Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. James Stephen Conroy
2014 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 38
| Iowa | 2014Background
- Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board charged Conroy with violating the Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct based on six court‑appointed appeals that were neglected, leading to defaults and later removal as appellate counsel.
- The Grievance Commission found multiple rule violations and recommended a six‑month license suspension plus a basic skills course for reinstatement.
- Conroy admitted the violations in count one; count two was deemed admitted by default after he did not respond, and the disciplinary hearing focused on sanctions.
- Conroy had a prior disciplinary history including suspensions and admonitions (notably a 60‑day suspension in 2011 and multiple admonitions), shaping the sanction analysis.
- The court concluded Conroy violated rules 32:1.1, 32:1.3, 32:1.4, 32:1.16(a), 32:3.2, and 32:8.4(d); it found no violation of 32:1.1 regarding Demery’s postconviction matter.
- The court suspended Conroy’s license for six months commencing with the filing date of the opinion and taxed all costs to Conroy; reinstatement requires compliance with notification and rule requirements, and the court declined to require a basic skills course.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Conroy violated the listed rules of professional conduct in the six appeals. | Board alleges violations of 32:1.1, 32:1.3, 32:1.4, 32:1.16(a), 32:3.2, 32:8.4(d). | Conroy admitted violations but argued mitigation due to lack of understanding of appeal procedures; Demery matter differed. | Conroy violated the specified rules in the six appeals. |
| Whether Conroy violated 32:1.16(a) and his duty to withdraw when representation would violate rules. | Representation commenced knowing he lacked appellate experience; failure to withdraw violated 32:1.16(a). | Conroy did not withdraw; claimed not to understand deadlines. | Conroy violated 32:1.16(a)(1). |
| What sanction is appropriate given neglected matters and aggravating factors. | Aggregate neglect with aggravating history warrants significant sanction. | A shorter sanction might be appropriate given lack of financial harm and mitigating factors. | Six‑month suspension is appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Humphrey, 812 N.W.2d 659 (Iowa 2012) (neglect as principal misconduct supports suspension; other factors considered)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Walker, 712 N.W.2d 683 (Iowa 2006) (suspension based on neglect with aggravating factors like misrepresentation or financial harm)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Kennedy, 837 N.W.2d 649 (Iowa 2013) (prior discipline and neglect leading to suspension; factors in sanctioning)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Moorman, 683 N.W.2d 549 (Iowa 2004) (neglect plus other violations can justify longer suspensions)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Daggett, 653 N.W.2d 377 (Iowa 2002) (conduct prejudicial to administration of justice; delays and dismissals cited)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Lickiss, 786 N.W.2d 860 (Iowa 2010) (illustrates rule 3.2 and diligence considerations in multiple cases)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Beckman, 674 N.W.2d 129 (Iowa 2004) (escalating sanction context for repeated neglect)