Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Paul Arthur Silich
872 N.W.2d 181
Iowa2015Background
- Paul Silich, admitted 2003, represented the Sanderson estate in a personal-injury settlement that required resolving a Medicare lien before distribution; settlement reached in Dec. 2011 for $25,000.
- Silich took 33 months (until Sept./Oct. 2014) to resolve the Medicare Secondary Payer Recovery Contractor (MSPRC) lien, during which he often failed to respond to the MSPRC, the estate’s counsel (Van Scoy), and ignored court orders to produce communications.
- The probate court held multiple hearings, ordered Silich to provide copies of all Medicare-related communications, and referred the matter to the Iowa Attorney Disciplinary Board; the tort case was briefly placed on the strike list and dismissed without prejudice.
- Silich delayed responding to the Disciplinary Board’s demand for information (requested Dec. 2013); after an extension he did not reply until Oct. 20, 2014, and was already under an administrative suspension for unrelated CLE/client security noncompliance.
- The Grievance Commission found violations of Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct: 32:1.3 (diligence), 32:1.4 (communication), 32:3.2 (expediting litigation), 32:8.1(b) (failure to respond to disciplinary authority), and 32:8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to administration of justice); it recommended a 60-day suspension.
- The Iowa Supreme Court, reviewing de novo and giving the Commission’s recommendation respectful consideration, concluded Silich committed the violations but imposed a 30-day suspension (considering prior reprimand, lack of misrepresentation, his stated intent to leave practice, and other mitigating/aggravating factors).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Silich’s handling of the Medicare lien violated rule 32:1.3 (diligence) | Silich repeatedly delayed and took 33 months to resolve lien, causing needless delay and anxiety | Delays were caused by MSPRC bureaucracy and beyond his control | Violated 32:1.3 — Board proved lack of diligence by a convincing preponderance |
| Whether Silich failed to keep client informed in violation of rule 32:1.4 | He failed to respond to repeated client inquiries and court orders to provide updates | He had little substantive information to report and blamed MSPRC delay | Violated 32:1.4 — inadequate communication established |
| Whether Silich violated rule 32:3.2 (expediting litigation) by allowing proceedings to languish | His inaction and failure to remove the case from strike list delayed probate and estate closing | Attributed delays to MSPRC and winding down his practice | Violated 32:3.2 — unreasonable delay and disregard of court order shown |
| Whether Silich’s failure to respond to Board demands and court orders violated 32:8.1(b) and 32:8.4(d) | He ignored a Board information demand and disobeyed court orders, wasting judicial resources | He thought resolving the lien would moot the inquiry and blamed administrative delays | Violated 32:8.1(b) and 32:8.4(d); not a violation of 32:3.4(c) (rule protects opposing counsel, not client/cocounsel) |
Key Cases Cited
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Lemanski, 841 N.W.2d 131 (Iowa 2013) (addressing delay in resolving Medicare subrogation lien and comparable disciplinary analysis)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Dolezal, 841 N.W.2d 114 (Iowa 2013) (defines neglect/delay and sanctions for lack of diligence)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Weiland, 862 N.W.2d 627 (Iowa 2015) (explaining rule 32:3.2 and disciplinary expectations to avoid dilatory practices)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Nelson, 838 N.W.2d 528 (Iowa 2013) (admissions in answers deemed established; rule 32:1.4 communication standards)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Tompkins, 733 N.W.2d 661 (Iowa 2007) (public reprimand for neglect, failure to communicate, and failure to respond to Board used for sanction comparison)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Hedgecoth, 862 N.W.2d 354 (Iowa 2015) (failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities also violates rule 32:8.4(d))