IOWA SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD vs. JEFFREY M. IRELAND
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 103 / 06-0649
Filed November 3, 2006
IOWA SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY
DISCIPLINARY BOARD,
Complainant,
vs.
JEFFREY M. IRELAND,
Respondent.
________________________________________________________________________
On review of the report of the Grievance Commission.
The Grievance Commission reports that respondent has committed
ethical
misconduct
and
recommends
a
suspension.
LICENSE
SUSPENDED.
Charles L. Harrington and Wendell J. Harms, Des Moines, for
complainant.
Jeffrey M. Ireland, Ozark, Missouri, respondent, pro se.
2
CADY, Justice.
The Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board ("Board")
charged Jeffrey M. Ireland with numerous violations of the Iowa Code of
Professional Responsibility for Lawyers. The charges primarily stemmed
from his neglect of client matters in two cases.
Commission
(“Commission”)
found
Ireland
violated
The Grievance
the
Code
of
Professional Responsibility. It recommended he be suspended from the
practice of law for a period of not less than six months. On our review,
we find Ireland violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and
impose an indefinite suspension of not less than three months.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
Jeffrey Ireland is an Iowa lawyer.
He practiced law in Cedar
Rapids, Coralville, and Panora. Ireland moved from Iowa in December
2003, and his license was placed on inactive status in February 2004.
He is not licensed to practice law in any other state. Ireland received a
private admonition in July 2002 and a public reprimand in December
2002.
In both instances, he committed neglect by failing to advise a
client of the move of his law office. Ireland resides in Ozark, Missouri,
and is employed outside the legal profession.
Two complaints were filed with the Board by former clients of
Ireland. These complaints form the basis of these proceedings. The core
facts surrounding the complaints are not in dispute. The first complaint
(count I) was brought after Ireland failed to deliver a will to a client.
Ireland drafted the will for the client in April 2002, and the client paid
him for his legal services. Ireland kept the original will in his possession
after it was executed by the client. The client later sought possession of
the will by writing a letter to Ireland. The letter requested that Ireland
send the will to her. He did not respond to the letter. Moreover, Ireland
3
took no action to comply with the request until the client filed a
complaint against him more than two years later.
The second complaint (count II) was brought after Ireland
neglected a client’s case. Ireland was retained by the client in April 2000
to pursue a civil rights action against an employer.
The client was
eventually forced to file a pro se petition with the court in October 2000,
after she became concerned that Ireland would fail to file the action prior
to the expiration of the statute of limitations. Ireland then amended the
petition, and continued to represent the client in the litigation. Over the
next two years, however, Ireland neglected the case in several ways. He
was tardy in responding to discovery requests and missed several court
deadlines for filing matters. He failed to keep his client apprised of the
case. He also failed to pursue discovery, and failed to attend scheduled
depositions.
Finally, Ireland failed to resist a motion for summary
judgment filed by the employer, and the case was dismissed by the court.
One of the grounds to support summary judgment was that the petition
was filed beyond the statute of limitations.
Ireland did not contest the core facts of the complaints. Instead,
he acknowledged his conduct, and was apologetic for his transgressions.
He has not practiced law for over three years, and has no plans to return
to Iowa to practice law.
II. Commission Proceedings
The Board charged Ireland with numerous violations of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
The violations in count I included DR 1-
102(A)(6) (conduct that adversely reflects upon fitness to practice law)
and DR 9-102(B)(4) (failure to promptly deliver client property). 1
The
Iowa has adopted the Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct, effective July 1,
2005. However, the conduct in this case occurred prior to July 1, 2005, making the
Code of Professional Responsibility applicable to these proceedings.
1
4
violations in count II included DR 1-102(A)(5) (conduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice), DR 1-102(A)(6), and DR 6-101(A)(1) (handle a
legal matter when not competent), DR 6-101(A)(2) (handle legal matter
with inadequate preparation), and DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglect of client
matter). Ireland stipulated that he violated each disciplinary rule, and
further stipulated to the underlying facts.
Based on the stipulation, the Commission found Ireland violated
the specific provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
It
recommended that he be suspended from the practice of law for not less
than six months.
III. Scope of Review
“We review attorney disciplinary actions 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
An attorney who possesses property of a client that the client is
entitled to receive is obligated to promptly deliver the property to the
client when the client requests the property. DR 9-102(B)(4). A violation
of this duty could reflect adversely on the fitness of the lawyer to practice
law. DR 1-102(A)(6).
