IOWA SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD vs. JEAN M. CURTIS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 60 / 07–2059
Filed May 23, 2008
IOWA SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY
DISCIPLINARY BOARD,
Complainant,
vs.
JEAN M. CURTIS,
Respondent.
On review from the Grievance Commission.
The Iowa Supreme Court Grievance Commission recommends a
one-year suspension of respondent’s license to practice law in this state.
LICENSE SUSPENDED.
Charles L. Harrington and David J. Grace, Des Moines, for
complainant.
Jean M. Curtis, Guttenberg, respondent, pro se.
2
WIGGINS, Justice.
The Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board filed a
complaint against Jean Curtis with the Grievance Commission of the
Iowa Supreme Court alleging Curtis committed various violations of the
Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers and the Iowa Rules
of Professional Conduct.1
violated
numerous
The Commission found Curtis’s conduct
provisions
of
the
Iowa
Code
of
Professional
Responsibility for Lawyers and the Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct.
The Commission recommended we suspend Curtis’s license to practice
law indefinitely with no possibility of reinstatement for a period of one
year.
Because we find Curtis’s conduct violated numerous provisions of
the Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers and the Iowa
Rules of Professional Conduct, we suspend Curtis’s license to practice
law indefinitely with no possibility of reinstatement for a period of one
year.
I. Prior Proceedings.
In February 2000 we admitted Curtis to practice law in Iowa by
motion. She practices law in Guttenberg. She has one prior disciplinary
action. In February 2004 we publicly reprimanded Curtis for her failure
to recognize the inherent conflict in attempting to represent both parties
in matters relating to a marriage dissolution and for communicating with
a party who was represented by counsel when she did not have
permission to speak directly to the represented party.
1The
Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct became effective July 1, 2005,
replacing the Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers. The Iowa Rules of
Professional Conduct govern all conduct occurring after its effective date.
3
On June 26, 2007, the Board filed a five-count complaint with the
Commission
alleging
numerous
Professional
Responsibility
for
violations
Lawyers
of
and
the
the
Iowa
Code
of
Iowa
Rules
of
Professional Conduct. Count I alleged Curtis misapplied a client’s fee.
Count II alleged Curtis disclosed confidential information about a client.
Count III alleged Curtis did not act with reasonable diligence and
promptness when representing a client. Count IV alleged Curtis did not
provide competent representation in an estate matter and failed to
deposit an unearned fee into her trust account. Count V alleged Curtis
failed to file a proper objection in a bankruptcy proceeding and then
misrepresented the status of the matter to a client.
The Commission found the Board failed to prove the allegations
contained in counts I, II, and III, but that the Board proved the violations
alleged in counts IV and V. The Commission also found Curtis suffers
from depression and attention deficit disorder. Both conditions are being
treated with medication.
Based on her prior disciplinary action and her medical condition
the Commission recommended: (1) Curtis’s license to practice law in the
state
of
Iowa
be
suspended
indefinitely
with
no
possibility
of
reinstatement for one year; (2) as a condition of reinstatement, Curtis
present evidence from her treating healthcare provider that she is not
suffering from any illness that would interfere with her ability to be
attentive to her clients’ legal needs and to competently handle the
matters entrusted to her; (3) as a condition of reinstatement, Curtis be
required to pass the Iowa Bar Exam; and (4) as a condition of
reinstatement, Curtis be barred from practicing in probate or bankruptcy
matters unless and until she associates with a practitioner having
experience in those areas.
4
II. Scope of Review.
Our review of a report filed by the Commission is de novo. See
Iowa Ct. R. 35.10(1). “Under this standard of review, we give weight to
the factual findings of the Commission, especially with respect to witness
credibility, but we find the facts anew.” Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l
Ethics & Conduct v. Beckman, 674 N.W.2d 129, 131 (Iowa 2004).
Although we consider the discipline recommended by the Commission,
we have the final decision regarding the appropriate sanction.
Id.
Therefore, the court can impose a greater or lesser sanction than what
the Commission recommends.
The Board bears the burden of proving misconduct by a convincing
preponderance of the evidence.
Id.
“ ‘This burden of proof is greater
than that in a civil case but less than that in a criminal case.’ ” Iowa
Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Zenor, 707 N.W.2d 176, 178 (Iowa
2005) (citation omitted).
