SUPREME CT. BD. OF PROF. ETHICS v. Sullins, 99-1663.

• Decision Date: 01 June 2000
• Docket Number: No. 99-1663.,99-1663.
• Citation: 613 N.W.2d 656
• Parties: IOWA SUPREME COURT BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS AND CONDUCT, Complainant, v. Ray SULLINS, Respondent.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

613 N.W.2d 656

IOWA SUPREME COURT BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS AND CONDUCT, Complainant, v. Ray SULLINS, Respondent.

No. 99-1663.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

June 1, 2000.

Rehearing Denied August 10, 2000.¹

Norman G. Bastemeyer and David J. Grace, Des Moines, for complainant.

Ray Sullins, Des Moines, pro se.

Considered en banc.

PER CURIAM.

The lawyer in this disciplinary case is unwilling or unable to discharge the duties required in the practice. Because of his repeated failures to face up to these responsibilities, we suspend his license for not less than one year. We also direct that his license shall not be reinstated until he makes the showing we hereinafter describe.

Although other highly disturbing misconduct is hinted, the central theme in this exasperating case is "stonewalling," a stubborn refusal to address a clear duty. Ray Sullins, the respondent attorney, seems to have raised procrastination to a high art. He plays no favorites. He has consistently spurned the inquiries of our board of ethics and conduct in exactly the same manner demonstrated with his clients.

He is no neophyte procrastinator. In this proceeding he faces his fourth similar sanction since 1986: a public reprimand in 1986; a public reprimand in 1996; and the reprimand in Iowa Supreme Court Board of Professional Ethics & Conduct v. Sullins, 556 N.W.2d 456, 456 (Iowa 1996). This is enough. We now suspend his license to practice law in the courts of this state. We will consider no application for reinstatement until one year following the date of this opinion and will not grant any application unless Sullins demonstrates an ability and willingness to deliver competent legal services with reasonable promptness, and to comply with the deadlines imposed in our rules of practice.

Though the facts here are much more egregious, we recently described the nature of Sullins' problem this way:

This lawyer disciplinary case involves profuse neglect in performing professional duties. Often, though certainly not routinely, we see discipline cases where the inattention reaches epic proportions. Neglected matters, each nagging for attention, add up. Exasperated clients demand attention. The clamor, which might be expected to prompt a lawyer to act, sometimes has an opposite, freezing effect. In extreme cases the lawyer seems powerless either to attend to the obvious professional responsibilities, or to respond to the entreaties of our ethics board when it inquires into the neglect. Our experience in a number of these strange cases enables us to trace these situations, and somewhat explain the misconduct. This does not mean though, that we can or will tolerate it.

Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Scieszinski, 599 N.W.2d 472, 473 (Iowa 1999).

The present proceeding revolves around four professional relationships. They each fit within the typical neglect pattern. In one count, the Pals v. Beverly Baltzley case, Sullins failed to file a timely response to the ethics board and failed to cooperate with its investigation. In a second case, the Kotz case, Sullins was negligent in not prompting his client to deliver answers...