Summary
The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed an attorney disciplinary proceeding arising from Kenneth J. Weiland Jr.'s handling of a domestic-relations appeal. The court found that Weiland violated Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct 32:3.2 and 32:8.4(d) by failing to expedite the appeal and by allowing it to be administratively dismissed, while rejecting or not finding several other alleged violations. The court imposed a public reprimand.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Weiland violated Iowa Rule of Professional Conduct 32:3.2 by failing to make reasonable efforts to expedite the appeal and comply with appellate deadlines.
- Whether Weiland's failure to dismiss the appeal after failing to comply with appellate deadlines constituted conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice under rule 32:8.4(d).
- Whether Weiland's conduct constituted neglect under rule 32:1.3.
- Whether Weiland knowingly made a false statement to a tribunal under rule 32:3.3(a)(1) by certifying that the transcript had been ordered.
- What disciplinary sanction was appropriate.
Holdings
- Weiland violated Iowa Rule of Professional Conduct 32:3.2 because he failed to timely file and serve the combined certificate, failed to comply with the court's order, and allowed the appeal to languish until administrative dismissal.
- Weiland violated Iowa Rule of Professional Conduct 32:8.4(d) because, after learning that the transcript would not be funded and after being ordered to comply with appellate requirements, he failed to take steps to dismiss the appeal, causing the clerk to prepare and file an administrative dismissal.
- The Board failed to prove that Weiland violated rule 32:1.3 because his failure to comply with deadlines and dismiss the appeal was found to be an attempt to protect the client's interests, rather than neglect.
- The Board failed to prove that Weiland violated rule 32:3.3(a)(1) because the evidence showed he reasonably believed he had ordered the transcript verbally when he certified that the transcript had been ordered.
- A public reprimand was the appropriate sanction for Weiland's violations of rules 32:3.2 and 32:8.4(d).
Key quotations
“A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client.” (862 N.W.2d at 636)
“When an attorney’s failure to comply with appellate deadlines results in an administrative dismissal, his actions are prejudicial to the administration of justice.” (862 N.W.2d at 638)
“Our case law makes it clear that an attorney cannot use a default notice to dismiss an appeal in lieu of the attorney’s obligation to comply with our appellate rules.” (862 N.W.2d at 638)
“Providing legal representation to an underserved part of the community is a significant mitigating factor.” (862 N.W.2d at 643)
Factual background
Weiland represented Ryan Pierce in an appeal from a domestic-relations case. After filing the notice of appeal, Weiland failed to timely file and serve the required combined certificate and pay the filing fee, later filed the certificate without serving the court reporter, and failed to pay the transcript deposit. Although the court ordered him to cure the deficiencies, he did not do so or dismiss the appeal after learning Pierce could not obtain the transcript funds, and the appeal was administratively dismissed. The record also showed that Weiland had received forty notices of default in eighteen appeals between 1998 and 2014.
Procedural history
The Board charged Weiland with multiple violations of the Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct arising from his handling of a domestic-relations appeal. The Grievance Commission found a violation of rule 32:8.4(d), rejected or did not sustain several other alleged violations, and recommended a public reprimand. On de novo review, the Iowa Supreme Court additionally found a violation of rule 32:3.2 and imposed a public reprimand.