Opinion ID: 1742730
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ethical Violations Occurring During His Suspension

Text: By meeting with O'Rourke at his office in December of 2000 and holding himself out as a lawyer while his license was suspended, D'Angelo violated DR 3-101(B) (stating a lawyer shall not practice law where to do so would be in violation of rules of jurisdiction), DR 7-106(A) (stating a lawyer shall not disregard court order), and Iowa Court Rule 35.12 (providing a suspended lawyer shall refrain from all facets of practice of law). A lawyer who misinforms or fails to inform a client as to his ineligibility to practice is guilty of dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, in violation of DR 1-102(A)(4). See Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Apland, 599 N.W.2d 453, 455 (Iowa 1999). [3] We find a similar violation in the Kemp matter because, three months after his license had been suspended, he sent a bill to Kemp for services which he had not yet performed. Even if D'Angelo had properly informed O'Rourke that his license to practice law was suspended and that somehow Leed would be her new attorney, such a scheme would not be in compliance with our rules of suspension. According to Iowa Court Rule 35.12(3), a suspended lawyer shall refrain from all facets of the ordinary law practice including, but not limited to, the examination of abstracts; consummation of real estate transactions; preparation of legal briefs, deeds, buy and sell agreements, contracts, wills, and tax returns; and acting as a fiduciary. (Emphasis added.) At best, it would appear D'Angelo was using Leed or Leed's name as a false front, hoping to maintain his client base. Some clients may be willing to wait out an attorney's suspension, but any attempt to assign client cases, with a wink and a nod, to another attorney who will sign pertinent documents and keep the law office open during the period of suspension is a violation of the aforementioned rule.
D'Angelo was dilatory in responding to the Board's notices of complaint in the O'Rourke, Kemp, Benson-Blaine, and Knapp matters. Delay in responding to the Board is inexcusable and a violation of DR-102(A)(5), (6) (conduct prejudicial to administration of justice and conduct reflecting adversely on fitness to practice law). See Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Kallsen, 670 N.W.2d 161, 167 (Iowa 2003). Responding to the Client Security Commission, but ignoring complaints from the Board, constitutes a failure to cooperate with the Board.