Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Brian Loren Stowe
2013 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 54
| Iowa | 2013Background
- The Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board filed a complaint alleging multiple violations of the Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct and Iowa Court Rules by Stowe.
- The Grievance Commission found Stowe violated numerous rules and recommended license revocation; the court reviews the report de novo.
- Stowe previously faced disability suspension and treatment, with additional suspensions related to inquiries by the Board.
- The Board's counts included possession of methamphetamine, mishandling client trust funds, two counts of felony forgery, unauthorized practice after suspension, bad checks, and fraudulent billing.
- On de novo review, the court found by a convincing preponderance that Stowe converted client funds by forging and cashing two checks.
- The court revoked Stowe’s license and taxed the costs of the proceeding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Stowe violated Rule 32:8.4(b) through conversion of client funds | Stowe’s conversion violated 32:8.4(b). | Stowe disputes the extent and intent of the alleged misappropriation. | Yes; court found 32:8.4(b) violated by conversion of funds. |
| Whether revocation is the appropriate sanction for Stowe’s misconduct | Discipline should deter and protect the public; severe sanction warranted. | Sanction should be lesser given mitigating factors and context. | Revocation is appropriate and necessary. |
| Whether Stowe’s felony forgery convictions and prior discipline support revocation | Felony forgery and repeated misconduct justify license revocation. | Mitigating factors and lack of ongoing claim to funds could support lesser discipline. | Conviction and multiple forgery acts, especially in a professional context, support revocation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Adams, 809 N.W.2d 543 (Iowa 2012) (conversion evidence supports discipline; structure of preponderance standard)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. McCarthy, 814 N.W.2d 596 (Iowa 2012) (de novo review and burden of convincing preponderance)
- Comm. on Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Kaufman, 515 N.W.2d 28 (Iowa 1994) (sanctions guided by deterrence and protection of the public)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Keele, 795 N.W.2d 507 (Iowa 2011) (forgery reflects adversely on fitness to practice)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Lyzenga, 619 N.W.2d 327 (Iowa 2000) (felony forgery alone can justify suspension or revocation)