Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board Vs. Michael D. Blazek

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 107 / 07-0507
Filed September 21, 2007
IOWA SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY
DISCIPLINARY BOARD,
Appellee,
vs.
MICHAEL D. BLAZEK,
Appellant.
On review of the report of the Grievance Commission.
Grievance Commission reports respondent has committed ethical
misconduct and recommends revocation of respondent’s license to practice
law. LICENSE REVOKED.
Michael J. Carroll of Babich, Goldman, Cashatt & Renzo, P.C., Des
Moines, for appellant.
Charles L. Harrington and Teresa A. Vens, Des Moines, for appellee.
2
STREIT, Justice.
An Iowa attorney was convicted in federal court of four felonies
involving sexual misconduct and children. Because he is unfit to practice
law, we revoke his license.
I. Background Facts and Prior Proceedings.
Michael Blazek was admitted to the Iowa bar in 1987. He is currently
serving a 235-month sentence in a federal prison in Marion, Illinois. He
was convicted on February 20, 2004 of the following felonies: (1) attempted
enticement of a minor for sex, (2) traveling in interstate commerce to engage
in sex with a minor, (3) receipt of visual depictions of minors engaging in
sexually explicit conduct, and (4) possession of visual depictions of minors
engaging in sexually explicit conduct. His conviction was affirmed on
appeal. United States v. Blazek, 431 F.3d 1104 (8th Cir. 2005), cert. denied,
547 U.S. 1082, 126 S. Ct. 1800, 164 L. Ed. 2d 538 (2006). The eighth
circuit court of appeals summarized the underlying facts:
In July 2001, Blazek entered an internet “male for male” chat
room from his computer in Des Moines and then sent an
instant message asking “Brian” for his age and location. Brian
responded that he was a 15 year old male in Chicago. Brian
was in fact Inspector Dan Everett of the Chicago Police
Department posing as a teenage boy to investigate internet
crimes against children. Blazek and Brian discussed their
respective sexual experiences. Blazek stated that he preferred
“[y]ounger smooth guys” and described his sexual preferences.
Blazek and Brian continued their instant message and e-mail
conversations for fifteen months. At the end of May 2002,
Blazek became more explicitly sexual, inviting Brian to give
him a massage and suggesting it could lead to sex. In July,
Blazek gave a detailed description of how he would massage
Brian and said, “[s]ometimes when guys get playful they lose
their clothes.” In September, Blazek engaged in graphic sexual
conversations, discussing oral sex and suggesting a three-way
sexual encounter with one of Brian’s friends.
3
Blazek arranged to meet Brian on October 26 at a restaurant in
Chicago. Blazek was arrested when he arrived at the
restaurant from Iowa. . . . After Blazek traveled to Chicago,
postal inspectors obtained a warrant, searched his apartment,
and seized his computer. They found hundreds of images and
movies of child pornography.
Id. at 1106–07.
In June 2006, the Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board
(Board) filed a complaint against Blazek based on these criminal
convictions. The Board alleged Blazek violated Iowa Code of Professional
Responsibility for Lawyers DR 1–102(A)(1) (attorney shall not violate a
disciplinary rule), DR 1–102(A)(3) (attorney shall not engage in illegal
conduct involving moral turpitude), and DR 1–102(A)(6) (attorney shall not
engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on the practice of law).
The Commission found Blazek violated these rules and recommended
revocation of his law license.
This conviction was not Blazek’s first. In December 1997, he pled
guilty in federal court to a felony charge of knowingly engaging in sexual
contact with a child under twelve. Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics &
Conduct v. Blazek, 590 N.W.2d 501, 502 (1999). That incident stemmed
from a family reunion on a cruise ship where Blazek sexually assaulted his
eleven-year-old nephew by fondling the boy’s bare buttocks and genitals.
Id. Blazek was sentenced to twelve months in prison followed by three years
of supervised release. Id. Based on this incident, we suspended Blazek’s
law license indefinitely with no possibility of reinstatement for two years.1
Id. at 504.
1Blazek’s suspension ran from March 7, 1997, the date of his temporary
suspension. His license was reinstated on September 2, 1999.
4
II. Scope of Review.
We review the findings of the Grievance Commission de novo. Iowa
Ct. R. 35.10(1). We give weight to the Commission’s findings but we are not
bound by those findings. Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. McGrath,
713 N.W.2d 682, 695 (Iowa 2006). The Board has the burden to prove
disciplinary violations by a convincing preponderance of the evidence. Iowa
Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. D’Angelo, 710 N.W.2d 226, 230 (Iowa
2006). This burden is “ ‘less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but
more than the preponderance standard required in the usual civil case.’ ”
Id. (quoting Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Lett, 674
N.W.2d 139, 142 (Iowa 2004)).
III. Ethical Violations.
Blazek is precluded from relitigating the findings made in the
underlying criminal action which is the basis of the Board’s present claim.
