Attorney whose clients included Steve McFadden suspended over 'pattern of deceit'

Known for representing controversial Des Moines restaurateurs Steve McFadden and Edwin Allen III, a longtime West Des Moines attorney who the Iowa Supreme Court found repeatedly engaged in dishonest, unethical and fraudulent behavior won't be disbarred but will not be allowed to practice law for two years.

David Leitner, 67, has been an Iowa attorney since 1979, and has run his own law practice since 1988. His specialties, according to the attorney who represented him in the disciplinary proceeding, include criminal defense, civil litigation, divorce and tax and estate planning.

In recent years, Leitner has been involved in a number of notable cases, including representing McFadden and Allen in cases that have resulted in sanctions and judicial rebukes.

Previously: Judge clears Steve McFadden of contempt after 'bad advice' from embattled lawyer

In 2022, Leitner was accused by the state's Attorney Disciplinary Board of serious misconduct in four cases, as well as mishandling client funds in his trust account. The matter went before a panel of the Iowa Supreme Court Grievance Commission, and after Leitner failed to respond, it recommended in January that his license be revoked permanently.

The Iowa Supreme Court by statute has the final say in any attorney discipline. In a unanimous opinion Friday written by Justice David May, the court rejected the most severe penalty of disbarment, but ordered Leitner's license suspended for at least two years.

May wrote that Leitner "has repeatedly breached his duty of honesty," including during his disciplinary proceedings, and that, citing past case law, "this pattern of deceit raises an inference that Leitner is unfit to practice law."

What did attorney David Leitner do?

The grievance commission accused Leitner of a variety of misconduct.

It said that for one client, who had been convicted of bankruptcy fraud and faced potential garnishment of income, Leitner created a shell company in his own name to help his client shield his business activities from creditors — an action the commission wrote "could be criminal."

In a divorce case, Leitner surreptitiously added language to an agreement giving his client — a convicted domestic abuser — the right to know any time his ex-wife left their children with another caretaker, despite her order of protection against him, the commission said.

And after representing one client in writing a contract, Leitner then represented the other party to argue the contract was void. May pointed out that this not only was a conflict of interest, but is the literal example given in Iowa ethics rules to prohibit acting against the interests of former clients. When the district court ordered Leitner removed from the contract dispute, the commission found Leitner continued making filings on the clients' behalf without his signature.

Leitner also disregarded court orders to desist from contacting a woman with a court-appointed guardian, ultimately filing a frivolous lawsuit purportedly on her behalf, resulting in sanctions, the commission said. And it said that in audits of his client trust accounts, Leitner lied to state officials about his accounting practices, which included failure to properly deposit client funds.

Court calls David Leitner's defense misleading

Leitner and his attorney did not respond to messages Friday seeking comment. In previous court filings, they argued that notwithstanding his failure to respond to the charges, "had Mr. Leitner been given the opportunity, Mr. Leitner would have put on evidence to refute every allegation that has been deemed admitted."

Their primary argument, though, centered on the appropriate punishment. Leitner contended that he had been offered, and accepted, a deal for a 60-day license suspension, and that it was inappropriate for disciplinary authorities to now seek any greater penalty.

The Attorney Discipline Board, though, responded with emailed filings showing that he had not accepted that deal, and that in any case, many of the allegations against him were uncovered after that negotiation and would not have been part of a deal reached earlier. May found Leitner's attempts to mislead about the alleged deal to be a "seriously aggravating" factor against him.

No disbarment, but two-year suspension

Despite finding Leitner violated nearly every rule alleged by the grievance commission, May noted several mitigating factors and said that while the court has previously disbarred attorneys who sought to help clients engage in fraud, it was not clear from the record Leitner's involvement with the bankruptcy fraudster actually resulted in financial harm to anyone.

A two-year suspension remains a stiff penalty, though, with no guarantee of reinstatement afterward. Leitner would be at least 69 by the time he could return to practice.

The suspension will take effect on Dec. 18.

William Morris covers courts for the Des Moines Register. He can be contacted at wrmorris2@registermedia.com, 715-573-8166 or on Twitter at @DMRMorris.

This article originally appeared on Des Moines Register: Iowa Supreme Court suspends West Des Moines attorney for two years