Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. James C. Van Ginkel, 2012 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 6

Van Ginkel, Iowa attorney since 1980, handled the John Oxley estate opened after John’s death in 2005; Ruth Oxley died in 2006 and her estate closed, but John’s estate remained open past the three-year statutory deadline.
Board charged neglect, conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, knowingly made false statements, and misrepresentation related to probate proceedings.
Grievance commission found neglect and at least one misrepresentation; concluded fees were prematurely withdrawn in two installments (first-half and second-half).
Estate experienced seven probate delinquencies, prompting multiple delinquency notices and Judge Klotz’s direct involvement to attempt closure.
The court addressed alleged false statements in final and interim reports regarding taxes, claims, and fees, with credibility determinations favoring staff over Van Ginkel on some issues.
The Iowa Supreme Court suspended Van Ginkel’s license for sixty days and taxed costs, concluding neglect, prejudice to justice, and a false statement to a tribunal, with aggravating factors including prior admonitions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Van Ginkel commit neglect under rule 32:1.3?	Board: yes, repeated delinquencies show a consistent failure to perform duties.	Van Ginkel: no serious misconduct; delays were not intentional misconduct.	Yes; conduct constitutes neglect.
Did Van Ginkel’s conduct prejudice the administration of justice under rule 32:8.4(d)?	Board: delays caused seven delinquency notices and judicial resources were wasted.	Van Ginkel: judge shopping and multi-judge orders were warranted; not prejudicial.	Yes; prejudicial conduct established.
Did Van Ginkel prematurely withdraw probate fees in violation of rule 7.2(4) and 32:8.4(d)?	Board: first-half and second-half fees were taken before conditions satisfied.	Van Ginkel: fees were properly earned and applicable under rule 7.2(4).	Yes for both withdrawals.
Did Van Ginkel knowingly make false statements or engage in misrepresentation to a tribunal?	Board: multiple reports contained deliberate misrepresentations about taxes, claims, and fees.	Van Ginkel: statements were not knowingly false; some misstatements were staff errors or misunderstandings.	Yes; certain statements violated rule 32:3.3(a)(1) and 32:8.4(c).
What sanction is appropriate given the violations?	Board: suspension warranted; public reprimand insufficient given misrepresentation.	Van Ginkel: public reprimand sufficient; suspension excessive.	Sixty-day suspension appropriate.

Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Lickiss, 786 N.W.2d 860 (Iowa 2010) (neglect cases guide rule 32:1.3 interpretation in probate matters)
Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Ackerman, 786 N.W.2d 491 (Iowa 2010) (premature withdrawal of fees and related conduct)
Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Netti, 797 N.W.2d 591 (Iowa 2011) (conduct prejudicial to administration of justice alongside neglect)
Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Grotewold, 642 N.W.2d 288 (Iowa 2002) (neglect and related misrepresentations in probate context)
Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Rauch, 650 N.W.2d 574 (Iowa 2002) (misrepresentation to court as aggravating factor in sanction)
Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Wagner, 768 N.W.2d 279 (Iowa 2009) (fee withdrawal violation in probate context)
Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Dunahoo, 730 N.W.2d 202 (Iowa 2007) (public reprimand for estate closure delays)
Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Sather, 534 N.W.2d 428 (Iowa 1995) (sanction framework for neglect in probate matters)
Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Parker, 558 N.W.2d 183 (Iowa 1997) (public reprimand for failure to close estates)