ethical violation in Iowa

2022Likewise, we “have the discretion to ‘impose a greater or lesser sanction than what the commission has recommended upon proof of an ethical violation.’ ” Id. (quoting Iowa Sup. Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Mathahs, 918 N.W.2d 487, 489 (Iowa 2018)). 12 III.

2021“We may impose a greater or lesser sanction than what the commission has recommended upon proof of an ethical violation.” Iowa Sup. Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Noyes, 936 N.W.2d 440 , 442 (Iowa 2019) (quoting Mathahs, 918 N.W.2d at 489 ). 3 II.

2019"The Board has the burden of proving a violation of an ethical rule 'by a convincing preponderance of the evidence.' " Iowa Supreme Ct. Att'y Disciplinary Bd. v. Moran , 919 N.W.2d 754 , 758 (Iowa 2018) (quoting Iowa Supreme Ct. Att'y Disciplinary Bd. v. Van Ginkel , 809 N.W.2d 96 , 102 (Iowa 2012) ).

2019Instead, an ethical violation "arises when a lawyer 'repeatedly fail[s] to perform required functions as attorney for the executor, repeatedly fail[s] to meet deadlines, and fail[s] to close the estate within a reasonable period of time.' " Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Grotewold , 642 N.W.2d 288 , 293 (Iowa 2002) ).

2021Rule 32:3.3(a)(1) provides: “(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer.” “We will not infer an attorney made a misrepresentation knowingly simply because the 18 misrepresentation occurred.” Barnhill, 847 N.W.2d at 486 . “[M]isrepresentation requires intent to deceive to support an ethical violation.” Iowa Sup. Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Sobel, 779 N.W.2d 782, 787 (Iowa 2010).

2021Rule 32:3.3(a)(1) provides: “(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer.” “We will not infer an attorney made a misrepresentation knowingly simply because the 18 misrepresentation occurred.” Barnhill, 847 N.W.2d at 486 . “[M]isrepresentation requires intent to deceive to support an ethical violation.” Iowa Sup. Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Sobel, 779 N.W.2d 782, 787 (Iowa 2010).

2019Instead, an ethical violation “arises when a lawyer ‘repeatedly fail[s] to perform required functions as attorney for the executor, repeatedly fail[s] to meet deadlines, and fail[s] to close the estate within a reasonable period of time.’ ” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Grotewold, 642 N.W.2d 288, 293 (Iowa 2002)).

2019Instead, an ethical violation "arises when a lawyer 'repeatedly fail[s] to perform required functions as attorney for the executor, repeatedly fail[s] to meet deadlines, and fail[s] to close the estate within a reasonable period of time.' " Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Grotewold , 642 N.W.2d 288 , 293 (Iowa 2002) ).

2016In re Block, 816 N.W.2d 362, 364 (Iowa 2012); Stigler, 607 N.W.2d at 705 .

2016In re Block, 816 N.W.2d 362, 364 (Iowa 2012); Stigler, 607 N.W.2d at 705 (Iowa 2000).

2024We may “impose a greater or lesser sanction than what the commission has recommended upon proof of an ethical violation.” Iowa Sup. Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Janssen, 981 N.W.2d 1 , 6 (Iowa 2022) (quoting Iowa Sup. Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Noel, 923 N.W.2d 575, 582 (Iowa 2019)). 10 III.

2023We can “impose a greater or lesser sanction than what the commis- sion has recommended upon proof of an ethical violation.” Id. (quoting Iowa Sup. Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Noel, 923 N.W.2d 575, 582 (Iowa 2019)). 8 III.

2007Cf. Iowa Supreme Ct. Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. Johnson, 2007 WL 490915 , 728 N.W.2d 199, 202 (Iowa 2007) (holding attorney’s good-faith belief that her conduct did not violate conflict-of-interest rule contained in DR 9-101(B) was not a defense); Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Walters, 603 N.W.2d 772, 775 (Iowa 1999) (stating it was “not necessary to show that the lawyer acted with bad or fraudulent intent” in order to establish lawyer violated DR 5-104(A) by soliciting loan from former client); Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Apland, 577 N.W.2d 50, 56

2007Cf. Iowa Supreme Ct. Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. Johnson, ___ N.W.2d ___, ___ (Iowa 2007) (holding attorney’s good-faith belief that her conduct did not violate conflict-of-interest rule contained in DR 9-101(B) 7 was not a defense); Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Walters, 603 N.W.2d 772, 775 (Iowa 1999) (stating it was “not necessary to show that the lawyer acted with bad or fraudulent intent” in order to establish lawyer violated DR 5-104(A) by soliciting loan from former client); Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Apland, 577 N.W.2d 50, 56 (Iowa 1998) (c

2021See Iowa Sup. Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Blessum, 861 N.W.2d 575, 590 (Iowa 2015) (noting the added significance when a crime is committed against the client).

