Steve McFadden's lawyer faces disbarment after commission accuses him of misconduct
A longtime Iowa attorney often associated with embattled restaurateur Steve McFadden faces potential disbarment after a state commission found he violated ethical rules in several cases.
David Leitner, 67, has been a licensed Iowa attorney since 1979 and has run his own West Des Moines legal practice since 1988. The attorney discipline case going before the Iowa Supreme Court could end that career permanently, as a panel of the Iowa Supreme Court Grievance Commission recommended that Leitner's license be permanently revoked, according to a letter it wrote to the court Jan. 19.
At issue are four cases in which Leitner is accused of dishonest or unethical conduct, as well as allegations he mishandled client funds held in his trust account.
"While the commission panel recognizes the serious and extreme nature of revocation as a sanction to a long-standing member of the bar, it believes it is necessary to maintain the reputation of the bar, protect the public and the profession, and to deter other lawyers from committing similar misconduct," according to the commission's letter to the court.
If the high court agrees with the commission's recommendation, or even chooses to impose a shorter-term suspension of Leitner's license, it would mean he would have to step away from any pending cases, including those involving McFadden. The owner of the Tipsy Crow, Dough Mama and Grumpy Goat establishments has hired Leitner to represent him in multiple matters, including a 2021 domestic violence arrest that resulted in a misdemeanor plea and related civil litigation.
Leitner also has sued nearly a dozen people for allegedly defamatory online comments about McFadden, and threatened litigation on McFadden's behalf against other business owners who have spoken publicly about him. McFadden was arrested again in December on new charges alleging he and a fellow bar owner used a GPS tracking device to surveil and harass a romantic partner, but Leitner is not listed as representing McFadden in those cases.
More:Owner of Des Moines metro taverns, pizzeria faces new charges, probation violation
What are the allegations against David Leitner?
Under Iowa law, the court's Attorney Discipline Board investigates allegations against attorneys and brings substantiated complaints before the Grievance Commission, made up of lawyers and laypeople from across the state. If the commission finds the board adequately proves its claims, it makes a recommendation for discipline, which then goes to the Supreme Court for a final decision.
The discipline board first filed its complaint against Leitner in March, according to court filings. Because Leitner failed to file an answer to the claims, the commission accepted the following allegations as fact:
After a longtime client was convicted of bankruptcy fraud and ordered to repay "a significant amount of money" to the federal government, Leitner created a new business entity, allegedly with Leitner as its sole employee, to allow the client to continue working as a seed dealer without having his wages garnished to repay his debts. The commission wrote that Leitner's actions "could be criminal" but were "certainly" fraudulent and dishonest.
In a divorce case, Leitner secretly inserted new language in an agreement without notifying the opposing attorney, actions the judge in that case found showed "an intent to deceive." He also lied to the court repeatedly about his client's child support payments and scheduling court hearings.
After representing one client in writing a contract, Leitner then represented the other party to argue the contract was void. The court found Leitner had a conflict of interest and disqualified him from the case, but he continued representing his new clients by having them sign court filings he filed for them.
In an inheritance dispute involving a woman judged not competent to manage her affairs, Leitner continued meeting with the woman despite repeated instructions from the court and her court-appointed guardian to desist, and filed a lawsuit purportedly on her behalf against her guardian that resulted in sanctions for disregarding the court's orders.
Leitner had multiple negative balances in his client trust account, failed to deposit client funds in the account and lied to state officials about his accounting practices.
"Leitner’s conduct demonstrates a long pattern of deliberate misconduct and dishonesty," wrote the commission, noting multiple instances in which Leitner disregarded ethics rules and flouted direct court orders. "His behavior interfering with a represented party who had been deemed incapacitated by the court is disturbing, especially his continuation of the behavior after ordered to cease by the court."
The Supreme Court is not obligated to accept the commission's disciplinary recommendations and will issue its own ruling at a later date.
In McFadden lawsuits, contempt of court?
Although McFadden's cases aren't part of the Grievance Commission's case, court records show Leitner has run into difficulty there as well. The judge overseeing McFadden's multiple defamation suits has scheduled a hearing to determine whether he and his attorney should be held in contempt for their conduct in those cases.
Leitner filed 11 near-identical lawsuits in May 2022 accusing the defendants of making unspecified defamatory statements about McFadden. Court filings show attorneys for plaintiffs repeatedly asked Leitner to identify the offending statements and explain his allegation that the defendants acted "in concert." Leitner responded only that the "investigation is ongoing" and refused to identify what damages McFadden and his businesses purportedly suffered.
The defendants then requested sanctions, arguing that Leitner and McFadden were ethically obligated to ensure a factual basis for all his claims before filing his complaint. The judge handling the cases wrote in December that Leitner's responses were "sorely lacking" and ordered him and McFadden to answer the defendants' questions, and to pay them $2,652 for their attorney fees.
But in January, the defendants told the court Leitner continued not to provide meaningful answers, and had missed the deadline to pay the attorney fees sanction. Leitner, in court filings, has accused the defendants of withholding answers to McFadden's questions.
The judge has set a Feb. 3 hearing date and ordered McFadden and Leitner to explain why McFadden should not be held in contempt of court.
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 attorney faces disbarment for fraud, dishonesty
