Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Richard J. Murphy
800 N.W.2d 37
Iowa2011Background
- Richard J. Murphy, Iowa lawyer since 1964, served as attorney for Patricia Murphy, the guardian/conservator for Helen Doss, a ward with dementia.
- Murphy and Patricia were personally close; Murphy assisted Doss in estate planning, including gifting and joint ownership arrangements prior to the conservatorship.
- After the 2000 conservatorship, Murphy helped move Doss’s assets to Patricia or themselves, including changing ownership of accounts and securities and facilitating gifts.
- Murphy failed to disclose these transfers and joint interests in conservatorship reports and did not obtain court approval for transfers or gifts.
- Doss died in 2004; Murphy, as executor’s attorney, later faced claims from beneficiaries, settlement discussions, and an accompanying probate inventory/report that omitted certain assets and beneficiaries.
- The Iowa Board filed a disciplinary complaint alleging multiple Rule violations; the Grievance Commission found several violations and recommended a public reprimand, but the Supreme Court imposed an eighteen-month suspension.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Murphy violate DR 1-102(A)(3)/(5)/(6) and (4) through self-dealing and deceit in conservatorship/probate? | Board asserts self-dealing, misrepresentation, and conduct prejudicial to justice occurred. | Murphy argues he followed Doss’s instructions and that any gifts/transfers reflected her wishes, with inadvertent omissions. | Yes; Murphy violated DR 1-102(A)(3), (4), (5), and (6). |
| Did Murphy violate DR 5-105(B) by declining or continuing employment where independent professional judgment was likely affected due to personal interests? | Board contends conflict and diminished independent judgment necessitated decline. | Murphy maintains representation was permissible and driven by ward's interests and consent. | Yes; Murphy violated DR 5-105(B). |
| Did Murphy violate DR 5-105(C) by representing both buyer and seller in the Doss home transaction? | Board alleges conflicts of interest existed and dual representation is prohibited. | Murphy contends no fraud or harm and representation was not prohibited under the circumstances. | Yes; Murphy violated DR 5-105(C). |
Key Cases Cited
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Wagner, 768 N.W.2d 279 (Iowa 2009) (board bears burden; de novo review of misconduct; sanctions discretionary)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Ackerman, 786 N.W.2d 491 (Iowa 2010) (rule 1-102(A)(1) not separate basis for misconduct; interpretive limitation)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Remer, 646 N.W.2d 91 (Iowa 2002) (suspension for self-dealing; guardianship/confidentiality and deterrence)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Allen, 586 N.W.2d 383 (Iowa 1998) (one-year suspension for unauthorized gifts to attorney from conservatorship)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Van Beek, 757 N.W.2d 639 (Iowa 2008) (misrepresentation and deceit can lead to significant sanctions)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Hall, 728 N.W.2d 383 (Iowa 2007) (dishonesty and deceit can underpin discipline)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Ireland, 748 N.W.2d 498 (Iowa 2008) (contextual factors in sanctions and misconduct)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Casey, 761 N.W.2d 53 (Iowa 2009) (factors for tailoring sanctions in professional misconduct)