalf of the former client.” Id. r. 32:1.9 cmt. [1]. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Rose Gipson-Jelks v. Mae K. Gipson
green
1 sentence2020Paragraph (a) defines an unconscionable fee in terms of the reasonableness of the fee but in a way to eliminate factual disputes as to the fees reasonableness. 16 In the words of one Texas court: “[T]he drafters of the rules note in the comments to the rule that the standard for compliance is a higher standard than reasonableness.” Gipson-Jelks v. Gipson, 468 S.W.3d 600 , 605 n.3 (Tex. App. 2015). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Resnover v. Pearson
green
2 sentences2015Id. r. 32:l.ll(f), The comments to rule 32:1.11 note that the conflict of interest rule for government employees is aimed at eliminating the risk that benefits to an outside or former client would “affect the performance of the lawyer’s professional functions on behalf of the government.” Id. r. 32:1.11 cmt. 4. 2015Id. r. 32:l.ll(f), The comments to rule 32:1.11 note that the conflict of interest rule for government employees is aimed at eliminating the risk that benefits to an outside or former client would “affect the performance of the lawyer’s professional functions on behalf of the government.” Id. r. 32:1.11 cmt. 4. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Kermit L. Dunahoo
green
1 sentence2012In Dunahoo , we stated: Rule 32:3.4(c) is entitled “Fairness to opposing party and counsel,” and the rule states a lawyer shall not “knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal.” The comments to the rule suggest its purpose is to ensure “[f]air competition in the adversary system” through ■ proper adherence to discovery and evidence rules. 799 N.W.2d at 534 (quoting Iowa R. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Iowa Supreme Court Board of Professional Ethics & Conduct v. Pracht
green
1 sentence2011Id. r. 32:3.4 cmt. 1. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.