IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 11–1627
Filed March 2, 2012
IOWA SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY
DISCIPLINARY BOARD,
Complainant,
vs.
BRANDON ADAMS,
Respondent.
On review of the report of the Grievance Commission of the
Supreme Court of Iowa.
Grievance Commission of the Supreme Court of Iowa recommends
revocation of the respondent’s license to practice law. LICENSE
REVOKED.
Charles L. Harrington and Elizabeth E. Quinlan, Des Moines, for
complainant.
Brandon Adams, Cedar Rapids, pro se.
2
APPEL, Justice.
In this disciplinary matter, the Iowa Supreme Court Attorney
Disciplinary Board (Board) filed a complaint alleging, among other
things, that an Iowa attorney misappropriated funds belonging to two
clients. Although the attorney was served with the complaint, he did not
respond at any time to the complaint or participate in subsequent
proceedings. Because the attorney did not contest the factual allegations
in the complaint, the Grievance Commission of the Supreme Court of
Iowa (commission) deemed them to be admitted. Based on these
admissions, and upon the record developed at a subsequent hearing, the
commission found numerous ethical violations, including those arising
from the misappropriation of client funds, and recommended revocation
of the attorney’s license. We agree with the commission that
misappropriation of client funds for personal use has been established
and that revocation is the appropriate sanction.
I. Factual and Procedural Background.
Attorney Brandon Adams has been before us previously. His
disciplinary history was summarized in Iowa Supreme Court Attorney
Disciplinary Board v. Adams, 749 N.W.2d 666, 668 (Iowa 2008) and need
not be repeated here. We suspended his license in 2008 for serious
disciplinary infractions. He has not applied for reinstatement.
On June 13, 2011, the Board filed a two-count complaint alleging
that Adams violated multiple rules of professional conduct in connection
with his representation of Kerston Moore and William Muhammad. Both
the Moore and Muhammad matters involved representation of clients in
connection with personal injuries.
With respect to the Moore matter, the Board alleged that Adams
settled the case against the tortfeasor and obtained a check from State
3
Farm Insurance for $122,756.21. When the settlement funds were
deposited in Adams’ trust account, the Board asserted that Regions
Bank debited $215.26 to cover a negative balance in the account from
the previous month, an insufficient funds check, and an overdraft
charge.
The Board alleged that Adams disbursed $47,500 from the
settlement funds for his law office, apparently for attorneys’ fees. He
then paid $50,000 from the trust account to “Gaston and/or Linda
Moore.” Medical providers related to the file were paid $20,000. The
Board did not challenge these withdrawals. The Board claimed, however,
that additional checks were drawn on the account for unrelated matters,
including three for filing fees and a $1000 check to a Raymond Barber.
After settling with the tortfeasor, Adams obtained a settlement with
the underinsured motorist carrier, GEICO, of $25,000. According to the
Board, Adams had authority to use these funds to satisfy claims with
remaining medical providers. The Board alleged, however, that Adams
used the entire amount for his own purposes.
The Board further asserted that Adams did not provide an
accounting to Moore, or anyone on Moore’s behalf, showing distributions
of either the State Farm or the GEICO proceeds.
With respect to the Muhammad matter, the Board alleged that
Adams settled the case for $19,000 and deposited this amount in his
trust account. The Board alleged that Adams disbursed $7102.50 to
himself after paying Muhammad $6000. The Board asserted that Adams
agreed to use the balance to satisfy medical providers, with any
remaining balance to be paid to Muhammad. The Board alleged,
however, that Adams did not use the remaining funds to pay
Muhammad’s medical providers but instead withdrew the remaining
4
funds for his own personal use. When contacted by Muhammad
regarding the status of getting his medical bills paid, the Board alleged
that Adams did not respond.
