*1 SUPREME ATTORNEY IOWA COURT BOARD,
DISCIPLINARY
Complainant, HENRICHSEN,
Patrick Alex
Respondent.
No. 12-1567. of Iowa.
Supreme Court 18, 2013.
Jan.
526 firm’s
bank account instead of the by of the firm’s agreement as directed an Commission shareholders. The Grievance filed of Iowa a re- Supreme of the Court reprimand. recommending port rules, to our we are re- Pursuant court report. to review the commission’s quired 35.11(1). Upon Iowa Ct. R. our de review, suspend we Henrichsen’s li- novo indefinitely with no cense of reinstatement for a possibility months. three Scope of I. Review. attorney disciplin
Our review of ary proceedings is de novo. Iowa Su Att’y Disciplinary Bd. preme Ct John (Iowa 2010). son, 792 677 attorney’s must prove The Board ethi convincing preponder misconduct aby cal Supreme ance of the evidence. Iowa Templeton, Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. 784 761, 763 We will consider, but are bound fact, by, findings con commission’s law, clusions and recommended sanc Supreme Att’y Disciplin tion. Axt, ary Bd. v. proven Once the Board has misconduct, may impose greater than the
“lesser disci by grievance com pline recommended Ct. Bd. 'l mission.” of Prof Lett, Ethics & Conduct Charles L. and Teresa A. Harrington (Iowa 2004) (citation and internal quo Moines, Vens, complainant. Des for omitted). tation marks L. Brown D. Grimes of Jay David II. Factual Procedural Back- Hansen, Moines, Riley, McClintock & Des ground. for respondent. licensed to Henrichsen has been APPEL, Justice. Henrichsen prac- law Iowa since 2000. estate, Attorney The Dis- in the areas of real primarily tices taxation, ciplinary planning, although Board alleged respondent, estate Henrichsen, form helps Patrick Alex new small businesses busi- violated Iowa 32:8.4(c) practice, Rule of Professional entities. ness Outside Conduct has with into his volunteered Habitat Humanity, in charitable participates April between September church, activities teaches organized estate, matters related to real plan- estate school, Al- Sunday ning, and coaches soccer. and taxation. Henrichsen and the *3 though practi- Henrichsen is now a solo other agreed shareholders mutually that it tioner, we are with his conduct would if concerned be best Henrichsen left the firm.
at his former firm. Henrichsen and the firm settled their fi- nancial matters internally during the sepa- share- he became the fourth ration process. then Henrichsen started organized holder in a firm profes- as a practice. own sional corporation West Des Moines. The firm also frequently investigated Clients would address checks whether Hen- legal particular attorney any for to a richsen’s actions ongoing services affected client An performed at the to of matters. audit agreement firm. Pursuant shareholders, outside accountant any the each re- did not reveal ir- quired regularities in its give to all earned fees to the firm’s client trust accounts. Further, they bookkeeper gen- into the firm’s confirmed for that Henrichsen’s actions not regularly eral account. The four drew did affect shareholders billed equal any clients or cause every salaries from the firm two client be billed more than once for the legal weeks. At of each fiscal same work. quarter, the end Thus, firm remaining general operat- verified that Henrichsen’s only ing pertained mem- actions account were distributed to the accounts receiv- bers able and did not earnings upon any as deferred based affect of its clients. formula that took into account overhead In October Henrichsen wrote a quarterly earnings costs and the different letter to the Board reporting actions. of each Accordingly, shareholder. each letter, In his Henrichsen he did stated member quar- would receive share of the why know he the fees into his terly proportionate rev- distribution to the personal hearing account. At the on this responsible. enue for which was he matter in June 2012 before the commis- sion, Henrichsen he testified that and his
In fall
bookkeeper began
counselor believe he has control issues.
notice that Henrichsen had not
her
given
Henrichsen also
testified that
did not
any checks from the Iowa Finance Author-
spend
Following
hearing,
the funds.
ity
checks,
for some
which
time. These
the commission
that
work,
recommended
Henri-
were
guarantee
for title
commissions
chsen
reprimand.
receive
usually
month.
point
came each
At some
thereafter,
the other shareholders at the
III. Ethical Violations.
bookkeeper
investigate
asked the
billing
receipts.
Henrichsen’s
records
Rule of
Iowa
Professional Conduct
32:8.4(c)
The bookkeeper reported
prohibits
lawyer
engaging
there
fraud,
involving dishonesty,
been clients from which the
in “conduct
de
ceit, misrepresentation.”
never
The other
R.
received fees.
sharehold-
Iowa
Prof 1
82:8.4(c).
Henrichsen,
ers
virtually
confronted
It is
identical
admitted Conduct
1-102(A)(4).
depositing
checks into
DR
personal
predecessor,
to its
account. The
Responsibility
other
shareholders
Iowa Code
Profl
1-102(A)(4).
