Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Samuel Zachary Marks
831 N.W.2d 194
Iowa2013Background
- Board charged Marks with four ethics violations in probate handling (competence, diligence, expediting, prejudicial to justice).
- Grievance Commission found violations and recommended a six-month suspension; Board moved to admit allegations due to Marks's silence.
- Court conducted de novo review of the commission's findings and recommendation.
- Estate of William General Rumley opened 2003; nine notices of delinquency; 2009 delinquency notice; 2010 certification sent to Board.
- Marks twice appeared before this court in disciplinary matters (2009 and 2012) with prior sanctions and warnings for neglect, noncooperation, and lack of diligence.
- Final disposition: license suspended for three months; reinstatement requires compliance with procedures and a health evaluation; costs imposed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Marks violated competence rule 32:1.1 | Board proves lack of requisite knowledge and skill | Marks claims he is nonetheless fit to practice | Yes; violation proven by convincing preponderance |
| Whether Marks violated diligence rule 32:1.3 | Board shows repeated neglect and back-burner handling | Marks minimizes impact of delays | Yes; violation proven by neglect and failure to timely progress |
| Whether Marks violated expediting rule 32:3.2 | Board proves probate delinquencies hindered proceedings | Marks argues probate context not “litigation” | No; not a violation under facts; probate delinquencies not treated as litigation for 32:3.2 |
| Whether Marks violated 32:8.4(d) by prejudicing administration of justice | Board shows dilatory conduct burdening courts | Marks contends no deliberate prejudice | Yes; dilatory probate handling prejudicial to justice |
| What sanction is appropriate | Board seeks six-month suspension considering prior discipline | Marks argues lesser sanction given mitigating factors | Three-month suspension with reinstatement conditions and health evaluation |
Key Cases Cited
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Dunahoo, 799 N.W.2d 524 (Iowa 2011) (competence requires analysis and preparation; lack of knowledge/skill constitutes violation)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Van Ginkel, 809 N.W.2d 96 (Iowa 2012) (repeated delinquencies and burdens on court constitute misconduct)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Marks (Marks I), 759 N.W.2d 328 (Iowa 2009) (negligence in probate matters; prior suspension and warnings)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Marks (Marks II), 814 N.W.2d 532 (Iowa 2012) (prior conduct and admonitions; impact on discipline severity)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Cunningham, 812 N.W.2d 540 (Iowa 2012) (discretion in applying sanctions; burden on court to consider consequences)