The Iowa Supreme Court revokes the license to practice law of Michael D. Blazek. He is currently in Federal prison in Marion, Illinois, serving a 235 month sentence following his conviction on charges of (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. Blazek's conviction has been affirmed. 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 Iowa Supreme Court quotes at length the findings of the Eighth Circuit regarding Blazek's conduct:
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.
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. Blazek was admitted to practice law in Iowa in 1987. In 1997 he pleaded guilty in United States District Court to charges that he had fondled the buttocks of a nephew while attending a family reunion on a cruise ship. After the guilty plea, Blazek had his Iowa license to practice suspended for two years. See, Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Blazek, 590 N.W.2d 501, 502 (1999).
The Iowa Supreme Court in revoking Blazek's license to practice law notes that it gave him one chance based upon his contentions that he was being treated for his predilection. "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." The Court outright rejects a request to delay decision pending post-conviction relief motions by Blazek. ". . . [E]ven 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 of images of child pornography. We therefore find it unnecessary to delay our decision pending the outcome of Blazek’s post-conviction claims."
In the other decision, the Court allows a former Catholic priest to take the Iowa bar examination. The decision overrules a finding by the Iowa Board of Law Examiners that Michael Patrick Nash did not possess the good moral character and fitness to practice law in Iowa.
While a priest in Juneau, Alaska, Nash took teen-aged boys on outings. On occasions he would discipline the boys by spanking them, tickling them, or making them do calisthentics. On occasions he would make them strip to their underwear. Nash denied that he was sexually motivated in using such techniques. He claimed he was attempting to use humiliating to change the children's behavior, and he was using discipline to which he had been subjected in Catholic summer camps.
Nash also admitted that between 1981 and 2002 he would convince a boy to massage his feet and neck, especially after a long day of traveling. Again, Nash contended that he was sexually motivated in asking for the massages which were conducted while fully clothed.
"On November 18, 2005, Nash was dismissed from the clerical state ex officio et pro bono Ecclesiae (for the good of the church)." This followed a complaint brought in 2002 that he had engaged in improper conduct with youth. Nash admitted to engaging in various disciplinary techniques, but he denied that his actions were sexually motivated.
The Board of Law Examiners denied Nash's request to take the Iowa bar exam. A majority of the Supreme Court holds, "Nash’s admitted use of questionable disciplinary techniques was deemed by clerical authorities an abuse of his parishioners’ trust that led to his removal from the priesthood. The board contends these abuses of trust were so serious that Nash remains unfit to practice law notwithstanding his completion of a treatment program, his many subsequent years of appropriate priest-parishioner trust relationships, and his apology to those harmed by his earlier actions. We disagree."
The majority does not condone Nash's practices, but it notes, "While those methods of discipline would certainly be considered inappropriate by today’s standards, when viewed in the social and historical context in which they were applied, they appear significantly less sinister." The Court majority believes that Nash's conduct and record over the past 17 years are the better indicator of his qualifications.
Following his treatment experience, Nash voluntarily avoided one-on-one interactions with parish children to avoid the appearance of impropriety. In 2006, as soon as the Catholic Church allowed him to speak with anyone involved in its investigation, Nash issued a written apology to the children whom he had improperly disciplined. He has earned and maintained the support, admiration, and trust of nearly eighty individuals who testified and wrote letters supporting his admission to the bar. Nash’s testimony at the board hearing reflects sincere contrition for his actions in the 1980s. When compared with the considerable evidence of his good moral character during the past seventeen years, the decades-old inappropriate but non-criminal acts admitted by Nash are insufficient to support the board’s denial of Nash’s application to become a member of the Iowa bar.
Justice David Wiggins dissents. He notes that Nash has stated in writing that his prior actions could be viewed as sexual abuse. Justice Wiggins agrees that Nash's conduct could be viewed as sexual abuse. "I do not feel Nash met his high burden to prove by a convincing preponderance of evidence that he has the requisite moral character and fitness for admission to the Iowa bar. However, I would not reject Nash’s application at this time. Before making a final decision, I would require Nash to complete the comprehensive inpatient treatment as requested by the board. Consequently, without such an evaluation I am unwilling to take the same chance as the majority and admit him as a member of the Iowa bar."
Nash will be eligible to sit for the next Iowa bar exam.
Recent Comments