Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Brian Jesse Nelson
2013 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 109
| Iowa | 2013Background
- Nelson was admitted to the Iowa bar in 1999 and became a sole practitioner by 2000, handling a high-volume criminal practice by 2008.
- Starting fall 2009, Nelson abandoned written fee agreements; personal issues, drinking, and a divorce led to a severe decline in practice.
- Between August and September 2010, six client complaints were filed with the Iowa Board alleging various ethics and professional conduct violations.
- The Grievance Commission found multiple rule violations and recommended a deferred suspension contingent on future substantiated complaints and restitution; the Court conducted de novo review.
- Nelson admitted to some facts and violations in a stipulation, including failure to respond to inquiries, neglect, and poor client communication; interim suspensions had previously occurred.
- The Court ultimately suspended Nelson for 30 days, citing numerous violations across diligence, communication, fees, safekeeping, termination, and integrity of proceedings, along with aggravating and mitigating factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Nelson violate duty of diligence and promptness? | Nelson’s neglect led to missed hearings and warrants; admitted failures. | Nelson contests some findings; argues mitigating factors. | Yes; Nelson violated 32:1.3. |
| Did Nelson violate duties of communication to clients? | Nelson failed to inform or respond to clients and prosecutors; blocked communication. | Mitigation due to personal issues and reform efforts; partial defenses. | Yes; Nelson violated 32:1.4. |
| Did Nelson breach rules governing fees and accounting? | Written fee agreements were lacking; fees not properly documented or accounting provided. | Some engagements implied but not fully formalized; reform measures implemented. | Yes; Nelson violated 32:1.5( b ) and 32:1.15 in pertinent matters. |
| Did Nelson mishandle termination of representation and client funds? | Failed to terminate properly, failed to return or account for funds, and neglected trust-account obligations. | Mitigated by ongoing reforms and attempts to comply; initial failures acknowledged. | Yes; Nelson violated 32:1.16 and 32:1.15 in related matters. |
| Did Nelson’s conduct violate rules on responding to disciplinary authorities and prejudicing justice? | Nelson knowingly failed to respond to Board inquiries and court orders, delaying proceedings. | Alcoholism and rehabilitation efforts presented as mitigating factors. | Yes for 32:8.1( b ) and 32:8.4( d ); mitigated by factors. |
Key Cases Cited
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Stowe, 830 N.W.2d 737 (Iowa 2013) (convincing preponderance standard; de novo review of discipline)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Netti, 797 N.W.2d 591 (Iowa 2011) (diligence and accounting standards; preponderance standard)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Cunningham, 812 N.W.2d 541 (Iowa 2012) (failure to keep client informed; communication duties)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Hauser, 782 N.W.2d 147 (Iowa 2010) (diligence and timely filings; neglect findings)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Templeton, 784 N.W.2d 761 (Iowa 2010) (prejudice to administration of justice; multiple factors considered)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Powell, 830 N.W.2d 355 (Iowa 2013) (consideration of interim suspensions as mitigating factor)