Iowa Supreme Court Bd. of Professional Ethics and Conduct v. Torgerson
| Decision Date | 21 October 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 98-1089,98-1089 |
| Citation | 585 N.W.2d 213 |
| Parties | . Andrew H. TORGERSON, Respondent. Supreme Court of Iowa |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Norman G. Bastemeyer, Charles L. Harrington, and David J. Grace, Des Moines, for complainant.
Andrew H. Torgerson, Mason City, pro se.
Considered by HARRIS, P.J., and LARSON, LAVORATO, NEUMAN, and ANDREASEN, * JJ.
The facts in this lawyer disciplinary case are a replication of those in Iowa Supreme Court Board of Professional Ethics & Conduct v. Apland, 577 N.W.2d 50 (Iowa 1998). Upon our de novo review we concur in the findings and conclusions of the grievance commission. We quote from them the following, which we adopt as our own.
The Respondent [lawyer Andrew H. Torgerson] represented Steven Damjanovic on a state drug charge in May 1994, and met with Steven Damjanovic and his wife Polly at his office in Mason City, Iowa, and entered into a written fee contract ... which provided for a $5,000 minimum fee non-refundable retainer. The funds were paid to attorney Torgerson from money borrowed by Polly Damjanovic from her mother. When the Damjanovics perceived that Mr. Torgerson was not accomplishing the return of their funds which had been taken by State authorities after about a month of waiting, they contacted another attorney, Roger Sutton of Charles City, Iowa to represent them.
After attorney Roger Sutton had been retained to represent the Damjanovics, he requested attorney Torgerson to refund the unused portion of his retainer, but [Torgerson] declined to do so.... Sutton again requested [the] refund of [the] $4,300 unearned portion of his retainer on August 29, 1996.... The retainer was never returned.
....
[Torgerson's] contract for a non-refundable fee of $5,000 is a violation of DR 2-106(A) and should be void and unenforceable for the reasons set forth in Board of Professional Ethics v. Apland.... This contract is a violation of the rules.
Respondent has admitted that he collected a clearly excessive fee and that he has violated DR 2-106(A), DR 2-110(A)(3) and DR 1-102(A)(1)(5) and (6) of the Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers.
Respondent further has admitted that at the time he received the $5,000 retainer, that he had not earned the fee, that he did not deposit it in his Trust Account and that because of that he violated DR 9-102 of the Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers.
Respondent further has admitted that in his 1994 and 1995 Combined Statement and Questionnaire submitted to the Client Security and Attorney Disciplinary Commission, Respondent stated that all retainers were deposited in his Trust...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
BD. OF PROF. ETHICS & CONDUCT v. Ramey
...for services performed, Ramey also violated DR 9-102(B)(3),3 (4),4 and DR 1-102(A)(1).5See Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Torgerson, 585 N.W.2d 213, 214 (Iowa 1998); Comm. on Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Iverson, 505 N.W.2d 494, 496 (Iowa 1993). Finally, Ramey's failure to......
-
Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. Stowe
...did not support license revocation because the attorney admitted the misconduct in his answer); Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Torgerson, 585 N.W.2d 213, 213–14 (Iowa 1998) (finding rule violations when the attorney admitted collection of a clearly excessive fee). But se......
-
IOWA SUPREME COURT BD. OF ETHICS v. Winkel
...have made plain that such infractions will be regarded more seriously in the future. See Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Torgerson, 585 N.W.2d 213, 214 (Iowa 1998) (sanction imposed in Apland and Torgerson "should not be understood as precedent for future similar miscondu......
-
IOWA SUPREME COURT BD. v. Sullins
...our contempt for such outrageous conduct pledging to elevate the sanctions for future violations. Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Torgerson, 585 N.W.2d 213, 214 (Iowa 1998). Sullins collected a clearly excessive fee from both Rolek and Cooper. Cooper gave Sullins a $2500 ......