In connection with the Moore and Muhammad matters, the Board
alleged that Adams violated rule 32:1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with
reasonable diligence and promptness); rule 32:1.4(a)(3) (requiring a
lawyer to keep the client reasonably informed); rule 32:1.4(a)(4)
(requiring a lawyer to promptly comply with reasonable requests for
information); rule 32:1.5 (prohibiting a lawyer from making an agreement
for, charging, or collecting an unreasonable fee or an unreasonable
amount of expenses); rule 32:1.15(d) (requiring the lawyer to promptly
deliver to the client any property the client is entitled to receive); rule
32:1.15(f) (requiring client accounts to comply with chapter 45 of the
Iowa Court Rules); rule 32:8.4(c) (stating it is professional misconduct for
a lawyer to “engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation”).
Although Adams was served with the complaint, he did not file an
answer and did not participate in the subsequent proceedings. The
Board filed a motion with the commission, urging that the matters
alleged in the complaint be deemed admitted and that the hearing be
limited to determining the appropriate sanction in light of the admitted
facts. The commission sustained the motion. At a subsequent hearing,
the Board offered exhibits into evidence.
After examining the allegations of the complaint and the exhibits
admitted into evidence, the commission found numerous ethical
violations. Most importantly, the commission found that in connection
with both the Moore and the Muhammad matters, Adams violated rule
32:8.4(c) by engaging in acts involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
5
misrepresentation. The commission found that in both matters he
misappropriated client funds for his own personal use. The commission
also found that Adams violated numerous other rules, but we find it
unnecessary to discuss them in light of the serious nature of the
dishonesty involved in this case.
II. Standard of Review.
The standard of review in disciplinary cases is well established.
We review the findings of the commission de novo. Iowa Supreme Ct.
Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Johnson, 792 N.W.2d 674, 677 (Iowa 2010). The
Board bears the burden to prove misconduct by a “convincing
preponderance of the evidence.” Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd.
v. Earley, 774 N.W.2d 301, 304 (Iowa 2009). This burden is less
demanding than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but requires a greater
showing than the preponderance of the evidence. Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd.
of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Lett, 674 N.W.2d 139, 142 (Iowa 2004). Once
misconduct is proven, we may impose a “lesser or greater sanction than
the discipline recommended by the grievance commission.” Earley, 774
N.W.2d at 304 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
III. Discussion.
We begin our discussion by noting that when an attorney does not
answer a complaint filed by the Board, the allegations in the complaint
are deemed admitted. See Iowa Ct. R. 36.7. In addition, however, the
Board offered evidence that confirms the basic allegations of its
complaint.
Based on our examination of the complaint, the allegations of
which are deemed admitted, and the underlying file, we conclude that
the Board has shown Adams misappropriated client funds in the Moore
and Muhammad matters in violation of rule 32:8.4(c). The Board has
6
shown that Adams on two occasions took client funds, of which Adams
had no colorable future claim, from his trust account and used the
money for his own purposes. See Earley, 774 N.W.2d at 309 (“Unless the
attorney had a colorable future claim to the funds or did not take the
funds for [the lawyer’s] own use, revocation will be ordered.” (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted)).
We do not tolerate this kind of misconduct from Iowa lawyers. See
Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Reilly, 708 N.W.2d 82, 84–85
(Iowa 2006) (revoking license for misappropriation of settlement funds);
see also Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Carroll, 721 N.W.2d
788, 792 (Iowa 2006) (revoking license where attorney “stole someone
else’s money”); Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. D’Angelo, 710
N.W.2d 226, 235–37 (Iowa 2006); Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics &
Conduct v. Bell, 650 N.W.2d 648, 652 (Iowa 2002) (“There is no place in
our profession for lawyers who convert funds entrusted to them.”
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of
Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Leon, 602 N.W.2d 336, 339 (Iowa 1999)
(revoking license for misappropriation of client funds); Iowa Supreme Ct.
Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Carr, 588 N.W.2d 127, 130 (Iowa 1999)
(revoking license for a single act of misappropriation).
In light of the misappropriations of client funds for personal use,
we do not address the numerous other disciplinary violations against
Adams. To do so is simply unnecessary. Based on the proven
misappropriations of client funds for his own personal use, we revoke the
license of Brandon Adams to practice law in this state.
IV. Conclusion.
The license of Brandon Adams to practice law in this state is
revoked.
LICENSE REVOKED.