Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. Lemanski, No. 13–1331.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Iowa |
| Writing for the Court | CADY |
| Citation | 841 N.W.2d 131 |
| Decision Date | 20 December 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 13–1331. |
| Parties | IOWA SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD, Complainant, v. David Alan LEMANSKI, Respondent. |
841 N.W.2d 131
IOWA SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD, Complainant,
v.
David Alan LEMANSKI, Respondent.
No. 13–1331.
Supreme Court of Iowa.
Dec. 20, 2013.
[841 N.W.2d 132]
Charles L. Harrington and David J. Grace, Des Moines, for complainant.
David A. Lemanski, Dubuque, pro se.
CADY, Chief Justice.
The Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board charged David A. Lemanski with numerous violations of the Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct based primarily on his lack of diligence in representing a client and his failure to respond to Board inquiries. The Grievance Commission of the Supreme Court of Iowa found Lemanski violated the rules of professional conduct and recommended he be suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months. On our review, we find Lemanski violated the rules of professional conduct and impose a suspension of sixty days.
I. Background Facts.David A. Lemanski was admitted to practice law in Iowa in 1979. He is sixty-two years old and maintains a law office in Dubuque as a sole practitioner. Lemanski has been admonished by the Board on two prior occasions, and his license to practice
[841 N.W.2d 133]
law was briefly suspended on one occasion. He was admonished for neglect of a client matter in 1997 and for lack of diligence in an estate matter in 2007. His license was suspended for thirty days in 2000 for neglect, failure to promptly disburse settlement funds, and failure to respond to Board inquiries.
The circumstances responsible for the charges brought by the Board in this case are strikingly similar to those that resulted in the 2000 suspension. In this case, Lemanski settled a personal injury claim for a client in June 2011. He received the settlement proceeds the following month, but was required to resolve a Medicare subrogation claim before disbursing the settlement proceeds to his client. Lemanski submitted the information requested by the subrogation contractor to resolve the subrogation interest. He used the appropriate form provided to him by the contractor to submit the information. The contractor, however, delayed taking action, and Lemanski subsequently experienced difficulties in contacting the contractor. At the same time, Lemanski admittedly failed to keep his client informed of the process. Eventually, this conduct caused the client to file a complaint with the Board.
In December 2012, after the Board received the complaint, Lemanski resolved the subrogation matter and disbursed the settlement funds. Yet, when the Board contacted Lemanski and requested a response to the complaint, Lemanski failed to respond. After this conduct persisted, the Board filed the complaint that serves as the basis for this action. The Board charged Lemanski with failure to act with diligence in representing a client in violation of rule 32:1.3, failure to communicate with a client in violation of rule 32:1.4, failure to properly deliver funds to a client in violation of rule 32:1.15, and failure to respond to a demand for information from the Board in violation of rule 32:8.1(b). The commission found Lemanski...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. Morse, No. 15–1502.
...have imposed sanctions ranging from a public reprimand to a six-month suspension. Iowa Supreme Ct. Att'y Disciplinary Bd. v. Lemanski, 841 N.W.2d 131, 134 (Iowa 2013) (collecting cases). “[N]eglect compounded with other misconduct generally moves the sanction towards the higher range.” Id.W......
-
Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. Bartley, No. 14–0757.
...Ct. Att'y Disciplinary Bd. v. Carter, 847 N.W.2d 228, 231 (Iowa 2014) (quoting Iowa Supreme Ct. Att'y Disciplinary Bd. v. Lemanski, 841 N.W.2d 131, 133 (Iowa 2013) ); see also Iowa Ct. R. 35.11(1) ( “Upon submission, the supreme court shall proceed to review de novo....”). Attorney miscondu......
-
Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. Dolezal, No. 13–1230.
...in Kennedy. The commission acknowledged that “this case, on its surface, may not appear to the level of seriousness that warranted the [841 N.W.2d 131]suspensions” in cases such as Netti. Yet it recommended revocation of Dolezal's law license based on his “almost immediate violations after ......
-
Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. Silich, No. 15–1227.
...some evidence in the record that other attorneys have experienced problems and delays in dealing with Medicare subrogation contractors.841 N.W.2d 131, 133 (Iowa 2013). By contrast, Silich took over thirty-three months to resolve the Medicare lien. We are not persuaded by his effort to shift......
-
Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. Morse, No. 15–1502.
...have imposed sanctions ranging from a public reprimand to a six-month suspension. Iowa Supreme Ct. Att'y Disciplinary Bd. v. Lemanski, 841 N.W.2d 131, 134 (Iowa 2013) (collecting cases). “[N]eglect compounded with other misconduct generally moves the sanction towards the higher range.” Id.W......
-
Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. Bartley, No. 14–0757.
...Ct. Att'y Disciplinary Bd. v. Carter, 847 N.W.2d 228, 231 (Iowa 2014) (quoting Iowa Supreme Ct. Att'y Disciplinary Bd. v. Lemanski, 841 N.W.2d 131, 133 (Iowa 2013) ); see also Iowa Ct. R. 35.11(1) ( “Upon submission, the supreme court shall proceed to review de novo....”). Attorney miscondu......
-
Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. Dolezal, No. 13–1230.
...in Kennedy. The commission acknowledged that “this case, on its surface, may not appear to the level of seriousness that warranted the [841 N.W.2d 131]suspensions” in cases such as Netti. Yet it recommended revocation of Dolezal's law license based on his “almost immediate violations after ......
-
Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. Silich, No. 15–1227.
...some evidence in the record that other attorneys have experienced problems and delays in dealing with Medicare subrogation contractors.841 N.W.2d 131, 133 (Iowa 2013). By contrast, Silich took over thirty-three months to resolve the Medicare lien. We are not persuaded by his effort to shift......