IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA 

No. 113 / 06-1145 

Filed November 17, 2006 

IOWA SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD, 

Complainant, 

vs. 

EDWARD M. CONRAD, 

Respondent. 

On review of the report of the Grievance Commission. 

On review of findings and recommendations of Grievance 

Commission. LICENSE SUSPENDED. 

Charles L. Harrington and Laura M. Roan, Des Moines, for 

complainant. 

Edward M. Conrad, Sigourney, pro se. 
2 

LARSON, Justice.

 Edward Conrad, an attorney from Sigourney, was cited by the Iowa 

Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board with violations of several 

disciplinary rules. Our Grievance Commission found, based largely on 

stipulated facts, that Conrad had failed to render an accounting to a client 

as requested and failed to respond to the board’s notices of his client’s 

ethical complaint. The commission recommended a public reprimand, but 

we conclude he should be suspended for one month. 

I. Review. 

 In attorney disciplinary matters, our scope of review is well 

established: 

 Where “no appeal is taken or application for permission 

to appeal is filed . . . [we] proceed to review de novo the record 

made before the commission and determine the matter without 

oral argument or further notice to the parties.” “We give 

respectful consideration to the Grievance Commission’s 

findings and recommendations, but are not bound by them.” 

 The Board must prove attorney misconduct by a 

convincing preponderance of the evidence. This burden is less 

than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but more than the 

preponderance standard required in the usual civil case. Once 

misconduct is proven, we “may impose a lesser or greater 

sanction than the discipline recommended by the grievance 

commission.” 

Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Letts, 674 N.W.2d 139, 

142 (Iowa 2004) (citations omitted). 

II. Facts. 

 The parties’ stipulation of facts shows the following: Conrad has been 

a licensed lawyer in Iowa since 1989. On April 1, 2004, he was employed 

by Shane Williams to petition for modification of a dissolution decree. 

Conrad received an advance fee of $1000, which he deposited in his trust 

account. When Williams became dissatisfied with the respondent’s services, 
3 

he requested an accounting on two occasions. Conrad failed to provide the 

accounting until after this complaint was filed on December 7, 2004. 

 On December 17, 2004, the board sent a notice of William’s complaint 

and asked for the respondent’s reply. The respondent received the notice on 

December 22, 2004, but did not respond. On January 13, 2005, the board 

sent a second notice to Conrad. This notice advised him that, pursuant to 

court rules, the respondent must respond within ten days or the board 

could file a complaint with the Grievance Commission. The respondent 

acknowledged receipt of this letter on January 31, 2005, but still did not 

respond. 

III. The Violations Charged. 

 The parties stipulated that the respondent violated the following 

disciplinary rules: DR 1—102(A)(1) (a lawyer shall not violate a disciplinary 

rule); DR 1—102(A)(5) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that is 

prejudicial to the administration of justice); DR 1—102(A)(6) (a lawyer shall 

not engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s 

fitness to practice law); DR 9—102(B)(3) (a lawyer shall render an 

accounting to his client). 

IV. Sanction. 

 The parties did not stipulate as to the sanction to be imposed. The 

board argues that a thirty-day suspension is warranted, based on the 

respondent’s failure to render an accounting to his client and his failure to 

cooperate in the board’s investigation, together with a public reprimand in 

2005 (based on a similar pattern of conduct—neglect of a probate matter 

and failure to cooperate with the disciplinary process). 

 The respondent, on the other hand, points out that his client was not 

damaged by his ethical lapses, and he enjoys substantial respect among the 

local bench and bar. He noted that one judge observed that the respondent 
4 

had “learned his lesson.” The respondent argues that another public 

reprimand is the appropriate sanction. In similar cases involving neglect of 

legal matters combined with failure to respond to board notices, we have 

imposed sanctions ranging from a public reprimand to fairly lengthy 

suspensions. For example, in Iowa Supreme Court Board of Professional 

Ethics & Conduct v. Daggett, 653 N.W.2d 377 (Iowa 2002), the lawyer failed 

to comply with appellate deadlines, misstated facts to a trial court, failed to 

respond to a trial court’s order, and failed to respond to inquiries by the 

board. He was sanctioned with a sixty-day suspension. In Iowa Supreme 

Court Board of Professional Ethics & Conduct v. Scieszinski, 599 N.W.2d 472 

(Iowa 1999), the attorney was found to have failed to file annual reports in 

probate proceedings, failed to respond to district court notices of 

delinquency, and failed to respond to the board’s notices. We ordered a 

public reprimand. In Iowa Supreme Court Board of Professional Ethics & 

Conduct v. Lemanski, 606 N.W.2d 11 (Iowa 2000), we held that an attorney’s 

neglect of his client’s case, failing to disburse an account for client funds, 

and failing to cooperate in the disciplinary investigation warranted a onemonth suspension. In Iowa Supreme Court Board of Professional Ethics & 

Conduct v. Sprole, 596 N.W.2d 64 (Iowa 1999), we held that an attorney’s 

neglect of clients’ matters warranted a suspension for two months. In Iowa 

Supreme Court Board of Professional Ethics & Conduct v. Scheetz, 568 

N.W.2d 663 (Iowa 1997), an attorney’s neglect of a client’s interests and 

failure to cooperate with the board’s investigation warranted a public 

reprimand. In the recent case of Iowa Supreme Court Board of Professional 

Ethics & Conduct v. Ireland, ___ N.W.2d ___ (Iowa 2006), the respondent had 

neglected two legal matters, resulting in financial loss to a client, and had 

previously received a private admonition and a public reprimand, both 

based on neglect of clients’ cases. However, unlike the present case, the 
5 

respondent had not ignored notices from the board. We imposed a 

minimum suspension of three months. Ireland, ___ N.W.2d at ___. 

 Upon consideration of the range of sanctions imposed in our prior 

cases, we conclude that this respondent’s license should be suspended for a 

minimum of one month. We reach that conclusion because of Conrad’s 

pattern of client neglect and failure to cooperate with the board as 

evidenced by this case and the case leading to his prior reprimand. 

 We order that this respondent’s license to practice law be suspended 

for a period of thirty days. We will reinstate the respondent’s license to 

practice law upon the expiration of the thirty-day suspension, subject to the 

limitations of Iowa Court Rule 35.12(2). The costs of this action are 

assessed against the respondent in accordance with Iowa Court Rule 35.25. 

Automatic reinstatement shall not be ordered until all costs have been paid. 

LICENSE SUSPENDED.