Court Opinion

ID: 9888183
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 19:02:06.971386+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:49:47.607707
License: Public Domain

WIGGINS, Justice (dissenting).
I dissent. I would revoke Eric Parrish's license to practice law for two reasons. First, he misappropriated money a client gave him for a transcript. See Iowa Supreme Ct. Att'y Disciplinary Bd. v. Powell , 830 N.W.2d 355, 360-64 (Iowa 2013) (Wiggins, J., dissenting). The majority appears to rely on Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Morse , 887 N.W.2d 131 (Iowa 2016), when it determines revocation is not appropriate. Morse , however, is distinguishable. In Morse , the board did not allege theft or misappropriation under rule 32:8.4(b) and (c). See id. at 138 (listing the allegations filed by the board against Morse). Had the board alleged misappropriation, I am not so sure we would have only suspended Morse's license.
Second, and more importantly, his conduct in this and prior matters leads me to conclude he is not fit to practice law. As the majority notes in its opinion, Parrish has a history of prior violations that have led this court to admonish him in ten instances, reprimand him twice, and suspend his license once. Moreover, his prior violations have generally related to improper handling of fees and trust account violations. In this proceeding, he attempted to thwart the disciplinary process and failed to take responsibility for his actions. After seventeen years, one would think that he would understand the ethical responsibilities and duties of a lawyer.
Therefore, based on the seriousness of his present violations, his past violations, and his failure to understand his ethical responsibilities and duties, he is not fit to practice law. See Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Beckman , 674 N.W.2d 129, 139 (Iowa 2004) (revoking an attorney's license to protect the public and the reputation of the bar after finding the attorney not fit to practice law due to the seriousness and repetitive nature of the lawyer's ethical violations).
A revocation would allow him the opportunity to reapply for his license after at least five years under our recently amended Iowa Court Rule 34.25(7)-(9). However, I would not allow his reinstatement without him retaking and passing the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination.