Opinion ID: 2789648
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Zane Blessum

Text: Meanwhile, the pension administrator for the ex-husband’s plan wrote Blessum on February 3, 2010, signaling its approval of the proposed QDRO. And on February 12, Blessum received a faxed letter from Jane Doe’s ex-husband himself. The letter read, Dear Zane, In regards to our QDRO we agree to the following changes to your draft submitted to [ex-husband’s pension provider] dated December 21, 2009. Item #4: The Alternate Payee’s [(Jane Doe’s)] accounts effective date shall begin as of August 1, 2008. Item # 7 [Line struck through]. Thank you for your attention in this matter. 5 (Signed) [Doe’s ex-husband] [Jane Doe] 2 Both Jane Doe and her ex-husband had signed the letter at the bottom and initialed the line that had been struck through. The fax cover sheet from Doe’s ex-husband contained an additional handwritten note that explained, “We crossed off #7 so the only change will be to the date the money is split. I’m mailing you an original. Any questions please call.” Blessum did not take any additional action on the QDRO at the time. Blessum had no further correspondence with Jane Doe until March 22, 2011. On that day, Doe came to Blessum’s office seeking assistance in preparing her will. During that meeting, Doe and Blessum also discussed finalizing the QDRO. Within the next few weeks, Doe and Blessum began an intimate relationship. Blessum completed Doe’s will on June 28 and the QDRO was filed on August 23. Blessum and Doe’s intimate relationship lasted for some time. By early June 2012, though, they were experiencing problems. Doe was concerned that Blessum had been with another woman at a concert on the evening of June 8. Doe and Blessum discussed Doe’s concerns via text message on June 9 and 10. On June 10, Doe suffered an anxiety attack and was admitted to the emergency room. She was prescribed medication and released the same day. On June 11, Doe came to Blessum’s house to talk about her concerns that he was involved with 2Jane Doe claims her ex-husband forced her to sign this letter. Had the effective date of the division of the retirement account been successfully moved back to August 1, 2008, as provided in the letter, Doe’s ex-husband presumably would have received a financial benefit (and Jane Doe would have suffered a detriment). That is because stock prices dropped significantly between August 1 and the date of their divorce. In any event, this proposed change in effective date was not reflected in the final version of the QDRO. 6 other women. The discussion became heated. Doe was angry Blessum appeared to be fixing a romantic dinner for someone else and she picked up and threw the cooking pan he had been using. During the argument, Doe became quite upset and attempted to take one of the anxiety pills that had been prescribed to her the day before. Before Doe could take the pill, Blessum struck her in the face, causing her to drop the pills. Blessum hit her more than once. Doe grabbed some of the pills that had fallen onto the floor and swallowed them after Blessum struck her. Blessum refused to let Doe leave his house and physically restrained her to prevent her from leaving. Doe managed to call 911 when Blessum left the room to get a glass of water to try to make her throw up the pills. When Blessum returned, Doe hid the phone under a stack of papers. Both of them were unaware the call had gone through and was being monitored and recorded. Blessum continued to assault Doe and restrain her from leaving. He made crude threats to her as she begged to be let go. Meanwhile, the 911 dispatcher sent police to Blessum’s house and continued to monitor the call until they had arrived. When the police knocked on Blessum’s door, Doe cried out for help. Doe suffered lacerations to her mouth, a black eye, a torn piercing, swelling on her eye, cheek, and mouth, and bruises to her arm, abdomen, face, and neck. She was taken away by an ambulance and treated at an emergency room for her injuries. After the assault, Blessum contacted Doe repeatedly to apologize. In a note, he said, “I am sorry for hitting you and terrorizing you.” Doe initially agreed to get back together with Blessum. Blessum also instructed Doe to call the Dallas County courthouse and tell the authorities she did not want to press charges. However, when the two of 7 them broke up for good in August, Doe made further contact with the police and obtained a no-contact order from the court. Blessum was eventually charged in January 2013. He pled guilty to assault causing bodily injury in violation of Iowa Code sections 708.1(1) and 708.2(2), a serious misdemeanor. He was sentenced to one year in jail with all but seven days suspended, ordered to pay a $315 fine and $6,988.68 in restitution, and placed on probation for twelve months. As part of his probation, Blessum was required to complete anger management counseling. Doe lodged two disciplinary complaints with the Board concerning Blessum. The Board investigated and filed its complaint against Blessum in August. The complaint detailed Blessum’s handling of the QDRO and his subsequent relationship with Doe, including the assault charge. It alleged Blessum had violated Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct 32:1.3 (lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence), 32:8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice),3 32:1.8(j) (sexual relations with a client), and 32:8.4(b) (criminal