Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. George Qualley IV and Thomas Karl Bleyhl
2013 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 12
| Iowa | 2013Background
- Qualley and Bleyhl, Iowa-licensed attorneys since 2006, formed Qualley & Bleyhl, P.L.C. and were disciplinary respondents.
- Board alleged multiple ethical violations arising from 2008–2010 related to Broadmoor Place HOA and Elite Real Estate transactions.
- Commission found violations of 32:1.4, 32:1.7, and 32:1.8; recommended 30-day suspensions to be staggered.
- On de novo review, the Iowa Supreme Court found multiple violations and imposed 60-day suspensions for each attorney.
- Main issues centered on conflicts of interest, inadequate client communication, and failure to obtain informed written consent.
- Sanctions considered aggravating factors, mitigating cooperation and lack of prior discipline; court imposed suspensions totaling 60 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conflict of interest with Broadmoor and Elite | Qualley/Bleyhl violated 32:1.7 and 32:1.8 by dual representation and undisclosed interest. | Disclosures were made; Elite’s interest disclosed; no improper motive proven. | Violated 32:1.7 and 32:1.8; disqualification and disclosure deficient. |
| Duty to inform and obtain informed consent | Broadmoor not adequately informed of conflict and risks; written consent lacking. | Disclosures were made; consent implied by practice and cooperation. | Violations of 32:1.4(a)(1) and 32:1.4(b); failed to obtain informed consent. |
| Communication with clients about material facts | Attorneys failed to timely disclose judgment details, dues, and fees to Broadmoor/Elite. | Information provided, disputes over timeliness and interpretation. | Violations of 32:1.4(a)(2) and 32:1.4(b); deficient client communications. |
| Fee arrangement adequacy and disclosure | Fee structure not properly aligned with evolving representation; inadequate written agreement. | Invoices reflected hourly fees; Broadmoor paid without issue; no clear violation. | No violation of 32:1.5(b) established. |
| Dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation | Potential misrepresentations and self-dealing supported by conflicting actions. | No clear scienter; actions were poor judgment, not intentional deceit. | Not proven under 32:8.4(c); insufficient scienter. |
Key Cases Cited
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Weaver, 812 N.W.2d 4 (Iowa 2012) (set forth standards for de novo review and sanctions in attorney discipline)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Sobel, 779 N.W.2d 782 (Iowa 2010) (no discipline for mere negligence; requires greater scienter for 8.4(c))
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Sikma, 533 N.W.2d 532 (Iowa 1995) (discipline for undisclosed business transactions with a client)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Zenor, 707 N.W.2d 176 (Iowa 2005) (imposition of suspension for various misconduct including conflicts)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Parrish, 801 N.W.2d 580 (Iowa 2011) (requires demonstrable scienter for rule 8.4(c) violations)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Yang, 821 N.W.2d 425 (Iowa 2012) (parallels between aggravating factors and sanctions in discipline)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Netti, 797 N.W.2d 591 (Iowa 2011) (emphasizes higher scienter requirement for 8.4(c))
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Howe, 706 N.W.2d 360 (Iowa 2005) (illustrates sanctions in multi-faceted misconduct cases)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Moonen, 706 N.W.2d 391 (Iowa 2005) (mitigating considerations in attorney discipline)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Axt, 791 N.W.2d 98 (Iowa 2010) (cooperation as a mitigating factor)