Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. Thomas, No. 10–0325.

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
• Writing for the Court: CADY, Chief Justice.
• Citation: 794 N.W.2d 290
• Decision Date: 18 February 2011
• Docket Number: No. 10–0325.
• Parties: IOWA SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD, Appellee,v.Bruce G. THOMAS, Appellant.

794 N.W.2d 290

IOWA SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD, Appellee,
v.
Bruce G. THOMAS, Appellant.

No. 10–0325.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Feb. 18, 2011.

[794 N.W.2d 291]

Alan E. Fredregill of Heidman Law Firm, Sioux City, for appellant.Charles L. Harrington and David J. Grace, Des Moines, for appellee.CADY, Chief Justice.

The Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board charged Bruce G. Thomas with numerous violations of the Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers resulting from his representation of two clients in a civil matter. The Grievance Commission of the Supreme Court of Iowa found Thomas violated the code of professional responsibility. It recommended Thomas be suspended from the practice of law for a period of not less than six months. Upon our review, we find Thomas violated the code of professional responsibility and suspend his license to practice law for a period of sixty days.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

Bruce G. Thomas is an Iowa lawyer. He was admitted to practice in Iowa in 1976 after he graduated from the University

[794 N.W.2d 292]

of Iowa. He has engaged in the practice of law as a general practitioner in Sioux City, Iowa, for most of his career, after working as an assistant Woodbury County Attorney.

The board initiated a disciplinary action against Thomas for his conduct in representing Richard and Hydee Case in their personal injury claim arising from an automobile accident in December 2005. The complaint was submitted to the grievance commission upon stipulated facts. Thomas met with the Cases about their claim in March 2006 and timely filed a petition in district court in December 2007. Thomas, however, failed to serve the defendant with notice until April 15, 2008—approximately twenty-eight days after the deadline. Consequently, the district court dismissed the Cases' lawsuit for the procedural infirmity on June 2, 2008. Thomas did not inform the Cases of the dismissal until November 2008. He did not communicate with his clients about the dismissal until November because he was embarrassed by his conduct. Thomas attempted to delay telling the Cases about the dismissal by avoiding their telephone calls. He sent them a letter in September 2008 assuring them that he would “get to the bottom of the matter.”

Thomas defended his failure to accomplish timely service by confessing he had been distracted by the poor health of his elderly mother. As a result of the dismissal, the Cases lost the right to pursue a direct claim for their injuries against the defendant. Thomas suggested they pursue a malpractice action against him to hold him accountable for his mistake. In June 2009, the Cases filed a claim against Thomas with his insurance carrier. Thomas did not dispute that the lawsuit was dismissed as a result of his inaction.

The board charged Thomas with several violations of the code of professional responsibility. The violations broadly pertained to neglect and failure to adequately communicate. Specifically, the board alleged violation of rules 32:1.1 (requiring lawyer to provide competent representation); 32:1.3 (requiring lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client); 32:1.4 (requiring a lawyer to keep client informed); 32:3.2 (requiring lawyer to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation); 32:7.1(a) (finding it misconduct for a lawyer to engage in false or misleading communication related to lawyer services); and 32:8.4(a) (finding it misconduct to violate a disciplinary rule), (c) (finding it misconduct to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and (d) (finding it misconduct to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice). The parties stipulated that Thomas violated rules 32:1.1, 32:1.3, 32:1.4, 32:3.2, 32:7.1(a), and 32:8.4(a) and (d). The parties' stipulation also identified aggravating factors and mitigating factors. The mitigating factors included Thomas's cooperation with the board in the current action, his efforts to establish office procedures to ensure the same violations will not persist in the future, and his pro bono and other active service to the community. The aggravating factors listed in the stipulation included Thomas's substantial experience in the practice of law and his history of discipline and admonitions. The parties stipulated that Thomas should be subject to a sixty-day license suspension.

Pursuant to the parties' motion to waive hearing, the complaint was submitted to the commission upon the stipulated facts, ethical violations, mitigating and aggravating circumstances, and recommended sanctions. On February 22, 2010, the commission filed its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations. It adopted the parties' stipulation of facts,

[794 N.W.2d 293]

including the parties' exhibits. It also adopted the parties' stipulation that Thomas violated rules 32:1.1, 32:1.3, 32:1.4, 32:3.2, 32:7.1(a), and 32:8.4(d).

The commission also found that Thomas violated rule 32:8.4(c) when he told the Cases in September 2008 that he would “get to the bottom” of the dismissal when he knew the case had been dismissed in June 2008. It found this conduct constituted “outright deceit” and was an aggravating circumstance because it represented “an undesirable expansion of historically problematic conduct.” It recommended a six-month suspension from the practice of law. It also recommended that, as a condition to reinstatement, Thomas be required to demonstrate he had adopted office practices and policies consistent with preventing further neglect of deadlines and assuring more prompt and direct client communication.

II. Standard of Review.

Our review of attorney disciplinary proceedings is de novo.¹ Iowa Ct. R. 35.10(1). We give the...