Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. James William McCarthy
814 N.W.2d 596
| Iowa | 2012Background
- McCarthy faced nine disciplinary violations across multiple matters; the Grievance Commission found numerous rule breaches and recommended an indefinite suspension with no reinstatement for at least two years.
- The Board and McCarthy entered a stipulation admitting facts, rule violations, and aggravating prior discipline, with mitigating factors (heart disease/open-heart surgery in 2008).
- The Commission adopted the stipulation and urged indefinite suspension for at least two years.
- The Court reviews de novo and may impose sanctions greater or lesser than the Commission's recommendation.
- McCarthy’s prior discipline includes admonishments, reprimands, and prior suspensions, indicating a pattern of neglect and misconduct.
- The Court ultimately suspends McCarthy’s license indefinitely with no reinstatement for at least two years, applying aggravating and mitigating factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did McCarthy violate ethical rules through neglect and related misconduct? | Board: yes, multiple counts show neglect and rule breaches. | McCarthy: argues insufficient proof of certain violations or lack of material impairment. | Yes; violations proven; sanction affirmed (indefinite suspension for at least two years). |
| Were trust-account and fee-communication violations established? | Board: funds commingling and failure to notify/account for fees. | McCarthy: disputes extent of commingling and notice failures. | Violations of 32:1.15 and 32:1.5(b) established; improper fee handling confirmed. |
| Did McCarthy’s failure to cooperate with the Board warrant sanctions? | Board: repeated non-responses violated 32:8.1(b). | McCarthy: disputes willfulness or scope of non-response. | Yes; failure to respond violated 32:8.1(b) and supported harsh sanction. |
| Did the misconduct include dishonest conduct or forged signatures? | Board: forged signature in Mackerman/Lee matters indicated dishonesty. | McCarthy: miscommunication and neglect; no deliberate forgery proven. | Violated 32:8.4(c) in Mackerman and Lee matters. |
| Should the sanction reflect aggravating history and mitigating health factors? | Board: aggravation due to long pattern of neglect; health mitigation acknowledged. | McCarthy: health issues mitigate but do not excuse misconduct. | Indefinite suspension with no reinstatement for two years, considering factors. |
Key Cases Cited
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Hoglan, 781 N.W.2d 279 (Iowa 2010) (material impairment requires showing impairment of representation by health issues (limited precedent))
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Plumb, 766 N.W.2d 626 (Iowa 2009) (trust account and fee handling rules; commingling and withdrawal duties)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. McCann, 712 N.W.2d 89 (Iowa 2006) (debt of discipline; depression and mental state as mitigating factors)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Johnson, 792 N.W.2d 674 (Iowa 2010) (failure to communicate with clients constitutes ethical violation)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Ireland, 748 N.W.2d 498 (Iowa 2008) (conduct prejudicial to administration of justice when failing to respond to inquiries)