Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Bruce G. Thomas
794 N.W.2d 290
| Iowa | 2011Background
- Bruce G. Thomas, Iowa lawyer admitted in 1976, represented Richard and Hydee Case in a 2005 personal injury claim.
- Thomas timely filed a petition in district court in December 2007, but failed to serve the defendant within the deadline, resulting in dismissal on June 2, 2008.
- Thomas did not inform the Cases of the dismissal until November 2008 and avoided their telephone calls to delay disclosure.
- The Board charged multiple rule violations: 32:1.1, 32:1.3, 32:1.4, 32:3.2, 32:7.1(a), and 32:8.4(a) and (d), based on neglect and miscommunication; the Grievance Commission adopted these findings.
- The Commission found a separate violation of 32:8.4(c) for deceit in a September 2008 letter promising to 'get to the bottom' of the matter, knowing the case had been dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Thomas violate neglect and communication rules? | Board argues Thomas neglected the cases and failed to communicate timely, causing dismissal and wasted resources. | Thomas contends mitigation, improved procedures, and cooperation; argues no intentional neglect. | Yes; violations found for neglect and inadequate communication. |
| Did Thomas's September 2008 letter constitute deceit under 32:8.4(c)? | Board alleges deceit by presenting a false impression of progress while case was dismissed. | Thomas claims intent was not to deceive; circumstances show intent to gather information. | Yes; found deception under 32:8.4(c). |
| Did the board prove misrepresentation about services under 32:7.1(a)? | Board contends misrepresentation about the status of the case. | Thomas argues no misrepresentation about services, only case status. | No; 32:7.1(a) not violated. |
| Is a sixty-day suspension an appropriate discipline given the violations and factors? | Board seeks substantial discipline considering neglect, deceit, and aggravating history. | Thomas emphasizes mitigating factors like cooperation, new procedures, and community service. | Yes; sixty-day suspension with costs and reinstatement conditions. |
| Should any additional reinstatement conditions be imposed? | Board urges requirements to ensure future compliance with deadlines and client communication. | Thomas proposed changes already implemented; no extra conditions questioned. | Imposition of administrative reinstatement conditions as proposed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Earley, 774 N.W.2d 301 (Iowa 2009) (definition of neglect and timely action by a lawyer)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Hoglan, 781 N.W.2d 279 (Iowa 2010) (failure to prosecute as an expediency/diligence issue)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Marzen, 779 N.W.2d 757 (Iowa 2010) (prejudice to the public interest and disciplinary standards)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Casey, 761 N.W.2d 53 (Iowa 2009) (considerations of harm and neglect in imposing discipline)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Grotewold, 642 N.W.2d 288 (Iowa 2002) (neglect compounded by dishonesty warrants stricter sanction)