This disсiplinary action is before us for de novo review in accordance with Iowa Supreme Court Rule 118.10. The complaint stems from allegations that attorney Ralph William Hill (1) counseled an individual who was represented by another attorney, (2) taped telephone conversatiоns without the knowledge of the other party to the conversation, and (3) allowed an appeal to be dismissed by default while misleading his client with regard to its status. We concern ourselves with only thе third charge because the Grievance Commission found insufficient evidence to sustain the othеrs and the Committee on Professional Ethics and Conduct of the Iowa State Bar Association (сommittee) has not appealed the decision. See Sup.Ct.R. 118.9. We concur in the commission’s findings and agree with its recommended sanction of reprimand.
Hill has been engaged in the practice of law in Marshalltown, Iowa since 1965. In 1987, he represented David Propp in a dissolution of marriagе action that involved a child custody dispute. Mr. Propp’s parents, Gladys and Robert Propp, sought custody of the child because they had cared for him since birth. Hill represented their interests in thе action. The trial court awarded custody to the child’s mother and ordered grandparent visitation for the Propps.
Gladys Propp was dissatisfied with the court’s decision and engaged Hill to reрresent her on appeal. The record reveals that she paid Hill $100 and he filed notice of appeal. Lack of further action on Hill’s part led the clerk of the supreme court to send default notices and impose penalties in December 1987, February 1988, and March 1988. Hill еventually moved to enlarge the time to file and serve his brief and appendix and the court еxtended the deadline to June 13, 1988. Hill again failed to meet this deadline and the clerk filed a fourth nоtice of default and penalty assess *2 ment. The appeal was ultimately dismissed pursuant to Iowa Rule of Appellate Procedure 19(a) for failure to prosecute.
In his testimony befоre the commission, Hill conceded that the Propp appeal “wasn’t properly dоne at all.” He offered no explanation for his neglect short of a judgment made early in thе process that the appeal would be unsuccessful. Nevertheless, he did not counsel his сlient in this regard, and avoided her inquiries whenever possible. Mrs. Propp testified that Hill repeatеdly assured her he was “working on” the appeal. The Grievance Commission made a specific finding, however, that her testimony as a whole was not credible and, accordingly, it found no overt deception on Hill’s part.
The committee carries the burden of proving its allegations by а convincing preponderance of the evidence.
Committee on Professional Ethics & Conduct v. Freed,
It was the opinion of the Grievance Commission that Hill’s unethical conduct warranted a public reprimand by this court. Although we are not bound by the commission’s findings and recommendation, we give them respectful consideration.
Committee on Professional Ethics & Conduct v. Hill,
Under the circumstanсes of this case, however, we are persuaded that a public reprimand is apprоpriate. In February 1989, this court disciplined Hill with a three-month suspension for sexual impropriety with a сlient.
Hill,
In еssence, Hill has already suffered a seven-month penalty for his inaction on the Propp аppeal and the two other matters which were ultimately resolved in his favor. We deem this a sufficient sanction to protect the public and deter Hill from neglect in the future. Accordingly, we publicly reprimand him.
LAWYER REPRIMANDED.