Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Larry Alan Stoller

Summary

The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed attorney disciplinary charges arising from Larry Alan Stoller’s representation of parties in an abandoned restaurant lease and equipment dispute, and from his successive representation of Robert and Marcia Zylstra and NuStar Farms. The court found several violations of Iowa’s professional-conduct rules, including conflicts of interest and dishonest conduct, and imposed a sixty-day suspension rather than the three-month suspension recommended by the grievance commission.

Holdings

1. A lawyer's simultaneous representation of a landlord and tenant in the same lease transaction creates a concurrent conflict of interest because the lawyer's representation of each client is materially limited by duties owed to the other. The conflict requires informed written consent, and consent obtained after the material transaction has occurred does not cure the violation.
2. The Board failed to prove by a convincing preponderance of the evidence that Stoller violated rule 32:4.2(a), because the evidence did not establish that his calls with Jolene Schmidtke concerned the pending OCI litigation rather than obtaining tax records.
3. Stoller violated rule 32:8.4(c) by knowingly assisting in a sham transaction that purported to transfer OCI's equipment through a person lacking authority, contrary to Iowa law, and by representing that the transaction was legally proper.
4. Stoller violated rule 32:1.7(a)(2) by representing NuStar while his representation of the Zylstras was ongoing or had just been terminated and while he was contemplating adverse litigation against them, without obtaining informed written consent.
5. The Board failed to prove that Stoller violated rule 32:1.9(a), because the scope of his prior representation of the Zylstras concerning manure easements was not sufficiently significant and substantially related to the later NuStar lawsuit.
6. The Board failed to prove that Stoller violated rule 32:1.9(c), because the record did not show that he used or revealed information obtained from the Zylstras in the manure-easement meeting.
7. The Board failed to prove a rule 32:8.4(c) violation in the Zylstra matter because Stoller's conduct amounted to negligence or an incorrect interpretation of the conflict rules, not conduct demonstrating the required scienter.
8. A sixty-day suspension of Stoller's Iowa law license was appropriate for the proven conflicts-of-interest violations and the rule 32:8.4(c) violation in the OCI matter.
9. The court declined to impose a firearm-possession restriction as a condition of reinstatement because Stoller lacked notice that the commission would consider such a sanction.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Stoller violated Iowa Rule of Professional Conduct 32:1.7 by simultaneously representing the Martens and Chaplin in a landlord-tenant transaction without timely informed written consent.
2. Whether Stoller violated Iowa Rule of Professional Conduct 32:4.2(a) by communicating with an OCI shareholder while OCI was represented by counsel.
3. Whether Stoller's conduct in arranging the OCI equipment transaction constituted dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation under rule 32:8.4(c).
4. Whether Stoller violated rule 32:1.7(a)(2) by representing NuStar while his representation of the Zylstras was ongoing or had recently ended and the interests were materially adverse.
5. Whether Stoller violated rule 32:1.9(a) or (c) by representing NuStar in a substantially related matter after representing the Zylstras.
6. What sanction was appropriate for the proven violations and whether a firearm-possession restriction could be imposed without notice.

Disposition

other