Opinion ID: 2924333
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Other Violations.

Text: 1. Rule 32:1.5 (Fees). The Board alleged Santiago charged Moreno an unreasonable fee for the work he performed. “A lawyer shall not make an agreement for, charge, or collect an unreasonable fee or an unreasonable amount for expenses . . . .” Iowa R. Prof’l Conduct 32:1.5(a). Cole’s letter to the Board disputed both the amount of time Santiago spent performing specific tasks on Moreno’s behalf and the scope of Santiago’s representation. However, Santiago testified he had performed substantial work in preparing Moreno’s case and performed the work he did with Moreno’s landlord, employer, and military contacts at Moreno’s request. The commission found the Board failed to meet its burden to show Santiago charged an unreasonable fee. The commission necessarily found Santiago’s testimony credible as to his time charges. We give deference to the commission’s credibility determinations because the commissioners hear live testimony and personally observe the demeanor of the respondent and the witnesses. Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Clarity, 838 N.W.2d 648, 659 (Iowa 2013). Further, the hourly rate Santiago charged Moreno is reasonable given Santiago’s experience in handling criminal matters. On our de novo review, we decline to find Santiago charged Moreno an unreasonable fee. However, Moreno’s confusion about Santiago’s hourly rate helps establish that Santiago violated rule 32:1.5(b), which provides: 16 (b) The scope of the representation and the basis or rate of the fee and expenses for which the client will be responsible shall be communicated to the client, preferably in writing, before or within a reasonable time after commencing the representation, except when the lawyer will charge a regularly represented client on the same basis or rate. Any changes in the basis or rate of the fee or expenses shall also be communicated to the client. Iowa R. Prof’l Conduct 32:1.5(b). Santiago admitted he had no written fee agreement with Moreno and that he does not use written fee agreements for the majority of his criminal defense work, saying, “This has not been a problem.” Although rule 32:1.5(b) stops short of requiring a written fee agreement, the rule plainly requires that an attorney communicate to a client the scope of the representation and basis or rate of the fee. Cole testified she understood Santiago never discussed his hourly rate with Moreno. Santiago, present for Cole’s testimony, offered no rebuttal on that point. If he had in fact orally informed Moreno of his hourly rate, we would expect him to so testify. He did not. A written fee agreement would have avoided the dispute that arose over Santiago’s hourly rate. The commission found Santiago violated rule 32:1.5. We agree that Santiago failed to communicate in a timely fashion his hourly rate to Moreno and therefore violated rule 32:1.5(b). 2. Rule 32:8.4 (Dishonesty). Finally, the Board charged Santiago with violating rule 32:8.4(c), which prohibits a lawyer from “engag[ing] in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.” Id. r. 32:8.4(c). The Board argued that Santiago was motivated to exaggerate his time spent on Moreno’s representation because he had never deposited the funds and needed the money. Santiago, while generally admitting his trust account violations, consistently denied he overcharged Moreno and insisted that he fully earned the retainer Moreno paid him. Both auditors testified Santiago was forthright and 17 honest in his communications with them. The commission found that Santiago did not engage in dishonesty in his billing practices. Again, we defer to the commission’s assessment of Santiago’s credibility. Clarity, 838 N.W.2d at 659. We find the Board failed to prove by a convincing preponderance of the evidence that Santiago violated rule 32:8.4(c).