IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 145 / 07-0777
Filed March 28, 2008
IOWA SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD,
Complainant,
vs.
BRANDON ADAMS,
Respondent.
On review from the report of the Grievance Commission.
Grievance Commission reports respondent has committed ethical
misconduct and recommends a three-month suspension. LICENSE
SUSPENDED.
Charles L. Harrington and Elizabeth E. Quinlan, Des Moines, for
complainant.
Brandon Adams, Waterloo, pro se.
2
CADY, Justice.
The Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board charged
Brandon Adams with numerous violations of the Iowa Code of
Professional Responsibility for Lawyers and the Iowa Rules of
Professional Conduct, mainly predicated on his neglect and inattention
to client matters in several cases. The Grievance Commission of the
Supreme Court of Iowa found Adams violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility and the Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct. It
recommended Adams be suspended from the practice of law for a period
not less than three months. On our review, we find Adams violated the
codes of professional conduct, and we impose an indefinite suspension of
not less than four months.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
Brandon Adams is an Iowa lawyer. He practices law as a sole
practitioner in Waterloo. Adams was admitted to the practice of law in
Iowa in 2000. He worked for one year after graduation from law school
as a public defender in Kansas and was employed by two law firms in
Waterloo from 2000 to 2003, before opening his own law office. He is
married and supports four children. Adams is thirty-three years old. He
has participated in the volunteer lawyer project by providing free legal
services to the needy.
The board filed a five-count complaint against Adams on
January 10, 2007. The complaint centered on claims of neglect and lack
of diligence in representing clients, client misrepresentation, failure to
make an accounting, and failure to timely respond to requests for
information by the board. The neglect resulted in the dismissal of two
appeals for lack of prosecution, and the lack of diligence resulted in the
3
arrest and incarceration of a client for failure to appear at a court
hearing in a criminal case.
Adams failed to respond to the complaint and failed to answer
requests for admissions submitted by the board. As a result, the
commission deemed the allegations of the complaint and the request for
admissions to be admitted. It nevertheless permitted Adams to submit
exhibits and evidence at the hearing.
At the hearing, Adams offered evidence to both excuse and mitigate
his conduct. He testified he was unable to perform legal services at times
due to debilitating migraine headaches. He also had other ongoing
personal matters that would interfere with his work, including bouts with
depression. Additionally, Adams lacked financial resources to purchase
legal research tools to help perform legal services. At times, he employed
inexperienced legal assistants who hampered communications with
clients due to clerical errors. He was unable to locate billing records due
to a change in his office computer system.
Adams has a history of prior discipline. He was privately
reprimanded by the board in 2003 for inflating a claim for legal services.
He received a public reprimand in 2004 for altering a copy of a decision
by an administrative law judge before sending it to his client by deleting
a sentence stating he failed to file a brief in the case. He was temporarily
suspended on two occasions in 2005 for failing to respond to board
complaints and for not complying with client security regulations. He
was publicly reprimanded in January 2007 for neglect of a client matter
by failing to file a posttrial motion in a criminal case.
The commission found the board established the violations as set
forth in the five-count complaint. It found Adams’ conduct violated
DR 6–101(A)(3) (neglect), DR 7–101(B)(3) (prejudice to client), DR 1–
4
102(A)(5) (prejudice to administration of justice), DR 1–102(A)(6) (fitness
to practice), DR 9–102(B)(3) (render accounting), DR 1–102(A)(4)
(misrepresentation), DR 9–102(B)(4) (deliver client funds), Iowa Rule of
Professional Conduct 32:1.3 (act with diligence and promptness in
representing a client), and Iowa Rule of Professional Conduct 32:8.1(b)
(respond to demand for information from disciplinary authority).1 It
recommended Adams be suspended from the practice of law for a period
not less than three months. It also recommended that Adams be ordered
to return retainers and fees to three of his former clients involved in the
complaints.
Adams appealed the report of the commission. However, the
appeal was subsequently dismissed based on his failure to prosecute,
and the case proceeded as a review of a commission report under Iowa
Court Rule 35.10. See Iowa Ct. R. 35.11(3).
II. Scope of Review.
We review attorney disciplinary proceedings de novo. Iowa
Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Bernard, 653 N.W.2d 373,
375 (Iowa 2002). We are not bound by the commission’s findings, but
give them weight. Id.
III. Pretrial Sanction.
An appeal filed by an attorney from a grievance commission report
allows the attorney to identify and argue specific claims of error in the
commission proceedings. However, when an appeal is dismissed for lack
of prosecution, the case proceeds to de novo review on the record before
the commission without argument, “as if no appeal had been taken.”
Iowa Ct. R. 35.11(3).
1The violations that occurred after July 1, 2005 are subject to the Iowa Rules of
Professional Conduct, chapter 32.
