The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Filing False Accusation with Police Is Grounds for Attorney Discipline
Pretty obvious, I think, but helpful to see a specific case on the subject.
From the Iowa Supreme Court's opinion (written by Justice Dana Oxley) in Iowa Supreme Court Att'y Discip. Bd. v. Aeilts:
Honesty is the hallmark of the legal profession. It should go without saying that misrepresenting facts to a court and to law enforcement violates the rules of professional conduct Iowa attorneys take an oath to uphold. Attorney Andrew Aeilts appears before us after: receiving an OWI, falsely reporting a crime, and misrepresenting his professional experience during allocution to the court sentencing him on the resulting malicious prosecution charge in an effort to excuse his conduct…. [W]e suspend Aeilts's license for six months….
The conduct bringing Aeilts to the Board's attention began on August 21, 2018, when Randy Cornelison, the father of one of Aeilts's clients, called Aeilts to complain about the lack of progress on his son's custody case and to get his son's retainer back. During the phone call, Cornelison told Aeilts he was going to file an ethics complaint against him. Later that day, Aeilts told Pella Police Officer Tim Donelson that Cornelison threatened to physically assault him during the telephone call. Aeilts requested that harassment charges be brought against Cornelison and sought a no-contact order. Donelson asked Aeilts if he had a recording of the conversation. Aeilts replied he did not but that he was not afraid to testify and informed Donelson that Cornelison had a criminal history.
Donelson contacted Cornelison during his investigation. Cornelison denied making any threats against Aeilts and provided a recording of the conversation as proof. At no point during the three-minute-and-thirty-two-second audio recording did Cornelison make any threats that he was going to physically assault or harm Aeilts. On October 1, Aeilts was charged with Malicious Prosecution in violation of Iowa Code section 720.6 and with False Report of an Indictable Offense to a Public Entity in violation of Iowa Code section 718.6(1) for his conduct related to pressing harassment charges against Cornelison.
[Details on the other grounds for discipline omitted. -EV]
Rule 32:8.4(b) prohibits a lawyer from "commit[ing] a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects." …
Aeilts … falsely subjected Cornelison to criminal charges for harassment based on his misrepresentations to Officer Donelson—charges Cornelison was able to avoid only because he had an audio recording of the phone call. Aeilts's malicious attempt to send Cornelison to jail in an effort to prevent him from filing an ethics complaint against Aeilts displays his lack of honesty and reflects adversely on his fitness as a lawyer. His actions reveal a disrespect for the law and law enforcement….
Aeilts's assertions that he did not know alleging a threat of bodily harm was an indictable offense and that he did not intend for Cornelison to be charged with an indictable offense are also without merit. After telling Officer Donelson about Cornelison's alleged threats, he specifically "requested that harassment charges be brought against Cornelison." Whether Aeilts was requesting a simple misdemeanor harassment charge or an indictable harassment charge, he still made misrepresentations to the police with potentially serious criminal consequences for Cornelison….
Under rule 32:8.4(d), "It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice." … Here, Aeilts sought to have Cornelison prosecuted for harassment, having no reasonable grounds for believing he committed harassment; Aeilts's report caused law enforcement and prosecutorial resources to be diverted in an investigation; and Aeilts's conduct hampered the efficient and proper operation of the ancillary systems upon which the courts rely. We agree that as a result of this conduct, law enforcement and court resources were diverted in an unnecessary investigation of Aeilts's charges against Cornelison. Aeilts's conduct with regard to the Malicious Prosecution conviction violated rule 32:8.4(d)….
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
This story is like crack cocaine for one of the VC's most prolific commenters.
It was wise to get this post out quickly after the previous post. An hour and a half was way too long to have Kopel's post hanging out there. I suggest you bury it with content.
Lol the opinion was dated two weeks ago. He must keep some around just in case he needs to post them. Probably emailing Josh to get started posting some some takes on SCOTUS leaks asap.
The DC is totally covering up lawyer misconduct. It will punish a lawyer for being drunk in court, for comingly a dollar between accounts, for sassing a judge during a trial. This is the commission of a crime and good evidence of moral terpitude in the form of perjury. It was with malice and for retaliatory purpose. In addition, it was to intimidate a witness to lawyer misconduct, and to lawyer fraud (taking a fee and not earning it). Jail crime for the misdemeanor and permanent loss of license for moral turpitude would have been correct.
