Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. David Alan Lemanski
2013 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 131
| Iowa | 2013Background
- Lemanski, admitted to practice in 1979, operated as a sole practitioner in Dubuque and has prior admonitions and a prior 30-day suspension for neglect and related conduct.
- In 2011, Lemanski settled a personal injury claim; settlement funds were withheld pending Medicare subrogation resolution, and he submitted requested information to the subrogation contractor.
- The subrogation contractor delayed action; Lemanski failed to keep the client informed, leading to a Board complaint filed in December 2012 after unresolved subprocesses.
- Lemanski did not respond to Board inquiries, raising charges of failure to respond to information requests and lack of communication with the client.
- Grievance Commission found violations and recommended a six-month suspension; the Court conducted de novo review on the record.
- The Court concluded Lemanski violated Rules 32:1.4 and 32:8.1(b) but did not find sufficient evidence of failure to properly deliver funds or to diligently act under Rule 32:1.15(d) with respect to the settlement proceeds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Lemanski violate 32:1.4 regarding client communication? | Board contends Lemanski failed to keep client informed. | Lemanski attributes delay to contractor issues and attempts to mitigate. | Yes; Rule 32:1.4. The court found failure to reasonably inform the client. |
| Did Lemanski violate 32:8.1(b) by failing to respond to Board inquiries? | Board asserts nonresponse to inquiries constitutes violation. | Lemanski may contend delays and communications attempts occurred. | Yes; Rule 32:8.1(b). |
| Was there clear evidence that Lemanski failed to diligently resolve the subrogation matter? | Board argues neglect and lack of diligence in handling subrogation. | Difficulties with the subrogation contractor caused the delay; credibility not challenged. | Partially; court recognized difficulties but found evidence insufficient to prove a lack of diligence beyond the eighteen-month span. |
| Did Lemanski properly deliver funds to the client under Rule 32:1.15(d)? | Board alleged improper delivery given unresolved subrogation amount. | Amount not determined until subrogation resolved; delivery timing disputed. | No clear violation; insufficient evidence to show improper fund delivery. |
| What discipline is appropriate for Lemanski's conduct? | Board likely favors suspension consistent with prior neglect history. | Lemanski's conduct may warrant lesser sanction given context. | Sixty-day suspension; public protection and history of neglect justify higher sanction but within the range for neglect. |
Key Cases Cited
- Iowa Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Lemanski, 606 N.W.2d 11 (Iowa 2000) (prior history and responsive duties in attorney discipline)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Tompkins, 733 N.W.2d 661 (Iowa 2007) (public reprimand for neglect and failure to respond)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Frerichs, 718 N.W.2d 763 (Iowa 2006) (suspension for misrepresentation and board nonresponse)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Humphrey, 738 N.W.2d 617 (Iowa 2007) (suspension for neglect and nonresponse)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Casey, 761 N.W.2d 53 (Iowa 2009) (negligence with other misconduct guiding sanction range)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Earley, 729 N.W.2d 437 (Iowa 2007) (neglect and discipline sanction range guidance)