Wild Willpower's Third Major Justice Reform:
No Lawyer May Change a Plea or File a Material Representation
Without the Client's Informed, Written Approval
The Attorney-Client "Right to Review"

By Sondra Wilson | Updated  August 4, 2026

 

Why This Reform Exists

This section of Wild Willpower's Justice Reform Plan stems directly from my personal experience: the pro bono attorney whom I trusted and who volunteered to assist me told me that he was doing one thing, but instead he went behind my back and changed my pleas from "not guilty" to "guilty" without my knowledge or consent. Although the incident happened in 2006, I didn't find out until 2022, when I ordered a copy of the docket from the Story County Courthouse. I would have done this sooner, however back in 2006 I did not know what a "docket" was. That is one of many reasons Wild Willpower's justice reform plan includes teaching law to high school seniors. Iowans need to be prepared to enter the real world after high school 

After filing a complaint with the Attorney Disciplinary Board, the Board's Director wrote to me,

"Respondent asserted that he received verbal consent from you to change your please in your two criminal matters. You, 17 years later, dispute that you would have agreed to changing the pleas.... The Board noted that respondent's best practice would have been to have your signature on the document filed in court or some sort of written documentation of the conversation and consent in the file. However, since this case was so long ago, memories fade or change, and respondent has not retained the file, there is no independent way to verify what conversation you had about resolving [the matter]. Because it cannot meet its burden of proving ethical misconduct in this situation, the Board has dismissed the complaint."

 No one should ever be put in this type of situation ever again. That is why I propose every client of every attorney must have a "right to review" all major filings prior to the attorney submitting documents under their name. They must understand what is being filed, and sign authorization prior to submission to the courts.

In Wilson v. State of Iowa and Kim Reynolds for Iowa (case no. ), I requested the courts compel Iowa Legislature to amend the Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct to require a right to review in order to prevent other Iowans from being harmed in this way, my due process rights and right to trial by jury were deprived in that case, so instead I wrote this part of the platform, so that Iowans may vote this reform in place through popular sovereignty.  

My Proposal

 

This proposal directly relates to the Justice Accessibility Act. It is about creating an informed citizenry who knows and understands our court processes.

Written informed authorization will be required for:

• a plea;
• waiver of trial;
• settlement;
• dismissal with prejudice;
• admission or stipulation materially affecting the client’s rights;
• waiver of appeal;
• material factual representations supplied in the client’s name.

Review opportunity will be required for:

• substantive pleadings;
• affidavits;
• factual statements attributed to the client;
• filings that materially characterize the client’s conduct or position.

Clients must understand their options, offer consent or alternatives, and know and understand what is being filed under their name.