Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Cami N. Eslick
2015 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 10
| Iowa | 2015Background
- Cami N. Eslick, admitted 2005, operated a solo practice in Warren County; audited after overdraft notices and prior instructions to correct trust-account deficiencies.
- Auditor requested trust-account records (statements, journals, ledgers, reconciliations); Eslick delayed production, admitted her account was "a mess," and cooperated after notice of delinquency.
- Audit found nearly $8,000 shortage, unrecorded client receipts, failure to deposit advance fees into trust, missing required trust-account records, no monthly reconciliations, and commingling of personal funds (an operating loan from her father) with client funds.
- Eslick admitted all allegations in the Board’s complaint, expressed remorse, asserted no intent to defraud, and represented she has since reformed procedures and is treated for ADHD.
- Grievance Commission found multiple violations of Iowa Rule of Professional Conduct 32:1.15 and Iowa Court Rules 45.1, 45.2, and 45.7, and recommended a 30-day suspension; the Supreme Court reviewed de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Eslick violated rule 32:1.15(b) by depositing personal funds in trust account | Board: Father’s loan in trust account constituted impermissible personal funds (commingling) | Eslick: Treated client shortfalls as drawing against father’s loan; no intent to misuse | Court: Violation proven; loaned funds were personal and not limited to bank charges, so rule 32:1.15(b) violated |
| Whether Eslick violated rule 32:1.15(c) and rule 45.1 by failing to deposit advance fees | Board: Advance fees were not deposited into trust as required | Eslick: Admitted failure; argued no client harm and reform since audit | Court: Violations proven—advance fees must be deposited and she failed to do so |
| Whether Eslick violated rule 45.2 by failing to keep records and reconcile monthly | Board: Eslick failed to maintain required journals, ledgers, and reconciliations | Eslick: Admitted omissions, cited being overwhelmed; now maintains accurate accounts monthly | Court: Violation proven—failed to maintain records and perform reconciliations |
| Appropriate sanction for sustained trust-account mismanagement | Board: Suspension appropriate given pattern, shortage, prior reprimand | Eslick: Mitigating factors—remorse, cooperation, no client loss, treatment for ADHD, corrective measures | Court: Adopted commission’s recommendation—license suspended 30 days (no immediate reinstatement), costs assessed |
Key Cases Cited
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Morris, 847 N.W.2d 428 (Iowa 2014) (de novo review and past suspension precedent for prolonged trust-account mismanagement)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Barnhill, 847 N.W.2d 466 (Iowa 2014) (burden of proof in disciplinary proceedings is convincing preponderance)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Herrera, 560 N.W.2d 592 (Iowa 1997) (cooperation, honesty, and corrective steps can justify a reprimand rather than suspension)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Boles, 808 N.W.2d 431 (Iowa 2012) (suspension appropriate where trust-account problems are not isolated and show a pattern)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Kersenbrock, 821 N.W.2d 415 (Iowa 2012) (30-day suspension for cumulative trust-account violations)