Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. Earley
Decision Date | 06 September 2019 |
Docket Number | No. 19-0662,19-0662 |
Citation | 933 N.W.2d 206 |
Parties | IOWA SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD, Complainant, v. Kyle L. EARLEY, Respondent. |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Tara van Brederode and Crystal W. Rink, Des Moines, for complainant.
Kyle L. Earley, Grinnell, pro se.
A newly admitted Iowa attorney received retainers to handle family law matters, did essentially no work on those matters, and used the funds instead for personal purposes. The Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board sought revocation of the attorney’s license, and the attorney did not contest revocation or argue he had a colorable future claim to the funds when he converted them. A division of the Iowa Supreme Court Grievance Commission held a hearing and concluded that most of the alleged ethical violations had occurred and that revocation was the proper sanction. On our review, we agree with the commission and therefore revoke the attorney’s license to practice law.
Kyle Earley graduated from law school in 2017 and was admitted to the Iowa bar that same year. At relevant times, he maintained a solo private practice in Grinnell. This disciplinary proceeding concerns Earley’s representation of two different clients.
A. Ryan Patterson Matter. In 2018, Earley began representing Ryan Patterson in a dissolution of marriage action. Patterson agreed to pay Earley $250 per hour with a cap of $1500. Patterson also agreed to pay $300 for anticipated expenses. On April 27, Patterson’s mother gave Earley a check in the amount of $1800 for the representation. Earley deposited this check into his client trust account the same day. Thereafter, Earley drafted a petition for dissolution that he did not file. He performed no other work on the case.
Between March 14 and July 25, Earley moved $5910 from his client trust account into his business checking account. He also moved $2590 from his client trust account into his personal checking account. By July 31, these account transfers left $2 remaining in Earley’s client trust account. The unearned portion of the funds received for the Patterson dissolution matter were among those transfers. Earley did not notify Patterson of the time, amount, or purpose of the withdrawals or furnish an accounting.
On June 12, in a responsive letter to the Office of Professional Regulation, Earley self-reported his conversion of client funds:
On August 7, Earley sent a letter to Patterson admitting he had taken Patterson’s $1800 without earning the funds:
On September 21, the Client Security Commission sent a letter to Earley regarding the Patterson matter. See Iowa Ct. R. 39.12. The letter notified Earley that Patterson had sought $1800 in reimbursement from the Clients' Security Trust Fund. The Client Security Commission requested documents from Earley as part of its investigation into the matter.
On September 28, Earley responded as follows:
B. Jonathan Beltz Matter. In 2018, Earley also began representing Jonathan Beltz in a dissolution matter. The parties agreed to a rate of $250 per hour with fees to be capped at $1500. On March 14, Beltz tendered $900 in cash to Earley for the representation. The same day, Earley deposited the $900 into his client trust account. Earley performed only one hour of work on Beltz’s case.
The fund transfers that Earley made between March 14 and July 25 included the unearned portion of Beltz’s $900 advance fee payment. Earley did not notify Beltz of the time, amount, or purpose of the withdrawals, and he did not provide Beltz with a complete accounting.
Also on September 28, Earley said the following in a letter to Beltz:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. Kozlik
..., 933 N.W.2d at 254–55 (holding misappropriation of law firm funds violated rules 32:8.4(b) and (c) ); Iowa Supreme Ct. Att'y Disciplinary Bd. v. Earley , 933 N.W.2d 206, 213 (Iowa 2019) (holding misappropriation of client funds for personal purposes violated rules 32:8.4(b) and (c) ); Iowa......
- Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. Noel
- Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. Tindal
-
Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. Bergmann
...also an Iowa attorney.III. Standard of Review."We review attorney disciplinary matters de novo." Iowa Supreme Ct. Att'y Disciplinary Bd. v. Earley , 933 N.W.2d 206, 213 (Iowa 2019) (quoting Iowa Supreme Ct. Att'y Disciplinary Bd. v. Lynch , 901 N.W.2d 501, 506 (Iowa 2017) ); see Iowa Ct. R.......