III. Analysis.
On our de novo review of the record, we find the following as to
each count.
A.
Count I.
Curtis represented Jeffrey Reinhardt in domestic
relations matters. At some point during the representation, Reinhardt
asked Curtis whether she could represent him in his Chapter 7
bankruptcy proceedings. Then, in April 2004 Reinhardt issued Curtis a
check for $209. The Board claimed this money was earmarked for filing
Reinhardt’s bankruptcy petition. Curtis produced a letter she wrote to
Reinhardt in which she stated she could not represent him in his
bankruptcy proceeding and that she was going to apply the $209 check
to his outstanding bill on the domestic relations matters. Reinhardt did
5
not testify.
The Board claimed Curtis committed numerous ethical
violations by not earmarking these funds for a bankruptcy proceeding.
The Commission determined the evidence presented by the Board
did not meet its burden to prove by a convincing preponderance of the
evidence that the check was earmarked for a bankruptcy proceeding.
Factually, Curtis’s letter refutes this allegation.
Accordingly we agree
with the Commission’s findings on count I and find the Board has failed
to prove its allegations of misconduct.
B. Count II. Curtis represented the father of children who had
been removed from the father’s home by the state. The Board alleged
Curtis told a department of human services (DHS) representative that the
next time they went to court Curtis was going to put witnesses on the
stand to testify negatively about her client. The Board also alleged Curtis
told a DHS representative that her client was drunk many times when
Curtis called, and she felt DHS should have her client submit to urine
tests. If the Board’s allegations are true, Curtis may have violated the
confidences of her client. Curtis not only denied these allegations, but
presented evidence showing personal animus between herself and DHS
representatives.
The Commission determined the evidence presented by the Board
did not meet its burden to prove by a convincing preponderance of the
evidence that the conversations as alleged took place.
We agree.
Accordingly, we find the Board has failed to prove its allegations of
misconduct as alleged in count II.
C. Count III. Curtis was appointed to represent a client on an
appeal in a postconviction relief action on July 20, 2005. On August 19
she received a delinquency notice from the clerk of the supreme court for
failing to file and serve a combined certificate.
On November 21 she
6
received another delinquency notice from the clerk for failing to pay or
request a waiver of the docketing fee. On December 20 she received a
notice from the court that unless a docket fee was paid or waived within
eighteen days after service of the notice, the appeal would be dismissed.
The clerk eventually dismissed the appeal.
On January 9, 2006, Curtis filed an application to reinstate the
appeal. On February 2 we reinstated the appeal. On May 15 the clerk
issued another notice of default for failure to file and serve the
appellant’s proof brief. Curtis requested additional time to file the brief,
which we granted.
On September 8 the clerk issued another default notice for Curtis’s
failure to file and serve the appellant’s proof brief.
On October 6 the
clerk dismissed the appeal due to Curtis’s failure to file the proof brief.
Curtis filed a motion to enlarge time for filing the proof brief.
On
December 11 we treated her motion as a motion to reinstate the appeal
and reinstated the appeal.
On March 16, 2007, the clerk issued another notice of default for
Curtis’s failure to file and serve the deferred appendix. Curtis eventually
filed the appendix. The State moved to strike the appendix. On June 12
we entered an order striking the appendix and requiring Curtis to file an
amended appendix along with eighteen copies of an amended brief.
The Board alleged Curtis’s conduct in handling the appeal violated
various rules of the Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct.
The
Commission found the evidence presented by the Board was insufficient
to carry the Board’s complaint because all the required filings are current
and the matter is yet pending. We disagree.
The result obtained by an attorney for a client is not a defense to a
violation of an ethical rule.
An attorney’s failure to meet appellate
7
deadlines constitutes a violation of rules 32:1.1 (failing to provide
competent legal representation to a client), 32:1.3 (failing to act with
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client), and
32:8.4(d) (engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of
justice).
Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Tompkins, 733
N.W.2d 661, 668–69 (Iowa 2007).
Additionally, rule 32:3.2 requires a
lawyer to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with
the interests of the client.
