Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Robert J. Hearity

Summary

The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed disciplinary charges against Robert J. Hearity arising from his representation of multiple clients, including neglect, unreasonable fees, failure to respond to disciplinary authorities, unauthorized practice while suspended, and misrepresentation to a court. The court imposed a one-year suspension, with no possibility of reinstatement during that period, and assessed costs against Hearity.

Holdings

1. The Supreme Court of Iowa independently reviews attorney-discipline proceedings de novo, is not bound by the commission's findings, and may impose a sanction more or less severe than the commission recommends when misconduct is proven by a convincing preponderance of the evidence.
2. When a respondent fails to answer an ethics complaint within the specified time, the allegations are deemed admitted.
3. Hearity violated Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct 32:1.3 and 32:3.2 by neglecting the Theroith estate for more than three and one-half years, repeatedly delaying required proceedings, and failing to prosecute Walls's appeal, resulting in dismissal.
4. Hearity violated Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct 32:1.5(a) and 32:1.5(b) by retaining an unjustified $500 advance fee and failing to communicate in writing the scope of representation and basis or rate of fees and expenses in the Georgia DUI matter.
5. Hearity violated Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct 32:1.16(c) and 32:1.16(d) by effectively abandoning Walls's appeal without permission to withdraw and by taking no reasonably practicable steps to protect Walls's interests.
6. Hearity violated Iowa Rule of Professional Conduct 32:8.1(b) by knowingly failing to respond to the Board's lawful request for information and documentation concerning Campbell's fee complaint.
7. The Board failed to prove a violation of Iowa Rule of Professional Conduct 32:3.4(c) because the misconduct did not establish that Hearity undermined the competitive fairness of the adversary process or disadvantaged opposing counsel.
8. Hearity violated Iowa Rule of Professional Conduct 32:5.5(a) by appearing in juvenile court six days after accepting certified notice of his license suspension.
9. Hearity knowingly made a false statement of fact to the juvenile court in violation of Iowa Rule of Professional Conduct 32:3.3(a)(1) because the circumstances established that he actually knew of his suspension when he stated that he had not received notice.
10. The court declined to find a separate violation of Iowa Rule of Professional Conduct 32:8.4(c) for the same conduct that violated the specific false-statement rule, 32:3.3(a)(1).
11. Hearity violated Iowa Rule of Professional Conduct 32:8.4(d) because his misconduct impeded the efficient and proper operation of the courts.
12. A one-year suspension of Hearity's license, with no possibility of reinstatement for one year from the date of the opinion, was appropriate in light of the multiple violations, prior similar misconduct, failure to cooperate, and absence of mitigating evidence.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Board proved by a convincing preponderance of the evidence that Hearity violated the Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct.
2. Whether Hearity violated the duties of diligence and expedition by neglecting an estate and failing to prosecute a client's appeal.
3. Whether Hearity charged an unreasonable fee and failed to communicate the scope and basis of the fee in the Georgia DUI matter.
4. Whether Hearity improperly terminated representation and failed to protect a client's interests on appeal.
5. Whether Hearity violated the duty to respond to a disciplinary authority's lawful demand for information.
6. Whether Hearity violated the rule governing disobedience of tribunal obligations.
7. Whether Hearity engaged in the unauthorized practice of law after receiving notice of his license suspension.
8. Whether Hearity knowingly made a false statement to a juvenile court regarding his knowledge of the suspension.
9. Whether the same conduct violated both the specific false-statement rule and the general dishonesty rule.
10. What sanction was appropriate in light of the misconduct and aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

Disposition

other