Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. Taylor

• Decision Date: 18 May 2012
• Docket Number: No. 12–0228.,12–0228.
• Parties: IOWA SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD, Complainant, v. Karen A. TAYLOR, Respondent.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

814 N.W.2d 259

IOWA SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD, Complainant,

v.Karen A. TAYLOR, Respondent.

No. 12–0228.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

May 18, 2012.

Charles L. Harrington and N. Tré Critelli, Des Moines, for complainant.

Karen A. Taylor, Des Moines, pro se.

APPEL, Justice.

This matter comes before us on the report of a division of the Grievance Commission of the Supreme Court of Iowa (commission). SeeIowa Ct. R. 35.10. The Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board (Board) alleges the respondent, attorney Karen Taylor, engaged in multiple instances of misconduct in violation of several rules of professional conduct. The commission recommends a public reprimand. Upon our de novo review, we agree with the recommendation of the commission.

I. Procedural and Factual Background.

A. Introduction. In September 2011, the Board filed a complaint against Taylor. The Board alleges that Taylor violated several rules of professional conduct in her representation of Sharilyn Norin and Derrick Coleman in appeals of family law matters.¹

In Count I, the Board alleges Taylor represented Norin in a child in need of assistance (CINA) proceeding. In that proceeding, Norin sought to challenge the placement of Norin's nephew outside the family. The Board alleges that Taylor failed to file a timely appeal to an adverse ruling, causing dismissal of the appeal. The Board further asserts that Taylor failed to advise her client of the dismissal in a timely fashion and misled the client regarding the reason for the dismissal. The Board alleges that Taylor's conduct violated rule 32:1.3 (neglect), rule 32:1.4(a)(3) (failing to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter), rule 32:1.4(a)(4) (failing to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information), rule 32:8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving misrepresentation), and rule 32:8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).

In Count II, the Board alleges that Taylor represented Coleman in a modification proceeding where Coleman sought to alter a child custody arrangement. The Board alleges that Taylor failed to properly prosecute the appeal after an adverse ruling, causing dismissal of the appeal. The Board further asserts that Taylor failed to inform the client of the true basis of the dismissal. Based on these allegations, the Board asserts that Taylor violated rule 32:1.3, rule 32:8.4(c), and rule 32:8.4(d).

The commission held a brief hearing. The Board offered into evidence exhibits and called Taylor to testify. The facts were largely undisputed. Following the hearing, the commission concluded that Taylor had violated rules of professional conduct during her representation of Norin and Coleman and recommended that Taylor receive a public reprimand.

B. Facts Established at the Hearing.

1. Norin matter. Norin retained Taylor in August 2008 for the purpose of filing a motion to intervene in a CINA matter. Norin sought to contest the placement of her nephew with a nonfamily member. The district court denied Norin's request for a change of placement on November 10. Because the matter related to CINA issues, Taylor had fifteen days after the entry of the ruling to file a notice of appeal. SeeIowa R.App. P. 6.101.

Taylor filed a notice of appeal on December 10, thirty days after the entry of the ruling. Taylor stated the belated filing was due to her mistaken belief that she had thirty days to file the notice of appeal. Taylor stated that she was aware that the fifteen-day deadline applied to appeals involving the termination of parental rights. Taylor explained, however, that she did not realize matters involving child placement were also subject to the fifteen-day deadline, instead of the thirty-day deadline.

On December 24, the guardian ad litem of Norin's nephew filed a motion to dismiss based upon Taylor's failure to file a timely notice of appeal. Taylor did not resist the motion, and on January 29, 2009, this court dismissed the appeal.

The Board further asserts that Taylor engaged in neglect by not seeking an extension of time to file her brief under Iowa Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.101(5), which allows a motion for an extension of time to be filed within sixty days of the original deadline when the clerk of the district court has failed to notify a prospective appellant of the filing of the order or judgment. According to the Board's calculation, Taylor could have filed such a motion by January 24, 2009. In her answer to the Board's charges, Taylor denied that she was aware that such an extension could be obtained. At the hearing, Taylor testified she “could have still filed a Notice of Appeal on time” because she received the order on November 25, within fifteen days of the filing of the order. Taylor stated she did not file the notice of appeal on the 25th because she believed she had until December 10 to do so. Thus, according to Taylor, “the delay for getting a Notice of Appeal filed was irrespective of whether or not I got the order on time, but because of my mistake.”