Curtis’s conduct in this appeal was deplorable. Instead of meeting
the deadlines required by our court rules, she used the clerk’s office as
her private tickler system. We have previously stated, using the clerk’s
office as a private tickler system violates rules DR 6–101(A)(3) (a lawyer
shall not neglect a client’s legal matter), DR 1–102(A)(5) (a lawyer shall
not engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice),
and DR 1–102(A)(6) (a lawyer shall not engage in any other conduct that
adversely reflects on the fitness to practice law) of the Iowa Code of
Professional Responsibility for Lawyers.
Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y
Disciplinary Bd. v. Moonen, 706 N.W.2d 391, 399 (Iowa 2005). Under the
Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct, this very same conduct violates rules
32:1.1 (failing to provide competent representation), 32:1.3 (failing to act
with reasonable diligence and promptness), 32:3.2 (failing to make
reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of
her client), and 32:8.4(d) (engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the
administration of justice).
D. Count IV. Curtis acted as the attorney for the Estate of David
J. Wilson. She opened the estate on October 8, 2003. On June 2, 2005,
Curtis filed an unsigned inventory. On July 26 she filed an inventory
signed only by her.
Based on the later inventory, Curtis filed an
8
application for her fees and for those of the executor. The executor was
the sole beneficiary of the estate and questioned Curtis as to why she
needed to take a fee.
Curtis did not give a reason.
Curtis told the
executor she would only take half the attorney fee and deposit the rest in
her trust account. The court approved a fee of $11,841.51 for Curtis and
a fee of $11,841.51 for the executor. Curtis did not deposit the fee in her
trust account and took the entire fee.
In spring 2006 Curtis was not returning the executor’s phone calls.
The executor became concerned that Curtis was not handling the estate
properly. The executor contacted another attorney to take over the legal
matters of the estate.
The executor sent a letter to Curtis that
terminated her employment as the estate’s attorney and informed Curtis
another attorney would handle the estate from that point forward. The
executor instructed Curtis to forward the estate file and all fees to the
new attorney.
The attorney who took over the estate reviewed the file and
discovered the estate was relatively simple to probate.
Curtis did not
send the fees with the file. The new attorney sent Curtis several letters
trying to ascertain where the funds were located.
After several
unanswered letters, Curtis met with the new attorney and offered the
explanation that her office secretary had embezzled money from her trust
account so Curtis did not put the fees in that account because the
secretary had access to that account. Instead, Curtis explained, she put
the fees in a savings account. After more requests by the new attorney
for the money, Curtis responded by letter stating:
The money is no longer in the account. I’m in the process of
tracking the money. From the time I became aware of the
totality of the money taken from the business, the Firm’s
accounts were transferred to John McGrand and then back
9
to my office. We are still in the process of investigating this
matter. I do not have $11,841.51 and I am seeking a loan to
repay the estate.
Curtis eventually refunded the fees; however, the checks she
issued to the new attorney were not drawn from a trust account. Curtis
admitted she did not promptly refund the fees as ordered by the court.
An audit of her trust account by a client security auditor for this court
did not produce any evidence that money had been taken from Curtis’s
trust account through embezzlement.
Further problems with Curtis’s handling of the estate were
revealed when the new attorney began to work on the estate file. The
inventory filed by Curtis had improper valuations of the assets, causing
the court to award excessive fees.
Additionally, the inheritance tax
return was not filed as of spring 2006, when it should have been filed in
July 2004. Curtis never filed tax returns for the estate.
To remedy the problems created by Curtis, the new attorney
obtained an order from the court rescinding the prior court order
allowing attorney and executor fees. This action was important because
if the executor waived her fee and took as a beneficiary, the amount she
would receive would not be subject to personal income tax.
After
obtaining the order rescinding the prior court order allowing fees, the
new attorney had to probate the estate as if nothing was done on the
estate.
The Board confronted Curtis with these deficiencies in probating
the estate at the hearing.
Curtis acknowledged she knew little about
probating an estate and even less about taxes.
The manner in which Curtis probated the estate prior to July 1,
2005, violated the Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers,
specifically, DR 1–102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the
10
administration of justice), DR 6–101(A)(1) (handling a legal matter which
the lawyer knows or should know that the lawyer is not competent to
handle without associating with a lawyer who is competent to handle it),
DR 6–101(A)(2) (handling a legal matter without adequate preparation
under the circumstances), and DR 6–101(A)(3) (neglecting a client’s
matter). Additionally, her conduct after July 1, 2005, violated the Iowa
Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically, rules 32:1.1 (failing to provide
competent legal representation to a client), 32:1.3 (failing to act with
reasonable
diligence
and
promptness
in
representing
a
client),
32:1.4(a)(3) (failing to keep a client reasonably informed about the status
of a legal matter), 32:1.4(a)(4) (failing to promptly comply with reasonable
requests for information), and 32:8.4(d) (engaging in conduct that is
prejudicial to the administration of justice).