Ireland was in possession of a will belonging to a client. The client
had paid Ireland for his services in connection with the preparation and
execution of the will, and she was entitled to possession of the will upon
request.
Ireland violated DR 9-102(B)(4) when he failed to promptly
deliver the will to the client after the request was made. His continual
failure to comply with the duty under DR 9-102(B)(4) reflects adversely
on his fitness to practice law. See DR 1-102(A)(6).
5
Attorneys are required to act competently. DR 6-101. This duty
not only includes refraining from taking cases, without associating with
another competent lawyer, when the lawyer knows or should know that
he or she is not competent to handle the case, but also includes the lack
of adequate preparation and neglect of client matters. DR 6-101(A)(1)–
(3).
Neglect is more than negligence, but involves indifference in the
failure to advance the interests of the client when action is required.
Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Moorman, 683 N.W.2d
549,
551
(Iowa
2004).
It
results
from
extreme
inaction
or
procrastination, and normally involves more than one act or omission.
Id.
In this case, Ireland violated all three components of the duty to
practice law in a competent manner. His conduct was also prejudicial to
the administration of justice, and it adversely reflected on his fitness to
practice law. See DR 1-102(A)(5), (6).
V. Discipline
The Code of Professional Responsibility and the concomitant
disciplinary system exist to maintain public confidence in the legal
system and to provide a mechanism for policing poor lawyering. Iowa
Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Honken, 688 N.W.2d 812,
820 (Iowa 2004).
In determining the appropriate discipline in an
attorney disciplinary case, we consider a variety of general factors
including the nature of the violation, the need for deterrence, the need
for public protection, the preservation of the reputation of the legal
profession, and the fitness of the lawyer to continue to practice law. See
id.; Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Hohenadel, 634
N.W.2d 652, 655 (Iowa 2001).
We also consider any past history of
discipline. Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Lane, 642
N.W.2d 296, 302 (Iowa 2002). Harm to the client is also a consideration.
6
Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Adams, 623 N.W.2d
815, 819 (Iowa 2001). Additionally, multiple incidences of neglect are an
aggravating circumstance to consider.
Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l
Ethics & Conduct v. Pracht, 656 N.W.2d 123, 126 (Iowa 2003).
When neglect of client matters is the principle violation, we have
observed that the discipline generally falls within the range of a public
reprimand to a six-month suspension.
Moorman, 683 N.W.2d at 553.
Yet, the discipline imposed in each case depends upon the particular
facts and circumstances, and this fact-based outcome for each case
tends to diminish the value of precedent. See Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of
Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Eich, 652 N.W.2d 216, 219 (Iowa 2002).
Considering all the facts and circumstances in this case, we
conclude Ireland should be indefinitely suspended from the practice of
law with no possibility of reinstatement for three months. This case is a
blend of neglect and incompetence that clearly signals various concerns
about Ireland’s fitness to practice law.
The neglect perpetrated by
Ireland on his clients was ongoing and profuse, and followed on the heels
of prior incidents of neglect visited upon other clients. The stipulation by
Ireland supports the notion that his conduct adversely reflects on his
fitness to practice law, and is consistent with his decision to voluntarily
leave the practice.
Thus, while a suspension may not be required to
protect the public, it is consistent with the need to maintain the
reputation of the profession as a whole. It is also consistent with the
discipline we have imposed in prior similar cases of neglect. See Iowa
Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Wickey, 679 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa
2004) (neglect and failure to account to client, together with other
conduct, warranted six-month suspension); Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of
Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Waples, 677 N.W.2d 740 (Iowa 2004) (neglect of
7
client matters warranted six-month suspension); Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of
Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. McKittrick, 683 N.W.2d 554 (Iowa 2004) (neglect
of client matter and other associated conduct warranted three-month
suspension); Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Frerichs,
671 N.W.2d 470 (Iowa 2004) (neglect of client matter and failure to
safeguard client property, together with other conduct, warranted fourmonth suspension); Hohenadel, 634 N.W.2d at 652 (neglect of two client
matters warranted four-month suspension).
VI. Conclusion
We suspend Ireland’s license to practice law with no possibility of
reinstatement for a period not less than three months from the date of
filing of this opinion. The suspension applies to all facets of the practice
of law. Iowa Ct. R. 35.12(3). Upon any application for reinstatement,
Ireland shall have the burden to prove he has not practiced during the
period of suspension and that he meets all requirements of Iowa Court
Rule 35.13. The costs of this proceeding are taxed against Ireland.
LICENSE SUSPENDED.
All justices concur except Hecht, 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.