Taylor did not immediately inform Norin of the dismissal. On February 10, 2009, Norin sent an e-mail to Taylor requesting a copy of the appellate brief. On March 19, Norin sent another e-mail expressing her dissatisfaction with Taylor's efforts to communicate the status of the matter. Taylor responded to the March 19 e-mail on the same day. Taylor's reply, however, did not tell Norin of the dismissal or of Taylor's error. Instead, Taylor said she would send to Norin the appellate brief, as requested. Norin responded the next day and stated she received the appellate brief, but wished to know when the brief was filed.

Taylor testified that she first informed Norin of the dismissal in a letter dated March 23. The letter was offered into evidence at the hearing. The March 23 letter told Norin the appeal had been dismissed and that Taylor incorrectly calculated the time for filing the appeal. Taylor acknowledged the “error,” though she stated that “by the time that we received a copy of the Order we were already outside of the time frame for the filing of the appeal.”

Norin sent Taylor another e-mail on March 26, which suggested Norin had not received Taylor's March 23 letter. Norin's e-mail requested the date Taylor filed the brief and information regarding whether the other side had submitted its response to Taylor's brief. Norin again e-mailed Taylor on June 9, stating, “We have been trying to patiently wait for news regarding our appeal on behalf of our nephew.... The appeal was filed around Thanksgiving. Has a decision been made? Has any information come to you?” On June 11, Joan Ryan, a family member of Norin, sent Taylor another e-mail. The e-mail expressed Ryan's disappointment in Taylor's “lack of professionalism and communication.” Ryan further noted her family's frustration over Taylor's consistent failure to respond to their phone calls and e-mails. Ryan requested Taylor provide information relating to the status of the appeal. Taylor did not respond to the March 26, June 9, or June 11 e-mails.

Taylor testified she did not at first inform Norin of the dismissal because she “wasn't quite sure how to handle” the situation. Taylor acknowledged her failure to inform Norin of the dismissal “compounded the problem.” When asked whether her failure to disclose was intentional, Taylor responded:

The Motion to Dismiss came after I had already initially worked on the brief and stuff, so initially I ... wasn't completely forthright ... about the dismissal, and I believe there was probably a two-month period of time after I knew about it where we kind of led her to believe that it hadn't—I hadn't been forthright about the dismissal, and ... I kind of led her to believe that it was still pending.

In hindsight, Taylor realizes she should have immediately informed Norin of her error and that it resulted in dismissal of the appeal. Taylor reports she has since implemented measures to ensure her clients are better informed and deadlines are met.

2. Coleman matter. In June 2008, Taylor began representation of Coleman in a matter involving a modification of a dissolution decree. The district court denied Coleman's request to modify the decree on September 29, 2009. Because the matter involved child custody issues, the expedited deadlines of rule 6.902(1)(a) applied.

Although Taylor filed a timely notice of appeal, the combined certificate did not state whether the expedited deadline applied, as required by rule 6.804(4) of the rules of appellate procedure. Taylor subsequently filed two applications to extend the filing date of the proof brief and designation of appendix. Neither application stated whether the expedited deadlines applied in violation of rule 6.1003(2).

The appellee in the matter filed a motion to dismiss, which noted the appeal involved child custody issues. The motion to dismiss was not resisted. The court order granting the motion to dismiss noted that it was not resisted and further stated that “[t]he motion to dismiss indicates that this appeal involves child custody issues, though this was not noted by the appellant in the combined certificate or in his two extension requests, as is required by the rules.”

Taylor stated she did not indicate in her court filings that the expedited deadlines controlled the Coleman appeal because she believed they were inapplicable. Taylor explained that she thought the expedited deadlines did not apply because the Coleman appeal involved child visitation issues, not matters involving child custody. Thus, based on her erroneous interpretation of the rules of appellate procedure, Taylor requested extensions to extend the filing dates. Taylor further testified she had been experiencing problems in her personal life, which ultimately culminated in a divorce.

Within ten days of the dismissal, Taylor sent a letter to Coleman advising of the dismissal. The letter stated that the dismissal...