Opinion ID: 1815199
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Complaint Concerning Representation of Mumma.

Text: The committee on June 17, 1985 filed a complaint concerning respondent's representation of Tim R. Mumma in a civil action which respondent was hired to defend commencing in March of 1979. The lawsuit concerned a fire loss to property rented by Mumma from the Charles W. Rogg Trust Estate. Division I of the committee's two-part complaint alleged that throughout his handling of that matter respondent knowingly and willfully neglected and failed to diligently carry out his duties as attorney for Mr. Mumma. The complaint further specified that respondent had committed multiple breaches of the professional duties he owed to Mumma: (a) Failure to perform minimum preparation for trial; (b) Failure to advise Mumma of the trial date until just hours before the trial; (c) Failure to perform minimum legal research and apply existing legal principles to the defense; (d) Stipulating to high repair estimates when bona fide lower estimates had been obtained. Those specific allegations were included in a detailed request for admissions which the committee served upon respondent. In spite of the seriousness of the charges, respondent failed to respond to the request, and we therefore deem those allegations admitted by respondent. Blomker, 379 N.W.2d at 21 (Matters in a request for admissions may be relied upon to meet this evidentiary burden if not denied or otherwise objected to by respondent.); Iowa R.Civ.P. 127. At his client's request respondent filed a notice of appeal from the judgment of $120,318.51 entered against Mumma in that court action. The committee's complaint further alleged, however, that respondent did little to prosecute the appeal. The commission found: On January 16, 1981, Respondent paid the docket fee in the appeal; and on that date the appeal was docketed by the Clerk of the Supreme Court. On April 17, 1981, the Clerk of the Supreme Court entered a Notice of Default... for failure to timely prosecute the appeal pursuant to the Rules of Appellate Procedure. On May 5, 1981, the Respondent made application for additional time in connection with the preparation of the Appendix; and, by Supreme Court Order of May 7, 1981 the Respondent was granted until May 21, 1981 in connection with preparation of the Appendix. On June 24, 1981, a Notice of Default was entered by the Clerk of the Supreme Court due to the Respondent's failure to timely prosecute the appeal pursuant to the Rules of Appellate Procedure. On July 13, 1981, the Respondent filed another Application for Additional Time in connection with the preparation of the Appendix; and by Order of July 15, 1981, the Court granted the extension of time to August 3, 1981. On July 22, 1981, a Notice of Default was entered by the Clerk of the Supreme Court for the Respondent's failure to timely file the brief. On August 31, 1981, Respondent filed another Application for Extension of Time in connection with the preparation of the Appendix; and by September 4, 1981 Order of the Supreme Court, an extension was granted to September 9, 1981. On October 21, 1981, another Notice of Default was entered by the Clerk of the Supreme Court for failure to timely prosecute the appeal pursuant to the Rules of Appellate Procedure. A convincing preponderance of the evidence in this record supports each of those findings. The record also discloses that respondent advised Mumma all information pertinent to the appendix, critical to the appeal, had been submitted to the court, when in truth the appeal was in jeopardy because respondent had not done so. With that fabrication alone respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4) of the Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers; that disciplinary rule forbids conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. Ultimately, respondent's inaction prompted Mumma to file a pro se motion to enlarge time. In that motion Mumma advised this court of his need for new counsel because of respondent's inaction. Mumma did employ new counsel, and the underlying action was settled. Mumma thereafter commenced a separate malpractice action against respondent. When respondent failed to appear to defend against the allegation that he had damaged Mumma by negligently mishandling the Rogg Trust Estate civil action, Mumma obtained a default judgment against respondent in the sum of $40,000. We believe the evidence establishes a conscious disregard and indifference to the responsibilities respondent should have shouldered once he undertook to represent his client. Indifference may constitute neglect, and it does here. See Committee on Professional Ethics and Conduct v. Lawler, 342 N.W.2d