Iowa: Lawyer Suspended for Neglecting Client Matters

Link to opinion: http://www.iowacourts.gov/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20100423/09-1074.pdf

In Iowa Supreme Court Atty. Disc. v. Hoglan, 781 N.W.2d 279 (2010), the Iowa Supreme Court suspended the license of an attorney for thirty days for his failure to file appeals in three separate cases and for his failure to perfect an administrative appeal. All four instances of neglect resulted in harm to the clients by costing them their cases. The lawyer admitted guilt in all four claims, but claimed he had health problems with his back due to a degenerative condition and had several surgeries during the period of time the incidents occurred, which contributed to his neglect.

The claims against the attorney were previously reviewed by the grievance commission; upon finding the attorney guilty of all four counts, the commission recommended a public reprimand. The court considered whether that punishment was appropriate given the nature of the attorney’s actions and the number of complaints.
The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the commission’s conclusions that the attorney’s failure to practice reasonable promptness in all four counts violated Iowa R. Prof. Conduct 32:1.3; concluded his failure to withdraw representation due to physical malady violated rule 32:1.16(a)(2);concluded his failure to expedite litigation violated 32:3.2; concluded he violated ethical rules 32:8.4(a); and concluded his conduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice, violating rule 32:8.4(d).
Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Marks, 759 N.W.2d 328, 332 (Iowa 2009) states punishment of attorney neglect requires the court make a stricter punishment when there are multiple instances of neglect. While accepting the commission’s finding of neglect, the court determined a stricter punishment than public reprimand was warranted due to the fact the attorney was responsible for more than one instance of neglect. Moreover, Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Hohenadel, 634 N.W.2d 652, 656 (Iowa 2001) claims stricter punishment is necessary when a client suffers harm due to attorney neglect. In this case, the attorney’s neglect led to client losses in all four instances, and the court determined the stricter punishment was appropriate. Finally, because the court determined the attorney’s back problems were a mitigating cause to his neglect, citing Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. McCann, 712 N.W.2d 89, 96 (Iowa 2006), beyond the thirty-day suspension, the court required the attorney to provide a physical evaluation from a doctor claiming he was physically fit enough to provide counsel before his suspension could be ended.