act reflecting on lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness). On April 1, 2014, the Board amended its complaint to add a count relating to the advance fee Doe had paid Blessum to handle the dissolution. The Board alleged Blessum had withdrawn the $1000 fee before it was earned and did not provide Doe with a contemporaneous accounting. The Board asserted this conduct violated Iowa Rule of Professional Conduct 32:1.15(c) (lawyer shall withdraw fees as earned) and several of the rules governing trust accounts, including Iowa Court Rules 45.7(3) (lawyer may withdraw fee only as earned), 45.7(4) (lawyer 3The Board subsequently withdrew its allegation that Blessum’s conduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice. 8 must notify client of withdrawal), 45.10(1) (describing a flat fee), 45.10(2) (advance payment of a flat fee must be deposited into a trust account), and 45.10(3) (lawyer and client can agree on how fees are withdrawn). Blessum filed his answer to the amended complaint on April 10, 2014. He admitted the factual allegations underlying his relationship with Doe and the assault, but denied that they amounted to ethical violations. He admitted that he had improperly withdrawn the fee and that this was a trust account violation. Blessum designated two expert witnesses to testify on his behalf, Timothy G. Pearson and Mark McCormick, both of whom are attorneys in the Des Moines area. In support of his designations, Blessum provided an expert opinion letter from each of them. Pearson’s letter was a little over one typewritten page in length. In it, Pearson stated he had reviewed Blessum’s file on Doe’s dissolution of marriage case and that, in his opinion, Blessum acted diligently in the matter. He noted that it was not unusual for a considerable amount of time to pass in the filing of QDROs, that Doe’s ex-husband was unrepresented and pro se litigants frequently cause delays, and that Doe herself had asked Blessum to stop work on the QDRO. McCormick’s letter was also about a page long. McCormick accurately stated that the caselaw of this court requires a nexus between an attorney’s criminal act and his or her fitness to practice law in order to impose discipline. McCormick offered the opinion that there was no nexus in Blessum’s case because the assault was a one-time occurrence and out of Blessum’s character. His letter concluded, The facts I reviewed do not show any link between the conduct and Mr. Blessum’s ability to carry out his professional responsibilities. 9 As I understand the facts, the Board under the applicable standard could well find no reasonable likelihood of a recurrence of the conduct and that the act received ample redress in the criminal court. The Board moved to exclude both experts, arguing their testimony would be inadmissible since they would be opining on the applicable legal standards in the case. Blessum resisted the Board’s motion. He maintained that Pearson was an expert in family law who could provide enlightenment on the typical handling and processing of QDROs, such as the one involved in Doe’s case. Blessum argued that McCormick, a former Iowa Supreme Court Justice who represents attorneys in proceedings before the disciplinary commission, would be able to offer expert insight into the nexus required between Blessum’s criminal conduct and his fitness to practice law. Blessum disputed that these experts would be offering their opinions on purely legal standards. The commission, however, agreed with the Board and granted its motion to preclude the expert witnesses from testifying. A two-day hearing took place before the grievance commission on April 10 and 11. Both Doe and Blessum testified. Blessum admitted the trust account violation, and admitted he had struck Doe several times on June 11, 2012, but denied that Doe was his client when their sexual relationship began or that he had been guilty of neglect with respect to the QDRO. The commission issued its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended sanction on July 24, 2014. It concluded that Blessum had committed all the ethical violations alleged by the Board. Among other things, the commission determined that Blessum should have continued to work on the QDRO after receiving the fax from his client’s ex-husband and his failure to do so constituted a lack of diligence. With 10 respect to Blessum’s sexual relationship with Doe, the commission found that Blessum was still Doe’s attorney on the QDRO matter when their relationship began. The commission also decided Blessum’s conviction for assault reflected adversely on his fitness as a lawyer. The commission discredited Blessum’s version of the events of June 11, 2012, namely, that he was just trying to defuse the situation and prevent Doe from committing suicide, and that he rather than Doe had called 911. Finally, the commission found Blessum’s handling of the $1000 advance fee constituted a violation of the trust account rules. The commission noted as a mitigating factor that Blessum was in counseling but also found several aggravating factors. Specifically, the commission determined Blessum had minimized his responsibility and tried to shift the blame to Doe throughout the proceedings. The commission also noted Blessum had nearly thirty years of experience as an attorney and had committed multiple infractions against the same client. The commission ultimately recommended an indefinite suspension with no possibility of reinstatement for four years.