Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. William Michael Vilmont
812 N.W.2d 677
Iowa2012Background
- Vilmont, Iowa attorney, ceased practice in May 2010 and had no prior discipline except a 1994 admonition for conflict issues.
- On Jan 11, 2010, he formed a fee arrangement with Scott Halverson for a minimum $2500 and $225/hour; retainer of $2500 was placed in trust.
- Halverson was charged with enticing a minor; district court dismissed the state charges on Jan 25, 2010 after federal charges were filed.
- Vilmont withdrew the $2500 retainer from his trust on Jan 30, 2010, without notice or accounting to Halverson or his guardian.
- Keith Halverson repeatedly sought return of funds and an accounting; the accounting later showed 3.7 hours and $2500 charged.
- Grievance Commission found ethical violations including an unreasonable fee, mismanagement of the trust account, and failure to timely account.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the minimum nonrefundable fee unethical? | Board maintains the minimum fee violates ethics rules. | Vilmont contends the contract complies with customary practice and exceptions. | Unethical minimum-fee contract; prohibited by Frerichs and rule 45.9(2). |
| Was the fee unreasonable under the rules? | Board argues $2500 for limited services is excessive. | Vilmont maintains fee was reasonable given the case context. | Yes; fee deemed unreasonable; reasonable fee $607.50. |
| Did the fee withdrawal breach trust/account rules? | Board asserts improper withdrawal and misallocation from the trust; no timely accounting. | Vilmont contends compliance with general practice. | Yes; violated rule 32:1.15(c), (d), and related trust-account duties. |
| Did failure to provide timely accounting support disciplinary action? | Board reasons accounting delay and lack of prompt reporting violated rules. | Vilmont disputes the characterization of the delay as misconduct. | Yes; repeated failure to provide timely accounting violated rule 32:1.15(d). |
Key Cases Cited
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Frerichs, 671 N.W.2d 470 (Iowa 2003) (nonrefundable advance fees in criminal cases are unethical except general retainer)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Apland, 577 N.W.2d 50 (Iowa 1998) (notice and guidance on advance-fee handling)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Lustgraaf, 792 N.W.2d 295 (Iowa 2010) (sanction guidance considering all factors in fee-related discipline)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Ries, N.W.2d (Iowa 2012) (thirty-day suspension for related fee and fund-handling misconduct)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Boles, 808 N.W.2d 431 (Iowa 2012) (thirty-day suspension for withdrawing and failing to refund unearned fees)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Parrish, 801 N.W.2d 580 (Iowa 2011) (sixty-day suspension for several failures to return client funds)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Feeney, 657 N.W.2d 454 (Iowa 2003) (thirty-day suspension for failure to promptly repay client funds)