at 488 (neglect in failure to pursue postconviction proceedings after receiving retainer); McKinney v. Wilson, 300 N.W.2d 87, 89 (Iowa 1981) (per curiam) (neglect in repeated failure to observe deadlines imposed by Iowa rules of appellate procedure). Respondent's conduct violated DR 6-101(A)(3), which prohibits lawyers from neglecting matters entrusted to them. Respondent's conduct violated two other disciplinary rules: DR 1-102(A)(6) (forbidding conduct adversely reflecting on an attorney's fitness to practice law); and DR 1-102(A)(5) (forbidding conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). There can be little doubt that respondent's inept handling of Mumma's case reflects adversely on his fitness to practice law. Respondent failed to perform even minimal preparation and work in connection with the civil trial and subsequent appeal. We have cautioned that a lawyer's obligation to his client requires him to prepare adequately for and give appropriate attention to his legal work. Committee on Professional Ethics and Conduct v. Martin, 375 N.W.2d 235, 237 (Iowa 1985) (quoting Committee on Professional Ethics and Conduct v. Rogers, 313 N.W.2d 535, 536 (Iowa 1981)). Respondent did not heed that caution. Respondent's neglect also had an adverse effect on the administration of justice, depriving his client of a fair trial of the civil action and forcing him to commence a separate malpractice action to recoup what he had lost. Respondent's conduct as Mumma's lawyer fell far short of the professionalism officers of the court owe to persons they represent and the public generally. Respondent made no effort to excuse or justify his failings in attempting to serve as Mumma's lawyer. Respondent's conduct violated not only the disciplinary rules here discussed but also several other rules and ethical considerations: EC 6-1 (requiring competence and proper care in representing clients); EC 6-4 (requiring attorney to prepare adequately for and give appropriate attention to his legal work); DR 6-101(A)(2) (forbidding lawyer from handling a legal matter without adequate preparation); DR 7-101(A)(1) (lawyer shall not intentionally fail to seek lawful objectives of his client); DR 7-101(A)(2) (lawyer shall not intentionally fail to carry out employment contract entered into with client); and DR 7-101(A)(3) (lawyer shall not intentionally prejudice or damage his client during the course of the professional relationship). The committee met its burden to prove by a convincing preponderance of the evidence each of the allegations of division I of its complaint. Division II of the committee's complaint concerning the Mumma litigation alleged that respondent failed to respond or cooperate with the investigations undertaken by the Polk County Bar Association and the Committee on Professional Ethics after Mumma complained about respondent's conduct. We agree with the commission's findings of fact on that second count as well. In Committee on Professional Ethics and Conduct v. Horn, 379 N.W.2d 6, 9 (Iowa 1985), this court recently held that an attorney commits a separate ethical violation by failing to answer the committee's request for a reply to its disciplinary complaint. We there noted that [w]hile an attorney need not incriminate himself, he has an obligation to respond to the committee's request even if it is only to announce that he is exercising his fifth amendment rights. Id. We explained: The process of investigating complaints depends to a great extent upon an individual attorney's cooperation. Without that cooperation, the Bar Association is deprived of information necessary to determine whether the lawyer should continue to be certified to the public as fit. Obviously, unless attorneys cooperate in the process, the system fails and public confidence in the legal profession is undermined. If the members of our profession do not take the process of internal discipline seriously, we cannot expect the public to do so and the very basis of our professionalism erodes. Accordingly, an attorney who disregards his professional duty to cooperate with the Bar Association must be subject to severe sanctions. Id. (quoting In re Clark, 99 Wash.2d 702, 663 P.2d 1339, 1341-42 (1983)). Accord, Committee on Professional Ethics and Conduct v. Stienstra, 390 N.W.2d 135, 137 (Iowa 1986); Committee on Professional Ethics and Conduct v. Bromwell, 389 N.W.2d 854, 857 (Iowa 1986). Mumma filed his complaint with the grievance committee of the Polk County Bar Association on May 17, 1983. Attorney James Krambeck was appointed by the committee to investigate the matter. The commission made the following findings concerning the committee's allegation that respondent failed to respond or cooperate during the investigation: On