Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Matthew Warren Cunningham
2012 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 5
| Iowa | 2012Background
- Cunningham admitted to the Iowa bar in 2001 and later faced ethics complaints arising from divorce and bankruptcy matters.
- Prior to the Board proceedings, Cunningham received a private reprimand for failing to inform a client of withdrawal and to deliver the file.
- Cunningham experienced health/notice issues leading to temporary suspensions in 2009, and the Board filed a complaint in 2011.
- Count I concerns the Walker dissolution matter, where discovery was not properly handled, deadlines were missed, and sanctions were incurred.
- Count II concerns the McDowell bankruptcy matter, where Cunningham allegedly failed to file, misrepresented filing, and caused delays and additional costs.
- The Court conducted a de novo review, sustained multiple ethical violations, and imposed an eighteen-month suspension with monetary restitution and a pre-reinstatement mental-health evaluation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Cunningham violate neglect-related rules in Walker matter? | Board asserts neglect and failure to diligently represent Walker. | Cunningham contends no proven violation of specific neglect rules. | Yes; violations of 32:1.3, 32:1.4(a)(3), 32:1.16(d), 32:3.2, and 32:3.4(c) were proven. |
| Was there a proven violation of 32:1.16(a)(2) (withdrawal due to impairment) in Walker matter? | Board argues Cunningham’s impairment warranted withdrawal. | Lack of sufficient evidence tying impairment to pre-withdrawal representation. | No; insufficient proof that Cunningham’s impairment materially impaired ability to represent Walker prior to May 2008 withdrawal. |
| Did Cunningham commit misrepresentation and prejudicial conduct in McDowell matter? | Cunningham misrepresented filing status and misled clients and attorney. | Cunningham contends no intentional misrepresentation or prejudice. | Yes; violations of 32:8.4(c) and 32:8.4(d) (dishonesty, prejudice to justice) and related negligence/communication failures. |
Key Cases Cited
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Earley, 774 N.W.2d 301 (Iowa 2009) (neglect requires timely advancement and protection of client interests)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Johnson, 792 N.W.2d 674 (Iowa 2010) (discipline for neglect and misrepresentation; standards for withdrawal and misconduct)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Hoglan, 781 N.W.2d 279 (Iowa 2010) (withdrawal due to health; limits of impairment evidence)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Lickiss, 786 N.W.2d 860 (Iowa 2010) (role of temporary suspensions and prompt response in disciplinary process)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Joy, 728 N.W.2d 812 (Iowa 2007) (negligence across multiple clients; sanction range and precedent)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Fields, 790 N.W.2d 791 (Iowa 2010) (range and aggravation in neglect-based sanctions)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. McCann, 712 N.W.2d 89 (Iowa 2006) (restitution as precondition to reinstatement)