Lawyers
Henrichsen
that Henrichsen
DR
held on
estimated
We
nu
$10,000
lawyer
failed to
firm’s
into the
merous occasions that a
violated
1-102(A)(4)
general
account. The record confirms that DR
receivables
withheld
least this amount
intended for
firm into a
bank
involving lawyers
Dis
who committed similar
Iowa
account. See
See,
Isaacson,
e.g., Huisinga,
104, ethical misconduct.
N.W.2d
v.
ciplinary Bd.
consider “the
287-88.
(Iowa 2008);
violations,”
any aggra
weigh
nature
Irwin,
Ethics & Conduct
Prof'l
circumstances,
vating
mitigating
(Iowa 2004);
Su
“the
fitness to
take into account
Ethics & Conduct
Ct. Bd.
preme
of Prof'l
law,
protec
continue
283, 286-87
Huisinga, 642 N.W.2d
society
from those unfit to
tion
2002);
Supreme Ct. Bd.
Prof'l
law,
public confidence
uphold
the need to
Schatz,
*4
Ethics & Conduct
deterrence,
justice system,
[and]
in
(Iowa 1999);
794,
Ct.
796
as
maintenance of the bar
a whole.”
Carr,
&
v.
588
Ethics Conduct
Bd. of Prof'l
v. Ire
Att’y Disciplinary Bd.
Supreme Ct.
(Iowa 1999);
127,
Iowa Su
129
N.W.2d
2008).
(Iowa
498,
land, 748
502
N.W.2d
& Conduct
Ethics
preme Ct.
Prof'l
(Iowa
attorney
have
who
144,
warned that an
N.W.2d
147
Sylvester,
v.
548
may
his law firm
be
converts funds due
1996);
Ethics & Conduct
Comm. on Prof'l
Schatz,
(Iowa
subject to
595
severe sanctions.
Piazza,
820,
405 N.W.2d
822
prior
at
A
of our
N.W.2d
796.
review
1987);
Ethics & Conduct
Comm. on Prof'l
have
number of
cases
that we
on a
(Iowa
reveals
Hanson,
822, 824
244 N.W.2d
attorneys
occasions revoked the licenses of
failed
fees into their
who
earned
interpret
reason to
rule
We see no
See,
general
accounts.
operating
firms’
S2:8.4(c) differently
predecessor.
than its
Irwin,
644-45; Schatz,
at
e.g.,
679 N.W.2d
record,
Based on
examination of
our
Carr,
796;
N.W.2d
withheld funds from other any claim entitlement colorable above, we expressed For the reasons than the fact that the client checks were suspend Henrichsen’s license to withholding His of funds made out to him. indefinitely possi- in this with no state incident, as in Huisin- a one-time bility of for three months. reinstatement pattern ga, represented but of serious suspension apply shall to all facets This Henrichsen states his failure misconduct. provided of law as funds in 35.13(3). any Rule Prior to rein- issue,” “control but this con- represented a *6 statement, that Henrichsen must establish clusory does not excuse seri defense practiced during period he has not an ous extended misconduct suspension complied of his and that has time. rule ways requirements in all with the are fac mitigating There some requirements and the notification 35.14 First, recognition tors. own are taxed rule 35.23. of this action Costs fac mitigating of his ethical violations is a Henrichsen to rule 35.27. pursuant Att’y See Disci Supreme tor. plinary Thompson, Bd. v. 782 N.W.2d LICENSE SUSPENDED. (Iowa 2007). self-re Henrichsen coop
ported his actions to Board and WIGGINS, J., justices except All concur monetary erated firm to with his settle who dissents. separation. It is during difference however, clear, entirely the self-re that WIGGINS, (dissenting). Justice porting part not motivated in I dissent for the reasons report part desire avoid a my stated dissent Second, ners. not have does Bie- Attorney Disciplinary Board v. prior history attorney discipline. 2012) (Iowa ber, Disciplinary Bd. J., (Wiggins, dissenting). We have ob- Kress, our regulatory body as the ligation, they Finally, although not excuse his do from dis- conduct, profession, protect consider Henrichsen’s Dishonesty is a trait attorneys. honest mitigating issues as factor. See disqualifies person practice from the Att’y Disciplinary Iowa Supreme Ct. Ginkel, law. An converts Van partners, dispute when a over the He testified has control that he exist, per se unfit pervaded multiple issues as- fees does not which Thus, I have hesitation in law. no license revoking Henrichsen’s
law. Iowa, Appellee,
STATE HUSTON, Appellant.
Karen Sue
No. 11-1262.
Supreme Court of Iowa. 25, 2013.
Jan.