Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Laurie Jean Pederson
2016 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 98
| Iowa | 2016Background
- Laurie Jean Pederson, an Iowa lawyer admitted in 2001 and a sole practitioner, was charged by the Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board for multiple ethics violations arising from an estate probate matter and a child custody matter; the Grievance Commission recommended a three-month suspension based on stipulated facts.
- Estate matter: Pederson represented the estate/executor, knew two beneficiaries were represented by separate counsel, communicated directly with those beneficiaries to obtain waivers, and took the second half of her probate fee before filing the final report; the district court removed Pederson and the executor and ordered return of fees.
- After removal and an order to return fees, Pederson received a loan from the former executor so the executor could return fees to the estate; no written loan agreement, no independent counsel advised, and no informed consent documented; Pederson has not reimbursed the executor as later ordered.
- Custody matter: Pederson accepted a $1,200 flat fee in advance, deposited it into her office/personal account (not a trust account), did not provide an itemized accounting, asserted a limited-scope representation (temporary custody only) without a written limited-appearance notice or obtaining informed consent, had minimal communication thereafter, and failed to respond to successor counsel’s requests for documents and accounting.
- The Board charged violations of rules concerning communication with represented parties, improper probate fee collection, business transactions with clients, trust account and fee-withdrawal rules, limited-scope representation, and failure to communicate; the Supreme Court reviewed de novo, found multiple violations, and imposed a 60-day suspension.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Communication with represented parties (Iowa R. Prof. Conduct 32:4.2(a)) | Pederson communicated directly with beneficiaries known to be represented, violating the rule. | Pederson did not contest the communication but context/limited nature mitigated severity. | Violation proven; single letter sufficed to violate rule. |
| Taking second half of probate fee early (Iowa R. Prof. Conduct 32:1.5(a)) | Pederson withdrew the second-half probate fee before filing final report, contrary to statutory and court-rule timing. | Pederson had a colorable right to the fee and miscalculation was not fraudulent. | Violation; fee withdrawal was premature and contrary to established precedent. |
| Business transaction with client (loan from executor) (Iowa R. Prof. Conduct 32:1.8(a)) | The loan was a business transaction with a (former) client without written disclosure, independent counsel advised, or informed consent. | Pederson argued the attorney-client relationship had ended when court removed her, so rule did not apply. | Violation; rule applies given continuing influence/former-client context and no required protections were followed. |
| Trust-account, limited-scope representation, and communication (Iowa R. Prof. Conduct 32:1.15, 32:1.2(c), 32:1.4) | Pederson deposited advance flat fee into office/personal account, failed to withdraw only as earned, failed to obtain written informed consent for limited representation, and failed to communicate and respond to successor counsel. | Pederson claimed she only agreed to limited representation (temporary custody). | Violations established: trust-account rules, limited-representation writing/informed-consent requirement, and failure to respond to reasonable requests. |
Key Cases Cited
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Lubinus, 869 N.W.2d 546 (Iowa 2015) (de novo review and disciplinary standards)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Haskovec, 869 N.W.2d 554 (Iowa 2015) (standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Schmidt, 796 N.W.2d 33 (Iowa 2011) (unauthorized communication with represented parties)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Casey, 761 N.W.2d 53 (Iowa 2009) (timing of probate fee withdrawals)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Morris, 847 N.W.2d 428 (Iowa 2014) (attorney may not take second half of probate fee before final report)
- Sabin v. Ackerman, 846 N.W.2d 835 (Iowa 2014) (attorney-client relationship between estate attorney and personal representative)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Honken, 688 N.W.2d 812 (Iowa 2004) (requiring advice to seek independent counsel in probate business transactions)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Netti, 797 N.W.2d 591 (Iowa 2011) (when attorney-client relationship ends for disciplinary analysis)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Walters, 603 N.W.2d 772 (Iowa 1999) (rule governing business transactions can extend to former clients)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Said, 869 N.W.2d 185 (Iowa 2015) (advance flat fees must be deposited in trust and withdrawn as earned)