Lawyer cited for falsely claiming he had dementia and was incompetent

A northern Iowa attorney has been publicly reprimanded for falsely claiming he had dementia in order to be excused from a case.

Court records show that in December 2024, police arrested Mario Delapaz of Storm Lake on charges of harassment and domestic abuse resulting in assault or injury. Delapaz was later convicted of both charges, the records show.

Shortly after the arrest, Emmetsburg attorney Fred Blake Perkins was appointed by the court to represent Delapaz in the case.

Court records indicate that in September 2025, after the court denied Perkins’ request to withdraw from the case, he allegedly renewed his request by filing paperwork informing the judge that he was not competent to conduct legal research and was experiencing symptoms of early-onset dementia.

“Those representations were false,” the Attorney Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Iowa alleges.

Records in the criminal case show that in his renewed motion to withdraw from the matter, Perkins wrote to the judge and stated that his 81-year-old father was in a nursing home with dementia and that he recognized the “early warning signs” in his own behavior. At the time, Perkins was 55 years old.

“The undersigned is now forced to admit at the undersigned’s extreme chagrin that the undersigned is unable to properly conduct research,” Perkins wrote in his renewed motion to withdraw from the case. “The undersigned does not recall the last time the undersigned wrote a brief, perhaps more than 20 years ago. The undersigned’s research skills are apparently defunct … In addition, the undersigned has noticed signs and symptoms of early-onset dementia and is concerned these lapses in mental acuity could prevent the effective representation of the defendant.”

According to the Attorney Disciplinary Board, Perkins responded to the board’s inquiries about the matter by asserting that he had become “desperate to convince” the judge to let him withdraw from the case and so he “started throwing every option” at the judge in an effort to persuade her to let him off the case, which she eventually did.

In a February 2026 letter to Perkins, the board stated that Perkins eventually “conceded that the statements in your filing regarding cognitive decline were completely without merit and unsupported by any medical diagnosis. A subsequent medical evaluation confirmed that you do not suffer from any cognitive impairment that would affect your ability to practice law.”

In its letter to Perkins, the board said it was “deeply concerned by your misrepresentations to the presiding court” in the criminal case but was opting to limit its disciplinary action to a public reprimand.

“Asserting personal incompetence or cognitive decline when you knew those claims were untrue undermines the court’s ability to function and erodes trust in the profession,” the board stated in its decision.

Calls to Perkins’ law office to seek comment on the matter were answered by an automated voice-messaging system with a voicemail box that indicated it was full and unable to accept any messages.