Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. William S. Morris
2014 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 43
| Iowa | 2014Background
- Morris, admitted to practice in 1983, had prior suspensions for tax filings and deportation matter misconduct.
- Audits from 2005–2009 and 2010 revealed trust account irregularities, overdrafts, and lack of client-specific ledgers.
- Auditors found no running balance or client ledger, missing deposit slips, and funds mismanagement including a $11,617.68 shortage.
- Morris admitted to improper withdrawals from trust for fees before court-approval and failed to provide contemporaneous client fund accounting.
- The Grievance Commission found violations of trust-account rules and issued a six-month suspension recommendation; Morris appealed.
- The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed a six-month license suspension, citing serious, repeated violations and aggravating factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Morris violate rule 32:1.5(a) by collecting the Reeves fee before court authorization? | Morris failed to comply with court-ordered timing for fee collection. | Morris contends any later approval validated the fee collection. | Yes; rule 32:1.5(a) violated by collecting before authorization. |
| Did Morris prove a violation of rule 32:1.5(c) (contingent fee written agreement) regarding the Schwallers? | Contingent fee terms may have been inadequately memorialized. | No clear, convincing evidence of a written contingent-fee agreement. | No; Board failed to prove violation by convincing preponderance. |
| Did Morris violate rule 32:1.15(f) and related Rule 45 requirements through trust-account mismanagement? | Mismanagement evidenced by lack of records and ongoing overdrafts violated accounting rules. | Sloppiness, not willful misconduct; no intent to violate rules stated. | Yes; violations of trust-account record-keeping and management were proven. |
| Did Morris engage in dishonesty under rule 32:8.4(c) by false statements on the Client Security questionnaire? | False reconciliations were knowingly misrepresented on the questionnaire. | Noncompliance was due to oversight and lack of knowledge of the rules. | Yes; knowing dishonesty established by false statements about reconciliations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Comm. on Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Morris, 427 N.W.2d 458 (Iowa 1988) (prior discipline for tax and professional misconduct)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Kersenbrock, 821 N.W.2d 415 (Iowa 2012) (clarifies rule 32:1.5(a) violation and timing)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. McCarthy, 814 N.W.2d 596 (Iowa 2012) (evidentiary burden in disciplinary proceedings)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Hall, 728 N.W.2d 383 (Iowa 2007) (dishonesty and sanctions authority)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Ricklefs, N.W.2d (Iowa 2014) (range of sanctions for trust account mismanagement)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Powell, 830 N.W.2d 355 (Iowa 2013) (suspension for mismanagement and record-keeping failures)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Boles, 808 N.W.2d 431 (Iowa 2012) (suspension for pattern of billing and accounting deficiencies)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Parrish, 801 N.W.2d 580 (Iowa 2011) (suspension for unearned fees and trust-account withdrawals)