Preview:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 40 / 06-2046 Filed April 20, 2007 IOWA SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD, Complainant, vs. KEITH GLENN THOMPSON, Respondent. ________________________________________________________________________ On review of the report of the Grievance Commission.

Grievance Commission reports that respondent has committed ethical misconduct and recommends a suspension from the practice of law. LICENSE SUSPENDED.

Charles L. Harrington and Teresa A. Vens, Des Moines, for complainant.

Keith Glenn Thompson, George, respondent, pro se.

2 CADY, Justice. The Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board (Board) charged Keith G. Thompson with numerous violations of the Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers. The Grievance Commission of the Supreme Court of Iowa (Commission) found Thompson violated the Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers. It recommended Thompson be suspended from the practice of law for a period not less than eighteen months. Upon our review, we find Thompson violated the Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers, and we suspend his license to practice law for an indefinite period of time, with no possibility of reinstatement for nine months. I. Background Facts and Proceedings. Keith G. Thompson is an Iowa lawyer. He has practiced law in

several communities in the state, and is currently located in George, Iowa. In 2004, Thompson served as an assistant county attorney in O'Brien County. As a part of his duties, he prepared a juvenile

delinquency petition, motion for waiver of juvenile court jurisdiction and order for hearing on the motion. He then signed the name of a district court judge to the order for hearing, without knowledge or authorization of the judge. Thompson filed the documents with the clerk of court, and arranged to have copies served on the parties. Within a short period of time, the fabricated signature on the order was discovered. Thompson was instructed by the judge whose signature was forged to report the matter to the attorney disciplinary board. He notified the Board by letter thirty-nine days later. Thompson has a history of prior discipline as an Iowa lawyer, including prior conduct involving the alteration of a court document. In

3 1989, he was admonished for correcting a typographical error on an original document in a court file without authorization. In 1997, he

received a public reprimand for accepting employment involving a conflict of interest. In that matter, Thompson agreed to represent a party in an action to modify the visitation provisions of a dissolution decree after he had met and conferred with the current spouse of the other party about the dispute. In 2005, he was suspended from the practice of law for failing to comply with the continuing legal education

requirements. Thompson also has an unspecified history of depression. He has taken antidepressant medication in the past. II. Board's Complaint. The Board charged Thompson with violating DR 1-102(A)(1), (4), (5), and (6). It alleged his conduct was dishonest and deceitful,

prejudicial to the administration of justice, and adversely reflected on his fitness to practice law. Thompson eventually stipulated that his conduct violated the Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers. He

also acknowledged in a stipulation that the violation should result in a suspension of his license to practice law for three months. The Commission found the Board established the violations. It

recommended Thompson be suspended from the practice of law for eighteen months. It also recommended that any reinstatement be

conditioned on the submission of a mental health evaluation and the successful completion of the ethics portion of the Iowa Bar Examination (the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination, or MPRE). III. Scope of Review. We review attorney disciplinary matters de novo. Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Bernard, 653 N.W.2d 373, 375 (Iowa

4 2002). We give the findings of the Commission weight, but are not

bound by them. Id. IV. Violation. A lawyer who forges a signature on a court documents violates DR 1-102(A)(4), (5), and (6). See Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Rylaarsdam, 636 N.W.2d 90, 92

Download IOWA SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD vs. KEITH GLENN THOMPSON.pdf

Iowa Law