The Iowa Supreme Court referred to another case involving attorney plagiarism (Iowa Supreme Court Board of Professional Ethics & Conduct v. Lane). In that case, the punishment for attorney Lane (suspension of his license to practice) was more severe than the punishment imposed on attorney Cannon. What distinction did the court make between these two cases? Do you agree with the court’s reasoning?

Explanation:

A lower court judge in a bankruptcy proceeding], having found Cannon's briefs to be ofunusually high quality, issued an order directing Cannon to certify that he was the author of the two briefs in question. Cannon filed a response indicating that both briefs were his soleresponsibility and that they "relied heavily" upon an article entitled Why Professionals Must beInterested in "Disinterestedness" Under the Bankruptcy Codeby William H. Schrag and MarkC. Haut. Cannon further admitted that his initial brief "exceeded permissible fair use withoutattestation" of the source. He reported he had informed his client about his mistake as well asthe bar association.The bankruptcy court initiated sanction proceedings against Cannon. The bankruptcy courtconcluded that seventeen of the nineteen pages of legal analysis in the initial brief wereverbatim excerpts from the article, with only variations for format and deletion of mattersdetrimental to Cannon's position . . .In light of its conclusion that Cannon committed plagiarism and charged an unreasonable fee,the bankruptcy court ordered Cannon to (1) complete a law-school-equivalent course inprofessional responsibility, (2) disgorge the fee charged to his client for the briefs' preparation,(3) formally notify the authors of the plagiarized article and provide the court with a copy of thecorrespondence, and (4) provide copies of the sanction order to Chief Judge Pratt and the[disciplinary] board.WHAT ADDITIONAL PENALTY WAS PROPOSED?Attorney Cannon and the [attorney] disciplinary board settled on a "Public Reprimand" [a public recordthat can severely impact a career] . . .WHY DID THE IOWA SUPREME COURT APPROVE THE “PUBLIC REPRIMAND” PENALTY?The Iowa Supreme Court decided to approve the public reprimand:

their just depressed and think that if they give pain to some one else the pain goes away from them. which it doesn't.