Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Richard Dillon Crotty
891 N.W.2d 455
| Iowa | 2017Background
- Richard D. Crotty, an Iowa lawyer licensed in 1975, represented Leonard Cleaver (administrator) in probate proceedings to collect a judgment against Nancy Cleaver and also represented Robert Freeman in a workers’ compensation appeal.
- Crotty filed renunciations allegedly signed by two heirs (Richard Jr. and Ronald); those signatures were later revealed to be forgeries by Leonard. Crotty claims he did not know of the forgeries when he filed the renunciations and says he later disclosed the forgeries to a judge orally.
- Crotty collected $11,533.33 as a contingent fee from the settlement and an additional $670 via a small-claims suit before obtaining court approval or filing required fee itemizations/requests for hearing under probate rules. The court later ordered him to refund $7,203.33 and fixed a reasonable extraordinary fee of $5,000.
- Crotty continued to sign briefs and perform legal services in Freeman’s workers’ compensation appeal for several days after this court suspended his license on December 5, 2014, for failure to meet continuing legal education (CLE) requirements.
- The Grievance Commission found violations of multiple Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct and recommended a 90‑day suspension. On de novo review, the Iowa Supreme Court found violations but reduced the suspension to 60 days (no reinstatement for that period), required CLE compliance before reinstatement, and assessed costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unauthorized/excessive probate fees | Crotty charged/collected a contingent and other fees without complying with Iowa Ct. R. 7.2(2)–(4) and statutory limits, violating Rule 32:1.5(a) and 32:8.4(d). | Fees resulted from successful collection; Crotty contends his actions were within representation and later addressed by returning funds. | Court: Violated probate fee rules (7.2(2)/(3)/(4)) and Rule 32:1.5(a); also violated Rule 32:8.4(d). Suspension warranted. |
| Handling of forged renunciations / candor to tribunal | Board: Crotty knew or should have known of forged signatures and failed to disclose or take proper remedial measures, violating Rules 32:1.2(d), 32:3.3(a)(3), 32:8.4(c). | Crotty asserts he did not know of the forgeries when filings were made and orally disclosed the forgeries to a judge once he learned the truth; any written disclosure would have been preferable but not required. | Court: Insufficient proof of counseling or assisting fraud; credited Crotty’s lack of knowledge at filing and oral disclosure to the court; did not find violations of 32:1.2(d), 32:3.3(a)(3), or 32:8.4(c). |
| Practicing while suspended | Board: Crotty continued representation and filed briefs after suspension, failing to notify clients/opposing counsel or transfer matters, violating Iowa Ct. R. 41.5 and Rules 32:1.16(a)(1) and 32:5.5(a). | Crotty admitted the conduct and acknowledged wrongdoing. | Court: Found violations of the suspension-related rules and of Rules 32:1.16(a)(1) and 32:5.5(a). |
| Appropriate sanction | Board/Commission: Recommended at least a 90‑day suspension and probate CLE as a reinstatement condition. | Crotty: Mitigating admissions and prior service/age argue for leniency. | Court: Imposed 60‑day suspension (no reinstatement during that period), required CLE compliance before reinstatement, assessed costs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Evans, 537 N.W.2d 783 (Iowa 1995) (suspension for taking unauthorized/excessive probate fees)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Arzberger, 887 N.W.2d 353 (Iowa 2016) (suspension for collecting extraordinary probate fee without court approval; mitigation weighed)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Carty, 738 N.W.2d 622 (Iowa 2007) (sixty‑day suspension where attorney failed to correct excessive probate fees)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. McCuskey, 814 N.W.2d 250 (Iowa 2012) (one‑year suspension for extensive misconduct including practicing while suspended)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Netti, 797 N.W.2d 591 (Iowa 2011) (requirement of scienter for violations involving dishonesty/fraud)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Bernard, 653 N.W.2d 373 (Iowa 2002) (standard of review and burdens in disciplinary proceedings)