2016See, e.g., Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Blessum, 861 N.W.2d 575 , 588–89 (Iowa 2015); Iowa 11 Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Rousch, 827 N.W.2d 711, 716 (Iowa 2013); Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Cannon, 821 N.W.2d 873 , 877–78 (Iowa 2012); Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Weaver, 812 N.W.2d 4, 11 (2012).

2017On the contrary, the sole intended remedy for a violation of such a statute or code is the imposition of discipline by disbarment, suspension or reprimand of the offending attorney.”); Diluglio v. Providence Auto Body, Inc., 755 A.2d 757 , 772 n.16 (R.I. 2000) (“[V]iolations of the rules of professional conduct cannot be used to establish a cause of action or to create any presumption that a legal duty has been breached . . . .”); Vallinoto v. DiSandro, 688 A.2d 830, 837 (R.I. 1997) (“The clear and unanimous judicial rule, as well as academic authority, is that mere violation of codes of profe

2017On the contrary, the sole intended remedy for a violation of such a statute or code is the imposition of discipline by disbarment, suspension or reprimand of the offending attorney.”); Diluglio v. Providence Auto Body, Inc., 755 A.2d 757 , 772 n.16 (R.I. 2000) (“[V]iolations of the rules of professional conduct cannot be used to establish a cause of action or to create any presumption that a legal duty has been breached . . . .”); Vallinoto v. DiSandro, 688 A.2d 830, 837 (R.I. 1997) (“The clear and unanimous judicial rule, as well as academic authority, is that mere violation of codes of profe

2017On the contrary, the sole intended remedy for a violation of such a statute or code is the imposition of discipline by disbarment, suspension or reprimand of the offending attorney.”); Diluglio v. Providence Auto Body, Inc., 755 A.2d 757 , 772 n.16 (R.I. 2000) (“[V]iolations of the rules of professional conduct cannot be used to establish a cause of action or to create any presumption that a legal duty has been breached . . . .”); Vallinoto v. DiSandro, 688 A.2d 830, 837 (R.I. 1997) (“The clear and unanimous judicial rule, as well as academic authority, is that mere violation of codes of profe

2017On the contrary, the sole intended remedy for a violation of such a statute or code is the imposition of discipline by disbarment, suspension or reprimand of the offending attorney.”); Diluglio v. Providence Auto Body, Inc., 755 A.2d 757 , 772 n.16 (R.I. 2000) (“[V]iolations of the rules of professional conduct cannot be used to establish a cause of action or to create any presumption that a legal duty has been breached . . . .”); Vallinoto v. DiSandro, 688 A.2d 830, 837 (R.I. 1997) (“The clear and unanimous judicial rule, as well as academic authority, is that mere violation of codes of profe

2017Hart v. Comerica Bank, 957 F. Supp. 958, 981 (E.D.

2017Hart v. Comerica Bank, 957 F. Supp. 958, 981 (E.D.

1994See Committee on Professional Ethics & Conduct v. Gardalen, 414 N.W.2d 124, 128-29 (Iowa 1987).

1993See Committee on Professional Ethics & Conduct v. Gardalen, 414 N.W.2d 124, 128-29 (Iowa 1987).

1987Although he admitted receiving the letters, Gardalen could give no reasons for not responding other than he “developed some sort of mental block toward this case.” Since we first said so in Committee on Professional Ethics & Conduct v. Horn, 379 N.W.2d 6, 7-9 (Iowa 1985), we have repeatedly held that a lawyer commits a separate ethical violation when the lawyer ignores the committee’s request for a reply *129 to its disciplinary complaint.

1986In Committee on Professional Ethics and Conduct v. Horn, 379 N.W.2d 6, 9 (Iowa 1985), this court recently held that an attorney commits a separate ethical violation by failing to answer the committee’s request for a reply to its disciplinary complaint.

2019"A convincing preponderance of the evidence is more than a preponderance of the evidence, but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. (quoting Iowa Supreme Ct. Att'y Disciplinary Bd. v. Thomas , 844 N.W.2d 111 , 113 (Iowa 2014) ).

2019“A convincing preponderance of the evidence is more than a preponderance of the evidence, but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quoting Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Thomas, 844 N.W.2d 111, 113 (Iowa 2014)).

2015Id. at 284.

2015Id. at 284 .

2020Yet, “[w]e seek to ‘achieve consistency with prior cases when determining the proper sanction.’ ” Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Crotty, 891 N.W.2d 455, 466 (Iowa 2017) (quoting Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Templeton, 784 N.W.2d 761, 769 (Iowa 2010)).