Under the Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers a
lawyer should not represent a client when the lawyer knows that she is
not competent to handle the matter. Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary
Bd. v. Ireland, 723 N.W.2d 439, 441 (Iowa 2006). Under the Iowa Code of
Professional
Responsibility
for
Lawyers
and
the
Iowa
Rules
of
Professional Conduct, when an attorney agrees to represent a client, the
attorney is required to act competently with reasonable diligence and
promptness in representing her client. Curtis’s conduct in probating the
estate
was
more
than
mere
negligence.
It
appears
that
her
incompetence, procrastination, and failure to communicate with her
client in every aspect of the representation stemmed from her
indifference to advance the interests of her client when action was
required. Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Moorman,
683 N.W.2d 549, 552 (Iowa 2004).
11
Curtis’s conduct regarding the taking of her fee occurred after
July 1, 2005, and is governed by the Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct.
Curtis’s misrepresentation to her client that she would only take one-half
of the fee, when she in fact took the entire fee, violated rule 32:8.4(c)
(engaging
in
conduct
involving
dishonesty,
fraud,
deceit,
or
misrepresentation). Moreover, Curtis’s failure to deposit the fee award in
the trust account violated rule 32:1.15(c) (requiring an attorney to
deposit unearned fees into the trust account). Under the probate rules
in effect at the time the court awarded her fees, Curtis could only take
one-half of the fees when the estate filed the inheritance tax return and
the other half at the time of closing the estate. While she represented the
estate, the estate never filed the return; therefore, she was not entitled to
any fee.
Additionally, Curtis inflated the value of the estate’s assets on the
inventory. We do not believe she purposefully inflated the value, but did
so due to her lack of knowledge regarding the probating of estates.
Because Curtis inflated the values, the court ordered fees in excess of
those allowed by law. See Iowa Code § 633.197 (limiting fees for all sums
in an estate over five thousand dollars to two percent of the gross assets).
Accordingly, she violated rule 32:1.5(a) by taking an excessive fee.
Finally, we believe Curtis’s handling of the estate by leaving it open
for a protracted period of time, together with the numerous violations in
doing so, constituted conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice
and violated rule 32:8.4(d).
E. Count V. Curtis represented Shelley LeGrand with respect to
her and her daughter’s claim against Kevin Harbaugh. On December 19,
2002, Harbaugh filed for bankruptcy. On December 20 LeGrand and her
daughter obtained a $25,000 judgment against Harbaugh for an
12
intentional tort. The bankruptcy attorney for Harbaugh listed LeGrand,
in care of Curtis, as a creditor and the court sent Curtis notice of the
bankruptcy. Curtis denied she received this notice when it was filed, but
obtained it sometime after she contacted the bankruptcy attorney’s office
on April 1, 2003. Curtis offered the problems with the mail delivery in
her small town as an explanation for why she did not receive the notice
earlier.
Objections to the discharge of debt in bankruptcy were due on
April 11. Curtis prepared an objection on the grounds the debt was not
dischargeable because it arose from an intentional tort. Instead of filing
an original with the clerk, Curtis faxed the objection to the clerk’s office.
That same day, the clerk notified Curtis that the rules did not allow her
to fax a pleading.
The clerk told Curtis she could either get court
permission to file via fax or arrange to have a hard copy delivered that
day.
Curtis did neither.
Curtis claimed she did not get the clerk’s
message until after the bankruptcy office closed because she was either
in mediation or in court all day.
On April 16, after the time had expired to file an objection, Curtis
filed a request for an extension of time to file an objection.
bankruptcy court denied the request.
The
Curtis appealed the court’s
decision to the Bankruptcy Panel of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The appeals court held the clerk properly declined to accept the faxed
pleading, and the bankruptcy court properly denied the extension. The
appeals court left open the option for Curtis to file a complaint objecting
to the discharge based on her claim she did not receive proper notice of
the bankruptcy proceedings.
