Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. Cohrt
| Decision Date | 16 July 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 09-1200.,09-1200. |
| Citation | 784 N.W.2d 777 |
| Parties | IOWA SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD, Appellee,v.Larry J. COHRT, Appellant. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Larry J. Cohrt, Waterloo, pro se.
Charles L. Harrington and Wendell J. Harms, Des Moines, for appellee.
The Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board charged Larry J. Cohrt with numerous violations of the Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers mainly stemming from his neglect of client matters in two cases. The Grievance Commission of the Supreme Court of Iowa found Cohrt violated the code of professional responsibility. It recommended Cohrt be suspended from the practice of law for a period of sixty-one days. On our review, we find Cohrt violated the code of professional responsibility and impose an indefinite suspension of not less than three months.
Larry J. Cohrt is an Iowa lawyer. He was admitted to practice law in Iowa in 1969, after graduating from law school with distinction. He has practiced law in Waterloo throughout his career and is currently a sole practitioner. He received a private admonition in 1996 for neglecting a client matter.
The board initiated a disciplinary action against Cohrt based on his conduct in representing clients in two separate cases. In the first case, Cohrt represented a waste disposal business called Black Hawk Waste Disposal Company, Inc. (Black Hawk) involving a claim against a business competitor known as Waste Management, Inc. In the second case, Cohrt represented Travis Schleusner and his father, Ronald Schleusner, in a claim against the sellers of a lake cabin they had purchased and a pest control business called A-1 Pest Control.
In the first matter, Cohrt prepared and filed a lawsuit in August 2003 on behalf of Black Hawk against Waste Management, Inc., alleging claims of tortious interference and defamation. He also sought and obtained a temporary injunction from the district court. The order enjoined Waste Management, Inc. and its affiliates from interfering with business relationships between Black Hawk and its customers. The issuance of the injunction was conditioned upon the filing of a surety bond by Black Hawk.
Black Hawk obtained the necessary bond from a surety company and delivered it to Cohrt for filing. Cohrt, however, never filed the bond with the court. Subsequently, Cohrt repeatedly failed to respond to interrogatories and requests for production of documents sought by counsel for Waste Management, Inc. within the deadlines established by the rules of civil procedure, as well as a later deadline established by the district court in response to a motion to compel. In response to the motion to compel, Cohrt asserted he had been unable to complete the discovery responses due to his trial schedule and workload. After Cohrt failed to provide discovery within the court-imposed deadline, the district court scheduled a hearing for the imposition of sanctions. Just hours before the scheduled hearing on sanctions, Cohrt filed a dismissal of the lawsuit without prejudice. This dismissal occurred ten days prior to the scheduled trial date. The dismissal was not signed by a company representative of Black Hawk.
In the second matter, Cohrt prepared and filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Schleusners in September 2003 after they discovered the home they had purchased the previous summer was infested with termites. The lawsuit claimed the pest control company was negligent in its presale inspection of the home. As in the other matter, Cohrt failed to timely respond to interrogatories and other discovery requests propounded by defense counsel. Defense counsel then moved to compel discovery after informal attempts to obtain responses failed. In response to the motion to compel, Cohrt asserted in a resistance filed with the court that he had been unable to provide the discovery due to his trial schedule. The district court sustained the motion and ordered Cohrt to respond to the interrogatories within thirty days. After Cohrt failed to provide discovery within the court-imposed deadline, defense counsel moved for the imposition of sanctions. Cohrt provided the requested responses to the interrogatories prior to the hearing on sanctions. Nevertheless, the court ordered Cohrt (or the plaintiffs) to pay attorney fees of $200 to the pest control company by April 30, 2004, and directed the case be dismissed against the pest control company in the event the fees were not timely paid. The fees were not paid as ordered, and the court dismissed the case against the pest control company on May 7, 2004.
In both cases, the plaintiffs claimed they were unaware of the ongoing discovery debacles in their lawsuits. Black Hawk asserted Cohrt never advised company representatives that he decided to dismiss the lawsuit. It also claimed it never authorized Cohrt to dismiss the lawsuit. Travis and Ronald Schleusner claimed they had no knowledge of the $200 attorney-fee award or that their lawsuit was in jeopardy of being dismissed.