The DC is a prosecutor. He is often employed by a state high court. His total immunity in the face of his covering up massive lawyer misconduct fully justifies violence. The small infractions he prosecutes are trivial compared to his not enforcing the Rule of Conduct prohibiting the filing of claims without merit.
Six month suspension? Glad I’m not in the only state where attorney discipline is a joke.
That was my reaction as well. If one of the rest of us filed a false police report, we'd be facing jail time, not just an unpaid vacation.
There were criminal charges too, he scored a small fine and 3 days jail time.
"Honesty is the hallmark of the legal profession."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!
Good one, let's hear more!
I mean, you did leave out the "Dis" at the beginning?
Frank "Fists do some harm is the hallmark of the medical profession"
Six month suspension?
The DC is totally covering up lawyer misconduct. It will punish a lawyer for being drunk in court, for co-mingling a dollar between accounts, for sassing a judge during a trial. This is the commission of a crime and good evidence of moral terpitude in the form of perjury. It was with malice and for retaliatory purpose. In addition, it was to intimidate a witness to lawyer misconduct, and to lawyer fraud (taking a fee and not earning it). Jail crime for the misdemeanor and permanent loss of license for moral turpitude would have been correct.
The DC is a prosecutor. He is often employed by a state high court. His total immunity in the face of his covering up massive lawyer misconduct fully justifies violence. The small infractions he prosecutes are trivial compared to his not enforcing the Rule of Conduct prohibiting the filing of claims without merit.
Marvel.
""It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice." …"
Can the attorney appeal to the D.C. Circuit for a second opinion? LOL
This is so funny considering what the attorneys for "she who shall not be named" did for five friggin' years using her attorneys to spread the lies. I can't believe VC could even post this without laughing so hard that it all ended up being gobbley-gook on the computer screen.
Hey, VC if you want to read more on the topic, look up some names such as Elias, Susseman, and Clinesmith (you will find more attorneys named if you such related topics). Maybe you can find some (giggle, giggle, giggle] precedents to refer to. Oh, my goodness, I'm laughing so hard!
Honesty is the hallmark of the legal profession.
Still?
How old is
"My client never borrowed your kettle. It was damaged when you lent it to him. My client returned it in perfect condition."?
Will we be applying this to DAs and Prosecutors?
Oh, not them huh
Six months suspension is insufficient IMO. Any lawyer who would bring false charges against someone to avoid an ethics complaint is a lawyer who would (and likely has) manufactured evidence, lied in court, suborned perjury, and/or cheated on their taxes for that matter. 99.999% of attorneys will go their entire careers without trying to frame someone for a crime. It’s perfectly okay to kick the remaining 0.001% out of the profession.
"Six months suspension is insufficient"
I agree. The guy should have been disbarred.
I wonder what would have happened if the client had not had a recording of the conversation.
I was wondering the same thing. In some States it is illegal to record a phone conversation without the knowledge of both parties. In this State, the judge seems to have expected both parties to record without notification. I prefer the outcome here. A surreptitious recording should be admissible to refute a false accusation. (But surreptitious recordings for offensive purposes and/or blackmail may be a different matter.)
"Honesty is the hallmark of the legal profession." Oxley has a wry sense of humor.
They lost met at "Honesty is the hallmark of the legal profession."
I wonder how this would be decided in my home State of Maine in light of Plante v. Long, 2017 ME 189. That was my case and involved a defendant who falsely accused the plaintiff of physically threatening him in a roadside encounter. Although the plaintiff testified to having never made a threat, the court granted SJ for the defendant because there was a “hostile” encounter and there was a possibility the defendant misperceived the plaintiff’s language.
Plante was a wrongly decided case in my view, but strikes me it could be controlling in favor of the attorney here had this happened in my jurisdiction.
This is a serious false statement that could have destroyed the victim’s life. And he used his power and his social status and the credibility of his position to do it. If the conversation hadn’t been recorded, he would have been believed. He acted with impunity because he knew it.
And he only gets suspended for 6 months? No other consequences?
When members of the upper strata of society do things that destroy members of lower strata and, even when they don’t get away with it, get slapped on the wrist and allowed to go right back to where they were before, society and ots governance do not seem very just to people on the lower end, who get slammed in jail and the key thrown away for much less.