Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Kenneth F. Dolezal
2011 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 27
| Iowa | 2011Background
- Dolezal, admitted 1983, faced three client matters 2008–2010 for neglect and related issues.
- Conservatorships of Wesley and Lenora Buresh: two appeals failed to be pursued or dismissed after default notices and penalties; appeals ultimately dismissed.
- Social Security Disability claim for Michael David: retainer received, federal complaint filed but not served, funds not placed in trust, limited communication, and case dismissed for lack of service.
- Estate of Steven M. Carter: district court delinquency notices for required reports; Dolezal did not file interlocutory/final reports or close estate; shows ongoing neglect.
- Disciplinary history: private admonishments in 1990s and 2009; 1991 license suspension for CLE and security issues; temporary suspension in 2010 for board inquiry nonresponse; overall posture shows pattern of neglect and misconduct.
- Court suspended Dolezal’s license for 30 days and imposed repayment/fitness conditions, with consideration of mitigating depression and Vietnam-era service.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dolezal neglected multiple matters in violation of ethics rules | Dolezal neglected Buresh appeals and the David matter. | Dolezal maintained some communication and disputes the extent of neglect. | Yes; multiple neglect findings upheld. |
| Whether Dolezal violated trust-account and accounting rules | Dolezal failed to deposit funds into trust and provide accounting. | Funds were earned fees; no formal trust account opened. | Yes; trust-account and accounting violations established. |
| Whether the probate/estate filings constituted professional neglect | Dolezal failed to file required reports in Carter estate. | Dolezal attempted to locate administrator; issues with cooperation. | Yes; neglect found in probate matter. |
| Whether a thirty-day suspension is an appropriate discipline | Board recommended suspension; multiple neglects and prior issues. | Dolezal's mitigating factors and limited harm argued for lighter sanction. | Thirty-day suspension warranted. |
| Whether additional sanctions or conditions should apply (e.g., counseling, CLE, reporting) | Conditions ordered: 30-day suspension, possible reinstatement after costs and physician/mental-health clearance, and CLE on trust accounting. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wright, 758 N.W.2d 227 (Iowa 2008) (attorney neglect when failing to prosecute and respond to deadlines harms administration of justice)
- Tompkins, 733 N.W.2d 661 (Iowa 2007) (negligent failure to prosecute or dismiss an appeal)
- Lesyshen, 712 N.W.2d 101 (Iowa 2006) (client’s indifference does not excuse attorney’s duty to end matter; neglect when delays occur)
- Daggett, 653 N.W.2d 377 (Iowa 2002) (failing to comply with deadlines constitutes neglect and prejudicial conduct)
- Hoglan, 781 N.W.2d 279 (Iowa 2010) (suspension for multiple neglected appeals; pattern of delay; prior admonishments considered)