May 26, 1983, Henry A. Harmon, Chairman of the Polk County Grievance Committee, appointed Des Moines attorney James L. Krambeck to investigate the complaint and wrote a letter to the Respondent requesting that he respond to the Complaint by Mr. Mumma. On June 24, 1983, investigator Krambeck wrote a letter to the Respondent again asking for his response to the Complaint. Again on July 29, 1983, investigator Krambeck wrote a letter to Jackson asking for a response to the Complaint. On September 21, 1983, investigator Krambeck wrote letters to Mumma and the Respondent indicating that the Complaint had been dismissed because the grounds for the Complaint were the same as those alleged in the successful legal malpractice action. On April 18, 1984, Mumma sought and obtained reinstatement of his Complaint with the Polk County Bar Association Grievance Committee. On May 10, 1984, investigator Krambeck wrote another letter asking the Respondent to serve a response to the Complaint. During the month of May, 1984, investigator Krambeck made a number of telephone calls to the Respondent's office in an effort to make contact and obtain a response to the Complaint. Throughout the relevant period of time, the Respondent failed to answer the inquiries by investigator Krambeck and the Polk County Grievance Committee and offered no response to the Complaint. On June 1, 1984, Henry A. Harmon, Chairman of the Grievance Committee of the Polk County Bar Association, forwarded this matter to the attention of the Complainant herein. The Respondent was provided notice of the Complaint pursuant to the provisions of Rules 3.2 and 3.3 of the Rules of Procedure of the Professional Ethics and Conduct Committee of The Iowa State Bar Association by registered certified letter of December 17, 1984, received in the Respondent's office on December 18, 1984. A second notice pursuant to the provisions of Rules 3.2 and 3.3 of the Rules of Procedure of the Professional Ethics and Conduct Committee of The Iowa State Bar Association was mailed by registered certified letter to the Respondent on January 18, 1985, and received in the Respondent's office on January 21, 1985; and, the second notice expressly advised the Respondent that a complaint may be filed with the Grievance Commission for failure to respond. The letters referred to in the commission's findings, together with testimony of attorney Krambeck and ethics administrator Hedo Zacherle, forcefully established that respondent failed to cooperate and provide information to the persons investigating the Mumma complaint. Respondent does not contend otherwise. He admitted that he received all communications from the Polk County Bar Association and the committee. He further testified that he was aware of the serious ramifications of failing to respond to the letters. Respondent testified that he did not respond to those investigating the matter because it was his continuing understanding that Mumma had changed his mind and decided not to pursue his charges filed in writing with the committee. The record demonstrated that Mumma was continuing to visit socially with respondent and would be a reluctant witness at best. Mumma was not present and did not testify at the hearing. These circumstances, however, do not excuse respondent's failure to respond and cooperate in the investigation of his conduct. A disciplinary proceeding is a special procedure through which the court investigates the conduct of its officers. Committee on Professional Ethics and Conduct v. Bromwell, 389 N.W.2d at 857; Committee on Professional Ethics and Conduct v. Kraschel, 260 Iowa 187, 193, 148 N.W.2d 621, 625 (1967). The court, and the persons and agencies acting on the court's behalf, may and should inquire further into serious charges concerning an attorney's fitness to practice law even after the person who complained has ceased pressing those charges. See 7A C.J.S. Attorney & Client § 95 at 40 (1980). The commission correctly concluded that respondent, by refusing to cooperate with the persons investigating Mumma's charges, violated several provisions of the Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers: EC 1-4 (lawyer should assist those having responsibility for administration of disciplinary rules); DR 1-102(A)(5) (shall not engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice); DR 1-102(A)(6) (shall not engage in other conduct that adversely reflects on fitness to practice law). The committee proved the allegations of divisions I and II of its complaint on the Mumma matter by a convincing preponderance of the evidence. Respondent neglected the responsibilities he owed his client and then entirely failed to cooperate with persons conducting duly authorized investigations of his conduct.