Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Robert J. Hearity
2012 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 16
| Iowa | 2012Background
- The Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board filed a complaint alleging multiple ethical violations by Hearity.
- Hearity failed to answer the complaint, and his license has been temporarily suspended since January 11, 2011.
- A Grievance Commission panel found multiple instances of misconduct and recommended suspension, which the court reviewed de novo.
- Hearity’s conduct included neglect of estate administration, failure to communicate or respond, and dishonorable handling of fee matters.
- The court suspended Hearity’s license indefinitely with no reinstatement for one year, after considering aggravating factors and lack of mitigating factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Diligence and expedition violations | Hearity violated diligence and expedition rules by neglecting the Theroith estate and Walls appeal. | Hearity contends no violation or defenses to representations. | Violations established; rules 32:1.1 and 32:3.2 violated. |
| Unreasonable fees and fee communication | Burgess was charged an unreasonable fee and lacking written fee agreement; inadequate communication occurred. | Hearity disputes the reasonableness and billing details. | Violations of rules 32:1.5(a) and (b) established. |
| Failure to properly terminate representation | Hearity withdrew from Walls’ appeal without court permission, harming the client’s interests. | Hearity may have had withdrawal reasons not adequately addressed. | Violations of rules 32:1.16(c) and (d) established. |
| Failure to respond to the Board | Hearity did not respond to the Board’s information requests regarding Campbell. | Hearity did not engage with the disciplinary process. | Violation of rule 32:8.1(b) established. |
| Unauthorized practice and related misconduct | Hearity engaged in practice while suspended and made related misstatements and prejudicial conduct. | Hearity disputes the alleged misconduct extent. | Violations of rule 32:5.5(a) and 32:3.3(a)(1) and 32:8.4(d) established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Dunahoo, 799 N.W.2d 524 (Iowa 2011) (de novo review standard and burden of proof in attorney discipline)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Schmidt, 796 N.W.2d 33 (Iowa 2011) (courts may consider board findings but are not bound by them)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Wagner, 768 N.W.2d 279 (Iowa 2009) (scope of sanctions and deference to commission recommendations)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Johnson, 792 N.W.2d 674 (Iowa 2010) (duty of diligence and timely action)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Knopf, 793 N.W.2d 525 (Iowa 2011) (limits on dilatory tactics and expediting litigation)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Gottschalk, 729 N.W.2d 812 (Iowa 2007) (considerations for substantial sanctions in neglect and misconduct)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Kennedy, 684 N.W.2d 256 (Iowa 2004) (cooperation with disciplinary authorities as aggravating factor)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Templeton, 784 N.W.2d 761 (Iowa 2010) (sanction considerations for professional misconduct)
- Burgess v. Great Plains Bag Corp., 409 N.W.2d 676 (Iowa 1987) (notice and receipt of certified mail as actual knowledge of notices)