See Iowa Code § 602.10122(1) (2005) (stating “[t]he record of conviction is
conclusive evidence” in an attorney disciplinary action); Iowa Ct. R. 35.7(3)
(allowing issue preclusion to be used by either party in a lawyer disciplinary
case if certain conditions are met); Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v.
Iversen, 723 N.W.2d 806, 809 (Iowa 2006) (holding attorney was “barred
from relitigating the issue of his criminal conduct in this disciplinary
action”).
We agree with the Commission Blazek’s criminal misconduct violated
DR 1–102(A)(1), DR 1–102(A)(3), and DR 1–102(A)(6). We have previously
defined “moral turpitude” as “an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in
the duties which one person owes to another or to society in general . . . .”
Comm. on Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Tompkins, 415 N.W.2d 620, 623 (Iowa
1987) (citing Comm. on Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Patterson, 369 N.W.2d 798,
801 (Iowa 1985)). Certainly attempted enticement of a minor for sex and
5
possession of child pornography fit this definition. See Blazek, 590 N.W.2d
at 503; Comm. on Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Lindaman, 449 N.W.2d 341, 342
(Iowa 1989). Moreover, such conduct adversely reflects on the practice of
law. As the Commission stated, “[Blazek]’s conduct is an embarrassment to
the bar and to our system of justice.” See Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l
Ethics & Conduct v. Thompson, 595 N.W.2d 132, 134 (Iowa 1999) (stating
the public’s confidence in our profession is lessened when a lawyer violates
the law).
IV. Sanction.
We now turn to the appropriate sanction to address Blazek’s
unethical and criminal conduct. “We consider ‘the nature of the violations,
protection of the public, deterrence of similar misconduct by others, the
lawyer’s fitness to practice, and our duty to uphold the integrity of the
profession in the eyes of the public.’ ” Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary
Bd. v. Rickabaugh, 728 N.W.2d 375, 381 (Iowa 2007) (quoting Iowa Supreme
Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Fleming, 602 N.W.2d 340, 342 (Iowa
1999)). We also consider both aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
Id. “Ultimately, the form and extent of a disciplinary sanction ‘must be
tailored to the specific facts and circumstances of each individual case.’ ”
Id. at 381–82 (quoting Comm. on Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Rogers, 313
N.W.2d 535, 537 (Iowa 1981)).
We agree with the Commission revocation is the appropriate sanction.
See Iowa Code § 602.10122(1) (stating a felony conviction is sufficient cause
for revocation or suspension). In Lindaman, we revoked an attorney’s
license after he pleaded guilty to two counts of lascivious acts with a child.
Lindaman, 449 N.W.2d at 343. There, we found the attorney’s “ethical
violations so serious and dangerous to the public, we [thought] any sanction
6
less than revocation would do violence to our professional code of
responsibility.” Id. In Blazek’s first disciplinary action, he successfully
distinguished his situation from Lindaman. We said “Blazek has not tried to
defend his improper actions and admits to the ethical violations. Further,
he has taken significant steps toward rehabilitation and shows minimal risk
of reoffense, unlike Lindaman.” Blazek, 590 N.W.2d at 504.
Blazek cannot distinguish this case from Lindaman. He continued to
prey on minor children and indulge his pedophilia after his first conviction.
His behavior is reprehensible. We gave him the opportunity to redeem
himself and he squandered it. He is unfit to practice law.
Blazek urges us to delay our decision regarding revocation while his
post-conviction claims are pending. He claims to have a “good faith basis to
request that the underlying judgment be set aside.” It appears Blazek
intends to argue in his request for post-conviction relief that he could not
have committed the crimes of attempted enticement of a minor for sex and
traveling in interstate commerce to engage in sex with a minor because the
person with whom he was “chatting” online was an adult posing as a minor.
But see United States v. Helder, 452 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir. 2006) (holding
the crime of attempting to entice a minor to engage in illegal sexual activity
does not require the intended victim to be an actual minor); United States v.
Sims, 428 F.3d 945, 959–60 (10th Cir. 2005) (same); United States v. Meek,
366 F.3d 705, 717–20 (9th Cir. 2004) (same); United States v. Root, 296 F.3d
1222, 1227–28 (11th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1176, 123 S. Ct.
1006, 154 L. Ed. 2d 921 (2003) (same); United States v. Farner, 251 F.3d
510, 513 (5th Cir. 2001) (same). However, even if he were successful, it still
does not change the fact Blazek intended to entice a minor and took steps to
act on that intent. Nor does it change the fact Blazek possessed hundreds
7
of images of child pornography. We therefore find it unnecessary to delay
our decision pending the outcome of Blazek’s post-conviction claims.
V. Conclusion.
We revoke Blazek’s license to practice law in the State of Iowa. Costs
are taxed to Blazek pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 35.25(1).
LICENSE REVOKED.