5
Our de novo review of the record before the commission reveals no
error in the procedure used at the hearing. The allegations of the
complaint and the commission’s request for information were deemed
admitted based on Adams’ failure to respond. Iowa Ct. R. 36.7 (stating, if
respondent fails to file a timely answer, “the allegations of the complaint
shall be considered admitted”); Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v.
Moonen, 706 N.W.2d 391, 396 (Iowa 2005) (citing Iowa R. Civ. P.
1.510(2)). While this action relieved the board of its burden to submit
evidence and present testimony to establish the allegations in the
complaint, Adams was not deprived of an opportunity to present evidence
to contest the complaint. Moreover, Adams did not object to the
procedure adopted by the commission and testified at length at the
hearing about each complaint. He also did not object to the exhibits
offered as evidence at the hearing by the board.
IV. Violations.
The violations found by the commission were established by the
evidence. Generally, Adams neglected client matters by failing to
advance their interests after agreeing to represent them. See Iowa
Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Moorman, 683 N.W.2d 549,
551–52 (Iowa 2004). In particular, he neglected two client matters by
failing to comply with appellate deadlines. See id. at 552. Adams also
failed to diligently represent the interests of a third client by failing to
appear at an arraignment on behalf of his client or by failing to file a
written plea prior to the arraignment. See Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l
Ethics & Conduct v. Kallsen, 670 N.W.2d 161, 167 (Iowa 2002) (finding
neglect based on attorney’s failure to appear). His conduct violated Iowa
Rule of Professional Conduct 32:1.3. It also resulted in the arrest and
incarceration of the client. The record further reveals Adams
6
misrepresented the status of a case to a client after the case had been
dismissed for his failure to comply with deadlines. The record
demonstrates an intent to deceive the client. See Moorman, 683 N.W.2d
at 553. Adams also failed to render an accounting to a client. See DR 9–
102(B)(3). Finally, he failed to respond to board demands for
information. See Iowa R. Prof’l Conduct 32:8.1(b).
V. Discipline.
To determine the appropriate level of discipline for violating a rule
of professional conduct, we focus primarily on the nature of the violation,
the need for deterrence, the need to protect the public, the need to
maintain the reputation of the profession as a whole, and the attorney’s
fitness to continue to practice law. Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics
& Conduct v. Walters, 646 N.W.2d 111, 113–14 (Iowa 2002). We consider
all aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Id. Multiple instances of
past disciplinary action are an aggravating circumstance. Id. Harm to a
client is also an aggravating circumstance. Id. In the end, the discipline
imposed is based on the facts of each case. Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of
Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Frerichs, 671 N.W.2d 470, 478 (Iowa 2003).
Our review of prior cases reveals that the discipline imposed for
neglect typically “ranges from a public reprimand to a six-month
suspension.” Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v.
Hohenadel, 634 N.W.2d 652, 655–56 (Iowa 2002). Misrepresentation to a
client can be a frequent companion of client neglect and can support a
higher range of discipline. See Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics &
Conduct v. Adams, 623 N.W.2d 815, 819 (Iowa 2001). The failure to
render an accounting is an additional form of neglect by an attorney and
compounds the discipline.
7
Adams suggests his migraine headaches and depression should be
considered in mitigation of discipline. We recognize these conditions are
mitigating factors in the imposition of discipline. See Frerichs, 671
N.W.2d at 477.
Considering all the relevant facts and circumstances, we conclude
Adams should be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law with no
possibility of reinstatement for four months. Adams has not only
established himself in his relatively short professional career as a lawyer
who lacks diligence and professionalism in dealing with client matters,
but he has also shown himself to be a lawyer who is willing to
misrepresent the truth in an effort to hide his neglect and inattention.
His actions and conduct have inflicted harm on his clients and the
profession as a whole.
We are sympathetic to the struggles Adams has endured with
migraine headaches and depression. Yet, his depression admittedly
surfaced after most of his violations occurred, and Adams failed to turn
to others for help in his practice to protect the interests of his clients
when he was unable to perform needed services due to his migraine
headaches. Considering his past conduct and record as a whole, his
medical condition has not been the central cause of his problems.
VI. Conclusion.
We suspend Adams license to practice law with no possibility of
reinstatement for a period not less than four months from the date of the
filing of this opinion. The suspension imposed applies to all facets of the
practice of law, as provided by Iowa Court Rule 35.12(3). On application
for reinstatement, Adams shall have the burden to prove he has not
practiced during the period of suspension and that he meets all the
requirements of Iowa Court Rule 35.13. As a condition of reinstatement,
8
Adams shall make restitution of fees and retainers as recommended in
the commission report, and shall submit a written medical certification
that he is fit to practice law. The costs of this action shall be taxed to
Adams pursuant to rule 35.25(1).
LICENSE SUSPENDED.