Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Luke D. Guthrie
2017 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 86
Iowa2017Background
- Luke D. Guthrie, Iowa-licensed attorney since 2006, practiced at a Waterloo firm and was arrested (Nov. 2015) and later pled guilty (May 2016) to domestic abuse assault (deferred judgment and probation).
- During Oct–Nov 2015 Guthrie billed three clients (Vogel, Dizdarevic, Petrick) for work not performed and authorized transfers/withdrawals from client trust subaccounts to the firm general account.
- For Vogel, Guthrie received electronic notice on Oct. 16 that an appeal was voluntarily dismissed yet continued to bill and then transferred/withdrew trust funds for unearned fees; staff questioned the billing and Guthrie acknowledged he knew the work hadn’t been done.
- For Dizdarevic and Petrick, Guthrie billed for meetings/reviews that did not occur; the firm later refunded clients’ retainers when the discrepancies and conflicts were discovered.
- Guthrie admitted the factual stipulation and multiple rule violations; the Grievance Commission found eight violations and recommended a three-month suspension, but the Supreme Court reviewed de novo and revoked Guthrie’s license, concluding he misappropriated client funds and lacked a colorable future claim to the funds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Guthrie misappropriated client funds in violation of ethics rules (theft/dishonesty) | Board: Guthrie knowingly billed for unperformed work and converted trust funds to personal/firm use; this constitutes misappropriation/theft. | Guthrie admitted facts but sought mitigation (substance-abuse issues), requested lesser sanction (reprimand or 30‑day suspension). | Court: Proven by convincing preponderance; Guthrie knowingly misappropriated Vogel’s funds and lacked colorable future claim — violation of rule 32:8.4(c). Revocation imposed. |
| Whether restitution or small amounts mitigate against revocation | Board: Misappropriation merits revocation irrespective of restitution/amount. | Guthrie: Firm refunded clients; misconduct occurred during substance-abuse episode; argued for leniency. | Court: Restitution and amount do not preclude revocation; misconduct and lack of colorable claim warrant revocation. |
| Effect of criminal conviction for domestic abuse on disciplinary outcome | Board: Criminal act reflects adversely on fitness (32:8.4(b)), supporting discipline. | Guthrie: Argued mitigation and rehabilitation after treatment. | Court: Criminal conduct noted as additional violation but misappropriation was dispositive; rehabilitation credited but insufficient to avoid revocation. |
| Whether the commission’s recommended sanction controls | Commission: Recommended three-month suspension. | Board: Sought revocation; Guthrie sought minimal sanction. | Court: Reviews de novo and may impose greater sanction; chose revocation based on precedent and lack of colorable claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Willey v. Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd., 889 N.W.2d 647 (de novo review and weight given to commission findings)
- Stoller v. Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd., 879 N.W.2d 199 (burden — convincing preponderance standard)
- Cross v. Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd., 861 N.W.2d 211 (disciplinary proof standards)
- Green v. Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd., 888 N.W.2d 398 (misappropriation and scienter requirement)
- Thomas v. Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd., 844 N.W.2d 111 (conversion of client funds and revocation principle)
- Cepican v. Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd., 861 N.W.2d 841 (range of sanctions for rule 32:8.4(c))
- Carter v. Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd., 847 N.W.2d 228 (safeguarding client funds; colorable claim analysis)