Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Anthony Zane Blessum
861 N.W.2d 575
Iowa2015Background
- Attorney Anthony Zane Blessum represented Jane Doe in a 2008 divorce; Doe paid a $1,000 advance fee which Blessum deposited to trust and withdrew before earning the fee without contemporaneous notice.
- A stipulated divorce decree required an $110,000 division of the husband’s retirement and required the attorney to prepare a QDRO; drafts and pension materials were exchanged but the QDRO was not filed until August 2011.
- Blessum and Doe began an intimate relationship in spring 2011 after he agreed to prepare her will; their relationship later deteriorated.
- On June 11, 2012, Blessum assaulted Doe (striking and restraining her); Doe sustained injuries and called 911; Blessum later pled guilty to assault causing bodily injury and was sentenced and ordered to anger-management counseling.
- The Attorney Disciplinary Board alleged violations of rules for diligence (32:1.3), sexual relations with a client (32:1.8(j)), criminal conduct reflecting on fitness (32:8.4(b)), and trust-account/fee handling (32:1.15(c)); the grievance commission found violations and recommended a 4-year indefinite suspension.
- The Iowa Supreme Court, after de novo review, affirmed violations as to sexual relations, criminal conduct, and trust-account rules, rejected the diligence violation, and imposed an indefinite suspension with no reinstatement for eighteen months.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Blessum violated rule 32:1.3 (diligence) by delay in filing QDRO | Board: two-year delay and failure to act after client/ex-husband communications showed neglect | Blessum: initial work was done, client and ex-husband caused delay and he reasonably closed file; expert would show typical QDRO delays | Court: No violation — initial diligence, client nonresponsiveness, and single nonprejudicial delay insufficient for rule violation |
| Whether Blessum violated rule 32:1.8(j) (sexual relations with client) | Board: Blessum had sexual relations with Doe while she was his client | Blessum: representation had ended before sexual relationship; exception for preexisting relations | Court: Violation — attorney–client relationship existed (will prepared March 22, 2011) before intimate relationship began |
| Whether Blessum’s criminal conviction violated rule 32:8.4(b) (criminal act reflecting on fitness) | Board: assault of a client caused physical and emotional harm, showed disrespect for law, and bears nexus to fitness | Blessum: assault was isolated, personal, and unrelated to professional fitness | Court: Violation — deliberate assault on client, physical harm, disrespect for law, and nexus to fitness established |
| Whether Blessum violated rule 32:1.15(c) and trust-account rules by withdrawing advance fee prematurely and not accounting | Board: withdrew $1,000 flat fee from trust before earning it and failed to provide contemporaneous accounting | Blessum: admitted the facts but argued work was ultimately performed and there was a colorable claim to funds | Court: Violation — premature withdrawal and lack of contemporaneous accounting established |
Key Cases Cited
- Grismore v. Consolidated Products Co., 5 N.W.2d 646 (Iowa 1942) (expert testimony on specialized professional causation may be admissible even if addressing ultimate issues)
- Palmer v. State, 691 N.W.2d 413 (Iowa 2005) (experts may not opine on legal conclusions; test for when expert language overlaps legal terms)
- Khowassah, Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v., 837 N.W.2d 649 (Iowa 2013) (nexus test for criminal conduct reflecting on fitness to practice law)
- Monroe, Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v., 784 N.W.2d 784 (Iowa 2010) (sexual relations with client violates rule regardless of consent or prejudice)
- Schmidt, Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v., 796 N.W.2d 33 (Iowa 2011) (domestic violence by attorney can reflect adversely on fitness; mitigating factors affect sanction)
- Hauser, Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v., 782 N.W.2d 147 (Iowa 2010) (failure to continue representation and abandonment in dissolution matter constituted severe neglect)