Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Matthew M. Boles
2012 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 3
| Iowa | 2012Background
- Board filed complaint alleging violations of the Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct and the Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility for five felony-defense matters.
- A Grievance Commission division found violations chiefly involving fee withdrawals, trust-account withdrawals, and failure to refund unearned fees.
- Boles stipulated to some trust-account and accounting violations but challenged neglect of an incarcerated client’s postconviction relief and several fee-related issues.
- The Commission recommended a sixty-day suspension; this Court conducted de novo review and imposed a thirty-day suspension.
- Court highlighted pattern of trust-account mispractice, delays in refunds, but noted mitigating factors (cooperation, pro bono work, corrective reforms) and lack of harm to clients beyond delayed refunds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neglect of Smith’s postconviction relief | Board alleges neglect met DR 6–101(A)(3). | Boles contends no neglect after reasonable diligence. | Boles neglected the postconviction matter. |
| Unreasonable fees | Board argues fees were unreasonable under 32:1.5(a). | Boles asserts fees were reasonable given complexity. | Board failed to prove objectively unreasonable fees for Eides, Allen, or Little; no violation for Long. |
| Failure to promptly refund unearned fees | Board claims delays breached 32:1.15(d). | Boles claims refunds were timely or excused. | Boles violated 32:1.15(d) for Eides and Allen refunds. |
| Withdrawal of unearned fees | Board asserts withdrawals before earned violated 32:1.15(c). | Boles maintains proper timing under billing. | Boles violated 32:1.15(c) in Little matter. |
| Disputed client property and accounting | Board alleges failure to keep disputed funds separate and to account. | Boles disputes materiality and intent. | Boles violated 32:1.15(e) by not keeping disputed funds separate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Dunahoo, 799 N.W.2d 524 (Iowa 2011) (de novo review; must prove misconduct by preponderance; sanctions variance allowed)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Schmidt, 796 N.W.2d 33 (Iowa 2011) (deference to board findings but not bound by them)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Gailey, 790 N.W.2d 801 (Iowa 2010) (binding stipulations if supported by consideration)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Kennedy, 684 N.W.2d 256 (Iowa 2004) (neglect and trust-account violations; cooperation emphasized)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Parrish, 801 N.W.2d 580 (Iowa 2011) (sanctions for trust-account violations; mitigation factors)