Opinion ID: 1878179
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to close the estate.

Text: Bromwell argues there is no evidence his failure to close the estate amounted to knowing and willful neglect, as required under DR6-101(A)(3). [1] He contends that failure to file timely probate documents, respond to notices, or comply with court orders in a single estate does not offend the disciplinary rule. He also argues that, despite his failure to make any filings after the inventory, he was helping to administer the estate. In Committee on Professional Ethics and Conduct v. Rogers, 313 N.W.2d 535, 536 (Iowa 1981), we said a violation of DR6-101(A)(3) generally involves indifference and consistent failure to carry out the obligations which the lawyer has assumed to his client or a conscious disregard for the responsibility owed to the client. [  ] Neglect usually involves more than a single act or omission. Neglect cannot be found if the acts or omissions complained of were inadvertent or the result of an error of judgment made in good faith. ( Quoting ABA Committee on Professional Ethics, Informal Opinion No. 1273 (1973)). Rogers did not preclude a finding of neglect for a single act or omission. In any event, Bromwell's repeated failure to respond to the delinquency notices, and his violation of two probate statutes [2] and three court orders constituted more than a single act or omission. Moreover, they can hardly be described as inadvertent or error[s] of judgment. Furthermore, DR6-101(A)(3) states that an attorney should not neglect  a legal matter entrusted to him. (Emphasis added.) We conclude the evidence amply supports the commission's finding that Bromwell violated DR6-101(A)(3) and EC6-4.