Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. Fields

• Decision Date: 19 November 2010
• Docket Number: No. 09-1111.,09-1111.
• Citation: 790 N.W.2d 791
• Parties: IOWA SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD, Complainant, v. Jeffrey FIELDS, Respondent.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

790 N.W.2d 791

IOWA SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD, Complainant,

v.Jeffrey FIELDS, Respondent.

No. 09-1111.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Nov. 19, 2010.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.

Charles L. Harrington and David J. Grace, Des Moines, for complainant.

Jeffrey Fields, Iowa City, pro se.

STREIT, Justice.

This matter comes before the court on the report of a division of the Grievance Commission of the Supreme Court of Iowa. See Iowa Ct. R. 35.10. The Iowa Supreme Court Disciplinary Board alleged the respondent, Jeffrey Fields, violated ethical rules by neglecting two client matters and by failing to file his income tax returns for the years 2002 through 2004. On the latter matter, he was prosecuted by the State of Iowa and convicted of two counts of fraudulent practice in the second degree (class “D” felonies) for which he received deferred judgments and three years probation.

The grievance commission found Fields violated the Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers and the Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct ¹ and recommended the respondent's law license be revoked. Upon our respectful consideration of the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation of the commission, we find the respondent committed several ethical violations and suspend his license to practice law indefinitely with no possibility of reinstatement for eighteen months.

I. Standard of Review.

Our review of attorney disciplinary proceedings is de novo. Iowa Supreme Ct. Att'y Disciplinary Bd. v. Casey, 761 N.W.2d 53, 55 (Iowa 2009). We give respectful consideration to the findings and recommendations of the commission, but we are not bound by them. Id. The burden is on the board to prove attorney misconduct by a convincing preponderance of the evidence. Iowa Supreme Ct. Att'y Disciplinary Bd. v. Conrad, 723 N.W.2d 791, 792 (Iowa 2006). “This burden is less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but more than the preponderance standard required in the usual civil case.” Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Lett, 674 N.W.2d 139, 142 (Iowa 2004). Upon proof of misconduct, we may impose a lesser or greater sanction than that recommended by the commission. Conrad, 723 N.W.2d at 792.

II. Background Facts and Proceedings.

Jeffrey Fields has been practicing law in Iowa since 1997. Except for a very short period of time, the respondent has been a sole practitioner, practicing primarily in the area of criminal defense. Three separate matters comprise the current disciplinary action. We will consider each charge separately.

A. Townsend Civil Rights Claim. In August 2003, Fields agreed to represent Orville and Billie Townsend in a civil rights claim. In 2005, an action was filed in state court against Johnson County, the City of Iowa City, and individual defendants. The defendants subsequently removed the claim to federal court. Fields, who was not admitted to practice in federal court, advised the federal district court that he would associate with an admitted attorney on the case and that he would seek admission himself. Fields failed to do either. Fields also made representations to his clients that he did not keep. After numerous delays, the case was dismissed due to Fields continued failure to respond to discovery requests and his failure to file a resistance to the defendants' motions for summary judgment. At the time of the dismissal, the federal district court's order encouraged the federal magistrate to enter sanctions against Fields for his failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the local rules, and the court's orders. In addition, the court forwarded a copy of its order dismissing the civil rights action to the disciplinary board.

B. Ferguson Estate. From 2004 to 2007, Fields was the attorney for the executor of the John H. Ferguson, Jr. estate. On June 1, 2006, a notice of delinquency for failure to file an interlocutory report was issued to Fields. When Fields failed to rectify the delinquency, the board sent a letter of inquiry. After a second inquiry from the board, Fields responded that he would file a response on or before January 5, 2007. When he failed to respond by the self-imposed deadline, the board initiated a notice of complaint against the respondent on January 9, 2007. The estate was subsequently closed in March 2007, three years after it was opened.

