Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Kenneth J. Weiland Jr.
885 N.W.2d 198
Iowa2016Background
- Client Chelli Gentry paid a $1,000 retainer (initial $600 deposited to trust; two $100 payments later deposited to Weiland's general account); she terminated counsel Aug 7, 2014 and requested refund of $800.
- Weiland attempted to file a divorce petition via EDMS in April 2014; the filing was rejected but he did not inform Gentry or correct the filing until August 6, 2014. Gentry was misled into believing the petition had been filed and that service efforts were underway.
- Gentry learned in December 2014 that the petition had been filed in August; Weiland never filed a withdrawal after her termination and did not notify her of filing or court dates. Neither counsel nor clients appeared at the December pretrial conference.
- Weiland returned the remaining $600 retainer only on the day of the disciplinary hearing (Nov 5, 2015). Gentry retained new counsel in January 2015 and the divorce was finalized in May 2015.
- The Disciplinary Board charged violations of multiple professional-conduct rules (trust-account rules, diligence, communication, withdrawal, expediting litigation, misrepresentation, and conduct prejudicial to administration of justice). The Grievance Commission recommended a 30‑day suspension; the Iowa Supreme Court imposed a 60‑day suspension.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Weiland violated rule 32:1.15(c) (depositing advance fees to trust) | Gentry: additional $100 checks were advance fees that should have been deposited to trust | Weiland: fees were earned by the time he received the checks so deposit to trust not required | No violation proved — fees were earned when received; 32:1.15(c) not violated |
| Whether Weiland violated rule 32:1.15(d) (promptly deliver client funds/accounting) | Gentry: requested refund Aug 7, 2014; Weiland retained funds >1 year without explanation | Weiland offered no adequate reason, said he "froze up" after complaint | Violation proved — failure to refund and account promptly |
| Whether Weiland violated rules 32:1.3, 32:1.4(a)(3),(4) (diligence and client communication) | Gentry: failed to refile after EDMS rejection, misled client about filing/service, failed to respond to calls/emails | Weiland cited unfamiliarity with EDMS, personal issues, and intention to allow time for new counsel | Violations proved — neglect, misleading communications, and failure to promptly respond |
| Whether Weiland violated rule 32:1.16(d) (duties on termination) | Gentry: after termination he failed to withdraw, failed to notify of filings/hearings, and failed to promptly return funds/files | Weiland: waited to permit new counsel to appear and expected new counsel would request files; forgot to send check when files transferred | Violation proved — failed to protect client's interests after termination |
| Whether Weiland violated rule 32:8.4(c) (dishonesty/misrepresentation) | Gentry: Weiland knowingly misrepresented that petition was filed and service attempts were occurring | Weiland admitted he misled her about filing status but attributed mistakes to confusion and personal issues | Violation proved — misrepresentations materially misled client |
| Whether Weiland violated rule 32:8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to administration of justice) | Gentry: his failures caused missed pretrial, delays, and extra court scheduling | Weiland noted he contacted court re absence but took no timely action to prevent delay | Violation proved — misconduct delayed proceedings and burdened court system |
Key Cases Cited
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Baldwin, 857 N.W.2d 195 (Iowa 2014) (trust-account/handling client funds principles)
- Parrish v. Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd., 801 N.W.2d 580 (Iowa 2011) (deposit/withdrawal and client-accounting rules)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Kersenbrock, 821 N.W.2d 415 (Iowa 2012) (contemporary notice required when withdrawing trust funds)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Ryan, 863 N.W.2d 20 (Iowa 2015) (misleading client about case progress and retainer refund sanctions)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Weiland, 862 N.W.2d 627 (Iowa 2015) (prior disciplinary precedent for similar conduct)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Silich, 872 N.W.2d 181 (Iowa 2015) (sanctions for neglect and delay)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Kingery, 871 N.W.2d 109 (Iowa 2015) (communication/delay sanctions and 60‑day suspension)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. McCarthy, 814 N.W.2d 596 (Iowa 2012) (failure to return client funds and substantial suspension)
- Stoller v. Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd., 879 N.W.2d 199 (Iowa 2016) (requirement of scienter for 32:8.4(c) misrepresentation)
- Haskovec v. Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd., 869 N.W.2d 554 (Iowa 2015) (importance of honesty; misrepresentation analysis)