2019Still, “[w]e seek to ‘achieve consistency with prior cases when determining the proper sanction.’ ” Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Crotty, 891 N.W.2d 455, 466 (Iowa 2017) (quoting Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Templeton, 784 N.W.2d 761, 769 (Iowa 2010)). “[W]e have found revocation appropriate ‘in nearly every case where an attorney converts client funds without a colorable claim.’ ” Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Kowalke, 918 N.W.2d 158, 163 (Iowa 2018) (quoting Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Guthrie, 901 N.W.2d 493, 500 (Iowa 2017)).

2018However, our supreme court has found "an ethical violation [does not] always mean that ineffective assistance has [ ] occurred." State v. Clay , 824 N.W.2d 488 , 502 (Iowa 2012).

2014See Clay, 824 N.W.2d at 504 (Mansfield, J., concurring specially) (objecting to any general suggestion that a criminal defense attorney who commits ineffective assistance by our standards has also committed an ethical violation).

2020If we conclude there has been a rule violation, “our determination of the appropriate sanction ‘is guided by the nature of the alleged violations, the need for deterrence, protection of the public, maintenance of the reputation of the bar as a whole, and [the attorney’s] fitness to continue in the practice of law.’ ” Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Laing, 832 N.W.2d 366 , 367–68 (Iowa 2013) (alteration in original) (quoting Comm. on Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Kaufman, 515 N.W.2d 28, 30 (Iowa 1994)).

2013If we find a violation of an ethical rule has occurred, our determination of the appropriate sanction “is guided by the nature of the alleged violations, the need for deterrence, protec *368 tion of the public, maintenance of the reputation of the bar as a whole, and [the attorney’s] fitness to continue in the practice of law.” Comm. on Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Kaufman, 515 N.W.2d 28, 30 (Iowa 1994).

2020“There is no uniform sanction for a particular ethical violation.” Earley, 933 N.W.2d at 213 (quoting Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Bauermeister, 927 N.W.2d 170, 174 (Iowa 2019)).

2019“There is no uniform sanction for a particular ethical violation.” Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Bauermeister, 927 N.W.2d 170, 174 (Iowa 2019).

2020Yet, “[w]e seek to ‘achieve consistency with prior cases when determining the proper sanction.’ ” Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Crotty, 891 N.W.2d 455, 466 (Iowa 2017) (quoting Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Templeton, 784 N.W.2d 761, 769 (Iowa 2010)).

2019Still, “[w]e seek to ‘achieve consistency with prior cases when determining the proper sanction.’ ” Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Crotty, 891 N.W.2d 455, 466 (Iowa 2017) (quoting Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Templeton, 784 N.W.2d 761, 769 (Iowa 2010)). “[W]e have found revocation appropriate ‘in nearly every case where an attorney converts client funds without a colorable claim.’ ” Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Kowalke, 918 N.W.2d 158, 163 (Iowa 2018) (quoting Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Guthrie, 901 N.W.2d 493, 500 (Iowa 2017)).

2019Iowa Supreme Ct. Att'y Disciplinary Bd. v. Turner , 918 N.W.2d 130 , 153 (Iowa 2018).

2019Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Turner, 918 N.W.2d 130, 153 (Iowa 2018).

2019"The Board has the burden of proving a violation of an ethical rule 'by a convincing preponderance of the evidence.' " Iowa Supreme Ct. Att'y Disciplinary Bd. v. Moran , 919 N.W.2d 754 , 758 (Iowa 2018) (quoting Iowa Supreme Ct. Att'y Disciplinary Bd. v. Van Ginkel , 809 N.W.2d 96 , 102 (Iowa 2012) ).

2019“The Board has the burden of proving a violation of an ethical rule ‘by a convincing preponderance of the evidence.’ ” Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Moran, 919 N.W.2d 754, 758 (Iowa 2018) (quoting Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Van Ginkel, 809 N.W.2d 96, 102 (Iowa 2012)).

2018However, even if counsel’s representation was unethical, a “breach of an ethical standard does not necessarily make out a denial of the Sixth Amendment guarantee of assistance of counsel.” Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157, 165 (1986).

2007See Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157, 165 , 106 S.Ct. 988, 993 , 89 L.Ed.2d 123, 134 (1986) (“[B]reaeh of an ethical standard does not necessarily make out a denial of the Sixth Amendment guarantee of assistance of counsel.”); Iowa Code of Profl Responsibility, DR 5-105(E) (imputing the disqualification of one lawyer to the lawyer’s firm); see also Lambert v. Blodgett, 393 F.3d 943, 986 (9th Cir.2004) (“[T]he Supreme Court has never applied the ethical imputed disqualification rule in Sixth Amendment analysis.”).