C. Failure to File Income Tax Returns. On April 25, 2008, Fields was charged with three counts of fraudulent practice in the second degree as a result of his failure to file state income tax returns for tax years 2002, 2003 and 2004. See Iowa Code §§ 422.25(5), 714.8(10), 714.10 (2003). ² On September 26, 2008, Fields pleaded guilty to two counts of fraudulent practice in the second degree. Judgment on each count was deferred for three years, and Fields was placed on probation with the department of corrections until September 26, 2011. He was also ordered to pay civil penalties and to make full restitution of taxes, penalties, and interest to the State of Iowa for the tax liability incurred for the tax years covered in the trial information. The state agreed not to file any additional tax-related criminal charges against Fields for tax years 1997 through 2007, provided all returns for those years were filed within thirty days of the date of sentencing.

D. Board Complaint. On November 21, 2008, the disciplinary board filed a complaint against Fields. ³ The board alleged Fields' neglect and misrepresentations in the Townsend civil rights claim violated the Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-102(A)(1) (prohibiting conduct that violates a disciplinary rule), DR 1-102(A)(4) (prohibiting conduct involving misrepresentation), DR 1-102(A)(5) (prohibiting conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), DR 1-102(A)(6) (prohibiting conduct that adversely reflects on the fitness to practice law), and DR 6-101(A)(3) (prohibiting neglect of a client matter), as well as the Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct 32:1.1 (requiring a lawyer to provide competent representation to a client), 32:1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness), 32:1.4 (requiring a lawyer to keep his client reasonably informed), 32:8.4(a) (providing it is misconduct to violate a disciplinary rule), 32:8.4(c) (providing it is misconduct to engage in conduct involving misrepresentation), and 32:8.4(d) (providing it is misconduct to engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).

The board alleged Fields' conduct in his representation of the executor in the Ferguson estate constituted neglect and incompetence. Combined with his failure to cooperate with the investigation, the board alleged the respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(1), (5), and (6) and DR 6-101(A)(3) of the Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers and rules 32:1.1, 32:1.3, 32:8.4(a) and (d) of the Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct.

The board alleged Fields' failure to file his state income tax returns for the years 2002 through 2004 and his subsequent guilty plea to two counts of fraudulent practice in the second degree supported a finding Fields violated DR 1-102(A)(3) (prohibiting conduct involving moral turpitude), as well as DR 1-102(A)(4), (5), and (6).

E. Disciplinary Hearing and Commission Recommendation. On May 1, 2009, a hearing on this matter came before a division of the commission. Due to his failure to respond to the board's inquiries, the allegations against Fields were deemed admitted, and the hearing was limited to the issue of the appropriate sanction.

At the hearing, Fields did testify on his own behalf. In his testimony, Fields did not deny the allegations brought against him. He admitted he neglected his clients and failed to file his state income returns for the years alleged. He also admitted he had still not filed the delinquent returns, although it was a condition of his probation.

Fields testified to the circumstances surrounding the time upon which the allegations are based. According to Fields, during this period of time, he would often go to work but be unable to complete the tasks at hand. Although he knew how to complete tax returns and had completed many client returns in the past, Fields found himself putting off his own tax returns until completing them became a huge task that he was unable to address. He experienced severe financial problems and had difficulty keeping his office open. Until recently, Fields testified, he did not understand why this was occurring.

In March 2009, at the recommendation of his probation officer, Fields sought medical treatment. He has since been diagnosed as suffering from several mental health conditions, including manic/depressive bipolar disorder for which he is currently receiving treatment including medication. He was also diagnosed with attention deficit disorder. Fields acknowledged that, in his current condition, he is unable to practice law. He admitted he needs to make behavioral changes, and even then, he might never be able to function as a sole practitioner again.

Fields requested the commission not revoke his license, but instead suspend it so that he might have the opportunity in the future, should he establish his medical competency, to practice law again. The commission, however, recommended the Fields' license to practice law be revoked.

III. Ethical Violations.

The commission found, and we agree, that in his representation of the Townsends and the Ferguson estate, the respondent neglected his clients' matters in violation of DR 6-101(A)(3) and rule 32:1.3. See Iowa Supreme Ct. Att'y Disciplinary Bd. v. Wagner, 768 N.W.2d 279, 283 (Iowa 2009) (dilatory handling of estate violated Iowa Court Rule 32:1.3); Casey, 761 N.W.2d at 59 (neglect of probate matters violated DR 6-101(A)(3)). We also agree that the undisputed allegations support a finding Fields made misrepresentations to the Townsends and to the court in violation of DR 1-...