Opinion ID: 2046301
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Olson Complaint

Text: The Board accused Stefani of neglecting a client's legal matter and lying to the client about the status of the case. The violations cited were DR 1-102(A)(4) (misrepresentation) and DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglect). See Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Jones, 606 N.W.2d 5, 8 (Iowa 2000); Committee on Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Gill, 479 N.W.2d 303, 305 (Iowa 1991). Pamela K. Olson filed her complaint stating that Stefani had failed to carry out his professional responsibilities in processing her lawsuit through an appeal to the United States Supreme Court. Stefani had represented her in her suit against her former employer, the Dubuque Community School District, under the Americans with Disabilities Act. She had exhausted her administrative remedies with no success and had been refused representation by three other attorneys. Stefani took her case on a contingency basis and never received any fee. The case was filed in federal court. Summary judgment for the defendant was granted; the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. During the period prior to filing the Eighth Circuit brief, Stefani was residing in a halfway house as a result of cocaine addiction. A colleague in Stefani's law firm drafted and filed the brief. After the decision by the circuit court, Olson communicated with Stefani about the further appeal. The commission noted that Olson was very knowledgeable and articulate about the case and was intensely interested in the progress of her legal claim. When Stefani met with Olson, he indicated that he did not want to pursue the claim, and did not have enough experience or resources to do so. However, he was somewhat ambivalent about it and did not send her a letter of disengagement. Olson had requested that Stefani file for extensions of time so that Olson could find funding and other representation. No applications for extension of time were ever filed and the time for appeal expired about the time Stefani told her he would not prepare a petition for writ of certiorari. During this period, Olson became aware that Stefani was personally charged with criminal offenses. The commission found, and we agree, that there was considerable uncertainty as to whether Stefani had agreed to further representation. During a July 15, 1998 phone conference Stefani told Olson he did not want to pursue the case to the United States Supreme Court. She also learned that an appointment on July 18, 1998 had been canceled by Stefani's secretary. Olson remained steadfast in her desire to further pursue the litigation even though Stefani and another attorney in his law firm communicated a lack of interest in litigating and funding a doubtful claim to the United States Supreme Court. Olson, however, was not receptive to the response from her attorneys. We agree with the commission that Stefani and Olson were jointly responsible for the miscommunication and misunderstanding as to the specific time of the termination of Stefani's legal representation. Under these circumstances, we find, as did the commission, that the Board did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Stefani neglected Olson's claim.