Summary
The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed attorney disciplinary findings arising from an attorney’s sexual relationship with a divorce client, assault of that client, delay in preparing a qualified domestic relations order, and improper withdrawal of an advance fee. The court found violations involving sexual relations with a client, criminal conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice, and improper handling of client funds, but not lack of diligence. It ordered an indefinite license suspension with no possibility of reinstatement for eighteen months.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the grievance commission improperly excluded the proposed testimony of Blessum's expert witnesses.
- Whether Blessum violated Iowa Rule of Professional Conduct 32:1.3 by failing to complete the QDRO more promptly.
- Whether Blessum violated Iowa Rule of Professional Conduct 32:1.8(j) by engaging in a sexual relationship with a current client.
- Whether Blessum's assault conviction violated Iowa Rule of Professional Conduct 32:8.4(b) because the criminal act reflected adversely on his fitness to practice law.
- Whether Blessum violated Iowa Rule of Professional Conduct 32:1.15(c) and Iowa Court Rules 45.7(3) and 45.7(4) by prematurely withdrawing an advance fee without an accounting.
- What sanction was appropriate for the sustained violations.
Holdings
- The commission properly excluded McCormick's proposed testimony because it would have addressed the legal question whether Blessum's criminal conduct had the required nexus to his fitness to practice law. The court did not decide whether Pearson's testimony concerning diligence was properly excluded because the diligence issue was resolved in Blessum's favor.
- Blessum did not violate rule 32:1.3. Although he delayed filing the QDRO and should have taken action after receiving the ex-husband's February 2010 letter, the delay was a single, nonprejudicial instance attributable in part to the client and the client's ex-husband and did not constitute the persistent neglect or conscious disregard required for a violation.
- Blessum violated rule 32:1.8(j) because he began a sexual relationship with Doe after she became his client for preparation of her will. The rule prohibits sexual relations with a current client regardless of consent, coercion, fee arrangements, or prejudice, unless the relationship predates the client-lawyer relationship.
- Blessum violated Iowa Rule of Professional Conduct 32:8.4(b) because his assault causing bodily injury had a nexus to his honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness to practice law. The opinion's text refers once to rule 32:8.4(j), but the governing rule and analysis identify rule 32:8.4(b).
- Blessum violated Iowa Rule of Professional Conduct 32:1.15(c) and Iowa Court Rules 45.7(3) and 45.7(4) by withdrawing Doe's $1,000 advance fee before performing the work and without notifying her or providing a contemporaneous accounting.
- An indefinite suspension with no possibility of reinstatement for eighteen months was appropriate, rather than the four-year suspension recommended by the grievance commission.
Key quotations
“Overall, we are unable to conclude that a single instance of nonprejudicial delay in filing a single document, attributable partly to the client, partly to her ex-husband, and partly to the attorney, amounts to a violation of rule 32:1.3.” (18)
“The sexual relationship need not constitute sexual harassment or involve coercion to violate this rule.” (19)
“A lawyer must deposit advance fee and expense payments from a client into the trust account and may withdraw such payments only as the fee is earned or the expense is incurred.” (27)
“We suspend Blessum’s license to practice law in Iowa with no possibility of reinstatement for eighteen months.” (35)
Factual background
Blessum represented Jane Doe in a dissolution-of-marriage matter involving preparation of a qualified domestic relations order and later agreed to prepare her will. He began an intimate relationship with Doe while she was his client and later assaulted her, causing bodily injuries, restraining her from leaving, and prompting a criminal conviction for assault causing bodily injury. He also withdrew Doe's $1,000 advance fee from his trust account before it was earned and without providing a contemporaneous accounting.
Procedural history
The Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board filed a complaint alleging violations involving lack of diligence, a sexual relationship with a client, criminal conduct, and improper handling of client funds. The grievance commission found all alleged violations and recommended an indefinite suspension with no possibility of reinstatement for four years. Blessum appealed, and the Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the matter de novo, modifying the findings and sanction.