Opinion ID: 2037073
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Ethical Violations at Issue.

Text: Probate fees and costs. Iowa law prohibits an attorney from accepting fees for probate work prior to obtaining a court order authorizing such fees. See Iowa Code §§ 633.197, .198 (1997) (authorizing payment of reasonable fees as may be determined by the court). Iowa Rule of Probate Procedure 2(d) permits payment of one-half of the authorized fees when federal and Iowa estate tax returns are prepared or an inheritance tax clearance is filed, with the remainder payable upon filing of the final report and payment of costs. We have repeatedly held that taking unauthorized fees and taking fees in advance of earning them is illegal and violates DR 2-106(A). Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Fleming, 602 N.W.2d 340, 342 (Iowa 1999); Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Smith, 569 N.W.2d 499, 500 (Iowa 1997). Moreover, all client funds (including costs) paid to an attorney must be deposited into an interest-bearing trust account, rather than the firm's operating account, until they are earned. Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Herrera, 560 N.W.2d 592, 594 (Iowa 1997). Failure to do so violates DR 9-102(A). Id. D'Angelo admitted, both through his failure to deny the Board's request for admissions as well as by his testimony before the Commission, that he accepted fees prior to court authorization in the Ford, Green, Smith and Mohn estates. He also admitted that he took fees in advance of earning them when he deposited executors' checks in his operating account immediately upon receiving them. He failed to deposit checks advanced for costs into an interest-bearing trust account. D'Angelo's violations of DR 2-106(A) and DR 9-102(A) are clearly established by this record. Neglect and dishonesty concerning client matters. Abundant evidence in the record establishes that D'Angelo negligently handled the estates for which he was the attorney. He failed to timely file the estate tax return in the Ford estate and repeatedly failed to furnish the IRS information necessary to conclude its audit. His inaction prompted the co-executors to seek alternate counsel to close the estate. D'Angelo's general neglect and lack of communication with the co-executors is also demonstrated in the Calmer Estate. His inaction led to repeated delinquency notices and failure to file the probate inventory and other required reports. He advised a co-executor that these matters were concluded when, in fact, the estate remained open and D'Angelo sought court approval of his fees without notice to the executor. These events plainly establish that D'Angelo engaged in a pattern of neglect and dishonesty in dealing with his clients in violation of DR 6-101(A)(3) and DR 1-102(A)(4). Disregarding a court order. Judge Gordon Abel ordered D'Angelo to pay the Ford Estate's new attorney, Frank Pechacek, $4043.87 out of the $8590 paid to D'Angelo by the co-executors. Although the order directed that reimbursement be made within fifteen days, D'Angelo did not satisfy his obligation for a monthfrom a check drawn on his operating account rather than his trust account. Some months later, Judge Abel ordered D'Angelo to reimburse the Green Estate $5647 plus interest for fees prematurely taken and $1075 for court costs advanced but never paid to the clerk of court. Although the order called for payment within ten days, payment was made only upon threat of contempt some two months later. Plainly D'Angelo violated DR 7-106(A) when he disregarded these court orders. Fitness to practice law/moral turpitude. The Board's remaining allegations concern DR 1-102(3), (5), and (6), relating to illegal conduct involving moral turpitude, conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, and conduct reflecting adversely on a lawyer's fitness to practice law. Addressing the latter disciplinary rules first, it is apparent from this record that D'Angelo habitually disregards statutes and court rules designed to protect the public interest. His tendency to procrastinate has resulted in losses to his clients of both time and expense. His utter disregard for rules pertaining to the disciplinary process shows disrespect for his professional colleagues and the administration of justice in this state, in violation of DR 1-102(5) and (6). Turning to DR 1-102(3), the record plainly reveals conduct by D'Angelo contrary to statutes. The question remains whether his illegal conduct involves moral turpitude. The Commission found that it did not. We are inclined to agree. We have said that moral turpitude in the context of lawyer discipline connotes behavior involving `fraudulent or dishonest intent.' Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Romeo, 554 N.W.2d 552, 554 (Iowa 1996) (citation omitted). It is plainly established when certain violations of the criminal law occur. See, e.g., Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Lyzenga, 619 N.W.2d 327, 330 (Iowa 2000) (lawyer's conviction for prostitution involves moral turpitude.) Here the record reveals more inattention and disregard for probate statutes and the best interest of his clients than intentionally dishonest behavior. Although D'Angelo's conduct may not involve moral turpitude, his ethical lapses are serious and subject him to strict sanctions, a matter to which we now turn.