Cohrt asserted he dismissed the Black Hawk lawsuit for two reasons. He learned, as he had suspected for some time, that he had named the wrong corporate entity as the defendant. He claimed he discussed the problem with Black Hawk company representatives and advised them of the dismissal prior to filing it with the court. He declined to file the surety bond until he was able to determine the proper defendant. He also felt the case should be dismissed because Black Hawk had failed to provide him with the needed information to allow him to properly respond to the discovery requests. He feared the court would order the case dismissed if the sanction hearing took place.
Cohrt claimed he purposely allowed the Schleusners' lawsuit to be dismissed against the pest control company because he determined the two-page written inspection report at the center of the lawsuit contained a clause that limited the scope of the inspection only to areas of the house accessible to visual inspection and included a declaration that the report was not a warranty against latent infestation. Because the Schleusners claimed the sellers had taken steps to purposely hide termite damage to the house at the time of the inspection and sale, Cohrt felt the clause in the report provided the pest control company with a complete defense, rendering a lawsuit against the company frivolous.
Consequently, Cohrt claimed his actions in both cases were consistent with the ethical obligation of lawyers. In the Black Hawk case, Cohrt asserted he was obligated to dismiss the lawsuit once he learned he had sued the wrong defendant. In the Schleusner case, Cohrt maintained he was ethically obligated not to pursue the lawsuit against the pest control company once he determined it was frivolous.
The board ultimately charged Cohrt with multiple violations of the code of professional responsibility. The violations essentially pertained to neglect and inaction, failure to communicate, misrepresentation, and failure to withdraw from employment. In the Black Hawk proceeding, the violations alleged by the board included DR 1-102(A)(1) (), DR 1-102(A)(4) (conduct involving misrepresentation), DR 1-102(A)(5) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), DR 1-102(A)(6) (), DR 2-110(A)(1) (), DR 2-110(A)(2) (), DR 2-110(B)(1) (), DR 2-110(B)(2) (), DR 2-110(B)(3) (), DR 2-110(B)(4) (), DR 6-101(A)(2) (), DR 6-101(A)(3) (), DR 7-101(A)(1) (), DR 7-101(A)(2) (), DR 7-101(A)(3) (), DR 7-102(A)(3) (), DR 7-102(A)(8) (), and DR 7-106(A) ().
In the Schleusner proceeding, the violations alleged by the board included DR 1-102(A)(1) (), DR 1-102(A)(4) (conduct involving misrepresentation), DR 1-102(A)(5) (), DR 1-102(A)(6) (), DR 2-110(A)(1) (), DR 2-110(A)(2) (), DR 2-110(B)(1) (), DR 2-110(B)(2) (), DR 2-110(B)(3) (), DR 2-110(B)(4) (), DR 6-101(A)(2) (), DR 6-101(A)(3) (), DR 7-101(A)(1) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. Sobel
...resulted in client harm nor was accompanied by misrepresentations or other misconduct); Iowa Sup. Ct. Att'y Disciplinary Bd. v. Cohrt, 784 N.W.2d 777, 779783 (Iowa 2010) (imposing a three-month suspension for an attorney who "repeatedly failed to respond to interrogatories and requests for ......
-
Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. Weiland
...current rule violations involve the same type of conduct as the prior conduct subject to discipline. Iowa Supreme Ct. Att'y Disciplinary Bd. v. Cohrt, 784 N.W.2d 777, 783 (Iowa 2010).Weiland has received a series of private admonitions, public reprimands, and suspensions. In November 2003, ......
-
Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. Humphrey
...why their claim had been dismissed, had a prior private admonition for neglect, and also made misrepresentations to the Board. 784 N.W.2d 777, 783 (Iowa 2010). Although suspensions for neglect generally do not exceed six months, see Moorman, 683 N.W.2d at 553, longer suspensions of up to tw......
-
Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. Baldwin
...sanctions when it involves the same type of conduct as the conduct currently subject to discipline. See Iowa Supreme Ct. Att'y Disciplinary Bd. v. Cohrt, 784 N.W.2d 777, 783 (Iowa 2010) (“A prior admonition is properly considered in determining discipline, especially when it involves the sa......