Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board Vs. Colleen Florence Alexander ( 2007 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 134 / 06-1458
Filed February 2, 2007
IOWA SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD,
Complainant,
vs.
COLLEEN FLORENCE ALEXANDER,
Respondent.
On review of the report of the Grievance Commission.
Grievance Commission reports respondent has committed neglect and
recommends a suspension of respondent’s license for ninety days and an
evaluation by a mental health professional before reinstatement.
ATTORNEY REPRIMANDED.
Charles L. Harrington and David Grace, Des Moines, for complainant.
Colleen F. Alexander, Cedar Falls, pro se.
2
APPEL, Justice.
In this matter, this court reviews Findings of Fact, Conclusions of
Law, and the Recommendation of the Iowa Supreme Court Grievance
Commission regarding the respondent, Colleen Alexander. Based on
admissions and a stipulation, the Commission recommends that
Alexander’s license to practice law be suspended for ninety days. The
Commission further recommends that the respondent should be required to
submit to an evaluation by a licensed health care professional. Upon review
of the record, we conclude that the proper sanction for Alexander is a public
reprimand.
I. Factual Background.
Alexander has no prior history of discipline. The underlying
proceeding against Alexander was based upon a complaint in a single case.
The complaint alleged that Alexander had failed to properly prepare for a
hearing on a child custody matter. Specifically, the complaint alleged that
Alexander failed to return multiple client phone calls in the weeks prior to
the proceeding, failed to provide financial information to opposing counsel
in compliance with discovery deadlines, failed to subpoena ten of eleven
witnesses for the hearing, failed to timely file a post-hearing financial
statement required by the district court, and failed to file post-hearing
motions. The complainant states that the end result was that information
about tax and financial issues, including overtime and financial
commitments of the complainant, were not presented to the district court
and that he was not able to impeach the testimony of his ex-wife. The
complaint further alleges that the omissions of Alexander amount to neglect
under Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility DR 6-101(A) and DR 7-
101(A). After the ethics complaint was filed, Alexander failed to respond to
three notices of the Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board.
3
Ultimately, Alexander entered into a stipulation with the Board. In the
stipulation, Alexander admitted all of the allegations in the complaint.
The parties further stipulated that the day after the hearing in
question, Alexander was hospitalized for a mental breakdown. The
stipulation states that Alexander suffers from depression, anxiety disorder,
and obsessive-compulsive disorder. The stipulation further provides that
Alexander does not intend to practice law in the future, as it is too
confrontational for her, but might wish to use her legal background at some
time in law-related office work.
The Commission entered an order in this matter on September 15,
2006. The Commission found that respondent’s neglect consisted primarily
of not having completed discovery prior to the hearing, not having called
certain witnesses at the hearing, and not being available after the hearing to
handle posttrial matters. The Commission adopted the stipulation of the
parties and, based on its findings, recommended that Alexander’s license to
practice law be suspended with no possibility of reinstatement for a period
of ninety days. The Commission further recommended that the respondent
should be required to provide this court with an evaluation by a licensed
health care professional prior to seeking reinstatement.
II. Scope of Review.
Our review of the findings of the Grievance Commission is de novo.
Iowa Supreme Ct. Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. Moonen, 706 N.W.2d 391, 396
(Iowa 2005). The Board must establish by a convincing preponderance of
the evidence that Alexander committed the violations. Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd.
of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Postma, 555 N.W.2d 680, 681 (Iowa 1996). The
matter of sanction is solely within the authority of this court. Iowa Supreme
Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Sloan, 692 N.W.2d 831, 833 (Iowa 2005).
Each disciplinary case must be judged based on its own facts. Iowa
4
Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Moorman, 683 N.W.2d 549, 553
(Iowa 2004).
III. Discussion.
In Moorman, we noted that neglect has “generally been recognized to
involve indifference and a consistent failure to perform those obligations
that a lawyer has assumed, or a conscious disregard for the responsibilities
a lawyer owes to a client.” 683 N.W.2d at 551 (citations omitted). Neglect
cannot be found if the acts or omissions complained of were inadvertent or
the result of an error of judgment made in good faith. Comm. on Prof'l Ethics
& Conduct v. Rogers, 313 N.W.2d 535, 536 (Iowa 1981).
The stipulation in this case states that the “neglect” consisted
primarily of not having completed discovery prior to the hearing, not calling
certain witnesses at trial, and not being available to handle posttrial
motions. The record does not reflect what effort Alexander did make, what
witnesses were, in fact, called, and what evidence was presented at the
hearing.
Alexander, however, did not respond to the allegations in the Board’s
complaint, which included an allegation of neglect. When the Board filed a
motion that the allegations in the complaint be deemed admitted, Alexander
did not resist the motion and consented to entry of an order sustaining the
motion. Admissions may be relied upon to meet the evidentiary burden of
the Board. Comm. on Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Jackson, 391 N.W.2d 699,
700 (Iowa 1986). As a result of the binding admissions, the charge of
neglect is supported by a convincing preponderance of the evidence.
In addition, we note that Alexander on three occasions failed to
respond to the Board’s notice regarding its investigation. Under the rules
applicable at the time the complaint was made, the failure to respond to the
Board’s notice is an independent violation of the disciplinary rules. DR 1-
5
103(A)(5), DR 1-102(A)(6); Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v.
Sullins, 556 N.W.2d 456, 457 (Iowa 1996); Comm. on Prof’l Ethics & Conduct
v. Pracht, 505 N.W.2d 196, 199 (Iowa 1993).
In a number of cases involving no prior history of discipline, neglect of
one matter, and failure to respond to the Commission, this court has issued
a public reprimand for attorney misconduct. Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l
Ethics & Conduct v. Sherman, 619 N.W.2d 407, 410 (Iowa 2000) (neglect of
one domestic relations matter and failure to cooperate with Board); Iowa
Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Erbes, 573 N.W.2d 269, 271
(Iowa 1998) (public reprimand for neglect of matter and failure to cooperate
with Board); Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Sather, 534
N.W.2d 428, 431 (Iowa 1995) (public reprimand for neglect of one estate and
failure to cooperate with Board). Upon review of the facts of this case, we
hold that Alexander should be publicly reprimanded for her conduct.
IV. Disposition.
The respondent Colleen Alexander is publicly reprimanded for her
conduct as described in this opinion. Costs are assessed against Alexander
pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 35.25(1).
ATTORNEY REPRIMANDED.