Curtis told LeGrand she filed such a
complaint when in fact she had not. Curtis admits she made a mistake
by not properly filing the original objection to the discharge of the
13
LeGrand judgment, and that mistake is what led to all of the problems
with the representation.
At some point during the representation, LeGrand sent a letter to
Curtis requesting she refund LeGrand’s money and return her entire file.
LeGrand testified Curtis failed to return the file despite Curtis’s
statements to LeGrand that the entire file had been returned to her.
LeGrand allowed Curtis to continue representing her after Curtis told her
the complaint to the bankruptcy court had been filed and everything was
under control.
Curtis sent LeGrand documents purporting to be a
complaint objecting to the discharge of the proceedings due to a lack of
proper notice.
Due to her own dissolution, LeGrand filed for bankruptcy. While
working with her bankruptcy attorney, they discussed the judgment
against Harbaugh.
There was a concern as to whether the judgment
would have to be listed as an asset in LeGrand’s bankruptcy proceeding.
The bankruptcy attorney checked the docket of Harbaugh’s bankruptcy
proceeding and informed LeGrand that Curtis did not file the complaint
based on her improper notice claim. The docket also indicated LeGrand’s
judgment against Harbaugh had been discharged in bankruptcy, and the
proceeding was closed. The bankruptcy attorney notified Curtis of these
facts on June 16, 2005.
Curtis’s failure to file the objections and pursue the improper
notice complaint violates DR 6–101(A)(2) (handling a legal matter without
preparation adequate in the circumstances), DR 6–101(A)(3) (neglecting a
client’s matter), DR 1–102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to
the administration of justice), and DR 1–102(A)(6) (engaging in other
conduct that adversely reflects on the fitness to practice law).
14
We also find Curtis intentionally misrepresented to LeGrand that
she filed the improper notice complaint.
This conduct violated DR 1–
102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation),
DR
1–102(A)(5)
(engaging
in
conduct
that
is
prejudicial to the administration of justice), DR 1–102(A)(6) (engaging in
other conduct that adversely reflects on the fitness to practice law), DR
7–101(A)(2) (intentionally failing to carry out a contract of employment),
DR 7–101(A)(3) (intentionally prejudicing or damaging a client during the
course of the professional relationship).
The Board also alleged, and the Commission found, Curtis violated
DR 6–101(A)(1) (handling a legal matter which the lawyer knows or
should know the lawyer is not competent to handle, without associating
with a lawyer who is competent to handle it), and rules 32:8.1
(dishonesty in regard to application to the bar), 32:8.4(a) (violating an
ethical rule), 32:8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
deceit, or misrepresentation), and 32:8.4(d) (engaging in conduct that is
prejudicial to the administration of justice).
Although Curtis failed to properly file the objection to discharge a
debt and failed to file the complaint based on improper notice, the Board
failed to produce sufficient evidence to sustain a violation of DR 6–
101(A)(1).
Curtis understood what needed to be done under the
bankruptcy laws to protect her client’s interest. Her failure to properly
file the required documents may constitute neglect, but does not prove
she handled a legal matter which she knew or should have known she
was not competent to handle without associating with a lawyer who was.
We also find the Board failed to prove Curtis violated rules 32:8.1,
32:8.4(a), (c), and (d). All of Curtis’s conduct took place prior to July 1,
15
2005.
In order to violate these rules the Board must prove Curtis’s
conduct took place after July 1, 2005.
IV. Sanction.
In determining the appropriate sanction a lawyer must face as a
result of his or her misconduct, we have stated:
The goal of the Code of Professional Responsibility is “to
maintain public confidence in the legal profession as well as
to provide a policing mechanism for poor lawyering.” When
deciding on an appropriate sanction for an attorney’s
misconduct, we consider “the nature of the violations,
protection of the public, deterrence of similar misconduct by
others, the lawyer’s fitness to practice, and [the court’s] duty
to uphold the integrity of the profession in the eyes of the
public.”
We also consider aggravating and mitigating
circumstances present in the disciplinary action.
Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Honken, 688 N.W.2d
812, 820 (Iowa 2004) (alteration in original) (citations omitted).
Mitigating factors include Curtis’s personal illnesses. Curtis has
been treated for depression. She blames some of her misconduct on her
depression.
