Opinion ID: 4249584
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Factual Findings and Prior Proceedings.

Text: Marks has been licensed to practice law in Iowa since 2000. He practices in the areas of bankruptcy and consumer protection. During the past five years, Marks has been disciplined multiple times. We temporarily suspended his license in 2006 and 2008 for 3 failure to cooperate with the Board. Further, in 2007, the Board publicly reprimanded him for lack of diligence, incompetence, and failing to cooperate timely and fully with the Board. Finally, in 2009, we suspended his license for thirty days for neglecting client matters and failing to cooperate with the Board. There, we took into account Marks’ prior disciplinary history and his battle with depression. In this case, the Board alleges Marks committed ethical violations during his representation of a client in a foreclosure action, after the termination of the attorney–client relationship, and during his subsequent interactions with the Board. A. Winona Property. In August 2005, Linda Kenney hired Marks to defend her in a foreclosure action involving her house, located on Winona Avenue in Des Moines. Marks filed an answer and a demand for delay of sale on Kenney’s behalf. Despite Marks’ efforts, the court foreclosed Kenney’s interest in her house on November 29. The court set a sheriff’s sale for May 29, 2006, which gave Kenney a six-month redemption period. After subsequent attempts to find alternative financing failed, but before the sheriff’s sale, Marks offered to purchase Kenney’s property, pay off Kenney’s mortgage, and sell the home back to Kenney once she obtained new financing. Meanwhile, Kenney and her boyfriend would continue to live in the home and make monthly payments to Marks. Marks recognized the need to terminate the attorney–client relationship before he could enter into a transaction with Kenney. To that end, Marks drafted an agreement, dated April 14, 2006, which stated the following: The undersigned parties acknowledge that Samuel Z. Marks and Marks Law Firm, P.C. provide no further legal representation to Linda Kenney. The undersigned parties 4 acknowledge that any legal representation provided in the past to Linda Kenney by Samuel Z. Marks and Marks Law Firm, P.C. is hereby terminated and there is no further expectation of representation. The undersigned parties acknowledge that Linda Kenney wishes to enter into a real estate transaction with Samuel Z. Marks and Jennifer Marks. The undersigned parties acknowledge that Linda Kenney has the right and should seek independent counsel with respect to any real estate transaction entered into with Samuel Z. Marks and Jennifer Marks. Marks and Kenney signed the agreement. Marks testified that he believed the agreement severed the attorney–client relationship and that he entered into the transaction for the sole purpose of helping Kenney remain in her house. He also testified he never intended to profit from the transaction. On April 26, Marks’ wife took out a purchase money mortgage on the property. Although the mortgage was in his wife’s name, Marks also signed the mortgage as a borrower. On April 28, Kenney executed a warranty deed transferring the property to Marks’ wife. Marks admitted he was involved in the preparation of the deed. Marks and his wife then purchased the property from the bank, satisfying the amount Kenney owed on her mortgage. Kenney testified she did not realize she actually transferred the property to Marks’ wife until after she had done so. Kenney and her boyfriend continued to live in the house and made sporadic payments to Marks. On February 25, 2009, Kenney and Marks’ wife executed a written real estate contract, naming Kenney and her boyfriend as the buyers and Marks’ wife as the seller. Marks prepared this contract. The contract set up a payment plan by which Kenney and her boyfriend would buy the property back from Marks’ wife by making monthly payments. As of December 13, 2010, the date of Marks’ hearing before the commission, Kenney and her boyfriend continued to live in the home. 5 Marks estimated at the hearing that he was between $30,000 and $40,000 behind on his mortgage payments. He also testified he would immediately sign the deed over to Kenney if she obtained financing for the amount of his mortgage. B. Disciplinary Proceedings. Kenney filed a complaint against Marks with the Board on July 16, 2008. Marks received notice of the complaint against him on July 23. The notice informed Marks that Iowa Rule of Professional Conduct 32:8.1(b) required him to provide the Board with a response. It also directed him to Iowa Court Rule 34.7, which governs a respondent’s failure to respond to a complaint. A copy of the complaint was enclosed with the notice. On August 26, Marks received a second notice of complaint from the Board stating that his failure to respond within ten days could result in a temporary suspension of his license to practice law. On September 23, the Board requested that the supreme court issue a notice of possible temporary suspension to Marks. On September 30, the clerk of the supreme court filed a notice of possible temporary suspension for failure to respond. The notice informed Marks that his license would be suspended unless he responded within twenty days of the issuance of the notice. Marks responded on October 21. At no time prior to his response did Marks seek an enlargement of his time to respond to the complaint. The Board filed a complaint alleging Marks violated the Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct by entering into a business transaction with a current client, representing a current client in a transaction materially adverse to the interests of a former client, failing to cooperate with the Board, and engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. The commission found Marks violated rule 32:1.8(a), which 6 prohibits a lawyer from entering into a business transaction with a client absent certain safeguards. It also found Marks violated rule 32:8.1(b) by failing to cooperate with the Board and rule 32:8.4(d) by engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Finally, the commission noted it did not need to determine whether Marks violated rule 32:1.9(a), which prohibits a lawyer from representing a current client in a transaction materially adverse to the interests of a former client absent the informed written consent of the former client, because it found Marks had not severed the attorney–client relationship. The commission then stated it would have found that Marks violated rule 32:1.9(a) if it had determined Marks terminated the attorney–client relationship because Marks represented his wife throughout the real estate deal.