Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Rolland Eugene Knopf
793 N.W.2d 525
| Iowa | 2011Background
- The Iowa Supreme Court suspended Knopf’s license for three months after de novo review of a Grievance Commission stipulation.
- Board alleged Knopf violated ethics rules due to failure to file state income tax returns (1993–2002, 2004) and late filing for 2003.
- Knopf pled guilty in 2009 to two counts of fraudulent practice in the second degree for 2001–2002 tax periods; district court sentenced to two five-year terms, suspended.
- In 2010 the Board amended its complaint to include a rule violation for failure to cure the default in Knopf’s ignored appeal; commission accepted the stipulation.
- Stipulation acknowledged some mitigating factors (cooperation, no prior ethics complaints, health issues) but health issues did not excuse conduct.
- Court required medical verification of fitness to practice prior to reinstatement and adherence to suspension conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did tax-filing failures violate the ethics rules? | Board: violations of DR 1–102(A)(3),(4),(6). | Knopf: conduct subject to mitigation; aspects disputed but admitted via stipulation. | Yes; violations found under DR 1–102(A)(3),(4),(6). |
| Did Knopf's failure to cure the appellate default violate Rule 32:3.2? | Board: conduct showed improper delay and violated expediting duties. | Knopf: no evidence of deliberate delay for convenience; not proven for 3.2. | Not proven for 3.2. |
| Did Knopf's neglect in his appeal violate Rule 32:8.4(d)? | Board: neglect prejudicial to administration of justice; dismissal shows misconduct. | Knopf: reasons for neglect unclear; not proven as intentional wrongdoing. | Yes; 32:8.4(d) violation established. |
| What is the appropriate sanction given violations and mitigating factors? | Board recommended a one-year suspension; harsher end of range due to neglect. | Knopf: mitigation warrants lesser sanction; health issues and cooperation weigh in. | Three-month suspension with medical verification required before reinstatement. |
| Should health issues affect discipline and reinstatement requirements? | Mitigating factors include health problems; may justify milder sanction. | Health issues mitigate but do not excuse; fitness verification required. | Health problems considered in formulating sanction; no post-suspension relief without verification. |
Key Cases Cited
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Fields, 790 N.W.2d 791 (Iowa 2010) (tax violations can violate multiple disciplinary rules)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Wengert, 790 N.W.2d 94 (Iowa 2010) (neglect in appeals prejudicial to justice)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Hoglan, 781 N.W.2d 279 (Iowa 2010) (neglect of appeals and discipline consequences)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Curtis, 749 N.W.2d 694 (Iowa 2008) (consideration of personal illnesses in sanctions)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. D’Angelo, 619 N.W.2d 333 (Iowa 2000) (aggravating/mitigating factors in discipline)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Steffes, 588 N.W.2d 121 (Iowa 1999) (public policy and administrative justice considerations)