She feels that she can control her depression with
medication. Curtis has attention deficit disorder, which she also treats
with medication.
Personal illnesses, such as depression or attention
deficit disorder, do not excuse a lawyer’s misconduct but can be
mitigating factors and influence our approach to discipline.
Iowa
Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Frerichs, 718 N.W.2d 763, 768 (Iowa
2006).
The aggravating factors we must consider include multiple
incidents of neglect. Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Walker,
712 N.W.2d 683, 686 (Iowa 2006). Curtis’s various actions throughout
her handling of the three separate legal matters demonstrate that her
neglect was not isolated in nature.
Moreover, it is significant that
Curtis’s actions caused harm to others in terms of cost and delay to her
16
clients.
Id.
Another aggravating factor is Curtis’s prior disciplinary
sanction. Frerichs, 718 N.W.2d at 768. The final aggravating factor is
her misrepresentation of the status of the bankruptcy proceeding to her
client. Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. McCann, 712 N.W.2d
89, 97 (Iowa 2006).
While neglect alone ordinarily deserves a sanction ranging from a
public reprimand to a six-month suspension, neglect compounded by
other misconduct requires a more severe sanction. Walker, 712 N.W.2d
at 686. Curtis’s conduct is more than mere neglect. Her neglect not only
caused a significant delay in processing her clients’ matters, but also
caused actual harm to her clients’ interests.
These factors and her
misrepresentations to her clients make Curtis’s violations serious.
A major concern we have with Curtis’s conduct is her premature
taking of a probate fee and her failure to deposit the fee into a trust
account. Because the funds were not available when Curtis was asked
to produce them, it is evident she converted the unearned fees for her
personal use.
Usually we revoke an attorney’s license to practice law
when that attorney deliberately converts a client’s funds. Iowa Supreme
Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Williams, 675 N.W.2d 530, 533 (Iowa
2004); Comm. on Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Ottesen, 525 N.W.2d 865, 866
(Iowa 1994).
However, we have stated when an attorney has “ ‘a
colorable future claim to the funds, we will impose a lesser penalty.’ ”
McCann, 712 N.W.2d at 97. The facts indicate Curtis had a colorable
future claim to the funds she converted because they were to compensate
her for services she was to perform for the estate. Therefore, we will not
revoke Curtis’s license to practice law.
In light of the multiple violations, the protection of the public,
deterrence of similar misconduct by others, our duty to uphold the
17
integrity of the profession in the eyes of the public, the mitigating factors,
and the aggravating factors, we conclude an indefinite suspension with
no possibility of reinstatement for one year, as recommended by the
Commission, is warranted in this case.
As an additional sanction, we require Curtis to pass the Multistate
Professional Responsibility Examination as a condition of reinstatement.
Iowa Ct. R. 35.12(1). The panoply of violations committed in this case
and her prior disciplinary proceeding causes us to impose this additional
sanction.
Curtis’s violations include taking on matters she is not
competent to handle, neglecting client matters, lacking diligence in
handling
client
matters,
taking
excessive
fees,
making
misrepresentations to clients, committing trust account violations,
accepting employment that constitutes a conflict of interest, and
communicating with a represented party.
We believe this array of
conduct shows Curtis has a basic lack of understanding of our ethical
rules.
Finally, as a further condition of reinstatement Curtis is required
to undergo a comprehensive mental examination, which evaluates her
fitness to practice law.
V. Disposition.
We suspend Curtis’s license to practice law in this state
indefinitely with no possibility of reinstatement for one year.
The
suspension applies to all facets of the practice of law. See Iowa Ct. R.
35.12.
Upon any application for reinstatement, Curtis must establish
that she has not practiced law during the suspension period, she has in
all ways complied with the requirements of Iowa Court Rule 35.13, and
she has passed the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination.
In her application for reinstatement, Curtis must provide this court with
18
an evaluation by a licensed health care professional verifying her fitness
to practice law. Before obtaining this evaluation, Curtis shall submit the
name of the proposed evaluator and the nature of the evaluation to the
Board for its approval.
Curtis shall also comply with the notification
requirements of Iowa Court Rule 35.21. We tax the costs of this action to
Curtis pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 35.25.
LICENSE SUSPENDED.
All justices concur except Baker, J., who takes no part.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
