Iowa Supreme Court Board v. Moorman, No. 04-0156.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Iowa |
| Writing for the Court | CADY, Justice. |
| Citation | 683 N.W.2d 549 |
| Parties | IOWA SUPREME COURT BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS AND CONDUCT, Complainant, v. Ryan B. MOORMAN, Respondent. |
| Decision Date | 16 June 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 04-0156. |
683 N.W.2d 549
IOWA SUPREME COURT BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS AND CONDUCT, Complainant,v.
Ryan B. MOORMAN, Respondent
No. 04-0156.
Supreme Court of Iowa.
June 16, 2004.
Ryan B. Moorman, Des Moines, pro se.
CADY, Justice.
The Iowa Supreme Court Board of Professional Ethics and Conduct charged Ryan B. Moorman with numerous violations of the Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers mainly stemming from his neglect of client matters in multiple cases. The Grievance Commission of the Supreme Court of Iowa found that Moorman violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. It recommended Moorman be suspended from the practice of law for a period of not less than six months. On our review, we find Moorman violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and impose an indefinite suspension of not less than two years.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
Ryan B. Moorman is an Iowa lawyer. His background as a lawyer is largely unknown to us because he never responded to the Board's complaint, and did not appear at the hearing on the complaint before the Grievance Commission. However, witnesses familiar with his conduct as a lawyer did appear and provided testimony about numerous incidents of client neglect and other acts in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
A former client testified that Moorman failed to file a petition on her behalf in a personal injury claim arising out of a motor vehicle accident within the statute of limitations period. Moorman agreed to represent the client, entered into a contingent fee contract, and simply failed to take action to file the petition. After acknowledging his mistake, Moorman promised to pay the client $20,000, an amount he believed the client would have received if the case would have been pursued, less his contingent fee. Moorman told the client, however, that she must not disclose their
Moorman made only a few sporadic payments to the client. He also promised a physician that he would pay the costs of an operation the client needed for the injury she received from the motor vehicle accident. Although the surgeon performed the operation, Moorman failed to pay as promised. Additionally, Moorman offered to misrepresent the date of the client's injury to an insurance company in an effort to obtain medical coverage for the client under an employer-provided insurance policy.
As a result of mounting medical bills and sporadic employment, the client was forced to file for bankruptcy. The client then brought a claim against Moorman for professional malpractice. Moorman did not carry professional liability insurance, and the claim resulted in a $20,000 settlement.
There was additional testimony at the Grievance Commission hearing from the deputy clerk of the supreme court concerning Moorman's neglect in five separate criminal and juvenile cases on appeal. In all five cases, Moorman failed to properly prosecute the appeals, resulting in a dismissal of each case. In one instance, the appeal was subsequently reinstated. In another case, Moorman filed an application following the dismissal for want of prosecution that contained contradictory and dubious information. He claimed his client never received notice of the court decision and sought permission to file a delayed appeal. We issued an order requesting Moorman to submit an affidavit to support his claim, but no response was filed.
Moorman was described as the worst violator of the time requirements of the rules of appellate practice in the state. He accumulated nearly $900 of unpaid default fines in various appeals since 2000.
II. Board Complaint.
The Board charged Moorman with numerous violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility, including DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglect of a client's legal matter), DR 1-102(A)(6) (conduct adversely reflecting on the fitness to practice law), DR 7-101(A)(2) (failure to perform a contract of employment), and DR 1-102(A)(4) (conduct involving misrepresentation).
The commission found the Board established the violations as set forth in the complaint, with two exceptions. It found the evidence of neglect was insufficient in one of the five appellate cases because Moorman ultimately succeeded in obtaining a reinstatement of the case. The commission also made no finding that Moorman engaged in misrepresentation. The commission recommended Moorman be suspended from the practice of law for a period of not less than six months.
III. Scope of Review.
"We review attorney disciplinary proceedings de novo." Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Bernard, 653 N.W.2d 373, 375 (Iowa 2002). "We are not bound by the findings of the Commission, but we give them weight." Id.
IV. Violations.
Neglect is not defined by our rules of ethics, but it has generally been recognized to involve indifference and a consistent failure to perform those obligations that a lawyer has assumed, or a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Smith, No. 03-1062.
...when officer, after traffic stop was complete, asked for consent to search). At no time did it transcend into an unjustified Terry stop.5 683 N.W.2d 549 IV. Smith's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizures was not violated when an officer asked him for identification and checked......
-
Atty. Disciplinary Bd. v. Weaver, No. 07-0671.
...held that a "[n]egligent misrepresentation does not violate DR 1-102(A)(4)." Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Moorman, 683 N.W.2d 549, 553 (Iowa 2004); accord Comm. on Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Bitter, 279 N.W.2d 521, 526 (Iowa 1979) (stating the rule is not "violated by ......
-
Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. Bixenman, 21-1641
...Att'y Disciplinary Bd. v. Lickiss , 786 N.W.2d 860, 867 (Iowa 2010) (quoting Iowa Sup. Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Moorman , 683 N.W.2d 549, 551 (Iowa 2004) ). Here, Bixenman's repeated failure to produce discovery responses harmed his client. When Bixenman failed to timely produc......
-
Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. Taylor, No. 12–0228.
...Ct. Att'y Disciplinary Bd. v. Gottschalk, 729 N.W.2d 812, 817 (Iowa 2007); Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Moorman, 683 N.W.2d 549, 551–52 (Iowa 2004). We conclude the Board failed to establish by a convincing preponderance of the evidence that Taylor violated rule 32:1.3......
-
State v. Smith, No. 03-1062.
...when officer, after traffic stop was complete, asked for consent to search). At no time did it transcend into an unjustified Terry stop.5 683 N.W.2d 549 IV. Smith's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizures was not violated when an officer asked him for identification and checked......
-
Atty. Disciplinary Bd. v. Weaver, No. 07-0671.
...held that a "[n]egligent misrepresentation does not violate DR 1-102(A)(4)." Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Moorman, 683 N.W.2d 549, 553 (Iowa 2004); accord Comm. on Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Bitter, 279 N.W.2d 521, 526 (Iowa 1979) (stating the rule is not "violated by ......
-
Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. Bixenman, 21-1641
...Att'y Disciplinary Bd. v. Lickiss , 786 N.W.2d 860, 867 (Iowa 2010) (quoting Iowa Sup. Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Moorman , 683 N.W.2d 549, 551 (Iowa 2004) ). Here, Bixenman's repeated failure to produce discovery responses harmed his client. When Bixenman failed to timely produc......
-
Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. Taylor, No. 12–0228.
...Ct. Att'y Disciplinary Bd. v. Gottschalk, 729 N.W.2d 812, 817 (Iowa 2007); Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Moorman, 683 N.W.2d 549, 551–52 (Iowa 2004). We conclude the Board failed to establish by a convincing preponderance of the evidence that Taylor violated rule 32:1.3......