Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Robert Allan Wright Jr.
857 N.W.2d 510
Iowa2014Background
- Wright was temporarily suspended on August 16, 2012 for failing to comply with client security commission requests, with the suspension remaining in effect until further order.
- A February 7, 2013 interim suspension was issued for threat of harm based on alleged unauthorized practice and trust account activity while the August 2012 suspension remained in effect.
- On December 6, 2013 the Court suspended Wright for at least 12 months with no reinstatement, following findings of conflict-of-interest misrepresentation and related conduct.
- The Grievance Commission found multiple Rule 5.5, Rule 1.16, Rule 1.4, and Rule 1.15 violations, and recommended a one-year suspension with no reinstatement.
- The Iowa Supreme Court conducted de novo review, lifting the August 2012 suspension and determining Wright’s license should be suspended for more than one year but less than two years, with the December 6, 2013 suspension remaining in place and Wright to begin serving it after the August 2012 suspension was lifted.
- Costs of the action were assessed against Wright.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wright violated ethics rules by practicing law while suspended and by trust account mishandling. | Board contends Wright engaged in unauthorized practice and trust-account violations. | Wright contends limitations or additional defenses limit the violations alleged. | Yes; violations proven by a preponderance; unauthorized practice and trust-account violations established. |
| Whether the interim suspensions and past sanctions offset or satisfy the sanction for current misconduct. | Board argues ongoing misconduct warrants substantial sanction beyond interim suspensions. | Wright argues interim suspensions already addressed conduct. | Interim suspensions satisfied the sanction for the current misconduct; no further sanction for that conduct beyond the existing suspensions. |
| How the coordination of multiple suspensions affects the overall sanction and reinstatement. | Board seeks staggered or enhanced sanction considering prior suspensions. | Wright relies on time served under interim suspensions. | The August 2012 suspension is lifted; Wright begins serving the December 6, 2013 suspension after lifting, with no reinstatement until then. |
| Whether Wright must satisfy trust-account deficiencies and client-security commission requirements before reinstatement. | Board requires cure of deficiencies and accounting prior to reinstatement. | Wright may challenge timing or sufficiency of accounting. | Reinstatement conditioned on certification by the client security commission that trust-account deficiencies are cured. |
Key Cases Cited
- McCuskey v. Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd., 814 N.W.2d 250 (Iowa 2012) (suspension for practicing while suspended; trust-account violations)
- In re Wright, 840 N.W.2d 295 (Iowa 2013) (suspension with no reinstatement for conflict and deceit; guidance on disciplinary outcome)
- Knopf, 793 N.W.2d 525 (Iowa 2011) (interpretation of stipulations and admissions in disciplinary actions)
- Halleck, 325 N.W.2d 117 (Iowa 1982) (time served on temporary suspension as mitigating factor)
- Powell, 830 N.W.2d 355 (Iowa 2013) (temporary suspensions and consideration of time served)
- Kelsen, 855 N.W.2d 175 (Iowa 2014) (trust-account violations; cash withdrawals prohibited)
- Nelson, 838 N.W.2d 528 (Iowa 2013) (de novo review standard for attorney disciplinary cases)