Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board Vs. Theodore M. Meggers , 2006 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 104 ( 2006 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 74 / 06-0549
Filed August 18, 2006
IOWA SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD,
Complainant,
vs.
THEODORE M. MEGGERS,
Respondent.
On review of the findings and recommendations of the Grievance
Commission.
The Grievance Commission of this court found that respondent
attorney violated the Iowa Code of Professional Conduct for Lawyers and
recommended a suspension of license. LICENSE SUSPENDED.
Charles L. Harrington and Laura Roan, Des Moines, for complainant.
No appearance for respondent.
2
CARTER, Justice.
This is a review under Iowa Court Rule 35.10 of the findings and
recommendations of the Grievance Commission concerning respondent-
attorney Theodore M. Meggers. The commission found that respondent has
violated the Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers by (1)
neglecting his professional responsibility to a client by failing to file a notice
of appeal as directed by the client following an operating-while-intoxicated
conviction, and (2) failing to respond to the Iowa Supreme Court Attorney
Disciplinary Board’s inquiry concerning that alleged neglect. The
commission has recommended that respondent’s license be suspended for
an indeterminate period of time with no possibility of reinstatement for at
least three months.
The chronology of significant events was as follows: On October 14,
2003, the Disciplinary Board was advised by a district associate judge that
a client of respondent who had been convicted of operating a motor vehicle
while intoxicated had been ordered to serve his sentence, notwithstanding
his filing of an appeal bond, because respondent failed to file a notice of
appeal after having been directed to do so by the client. On November 1,
2003, the Disciplinary Board wrote to respondent seeking his explanation
with respect to the judge’s complaint. That communication was sent by
certified mail with return receipt requested, and respondent receipted for
the mailing.
When no response was received from respondent, the Disciplinary
Board sent additional mailings requesting a response that were mailed on
November 24, 2003, and December 3, 2003. Both of those communications
were returned by postal authorities with the explanation that the post office
box to which they had been mailed (respondent’s mailing address furnished
to the Iowa Client Security and Disciplinary Commission) had been closed,
3
and no forwarding address had been provided. As a result of these
circumstances, the Disciplinary Board filed a formal complaint against
respondent and made service on the clerk of the supreme court as
permitted by Iowa Court Rule 36.6(3). The clerk’s mailing of a copy of the
complaint to respondent was returned and marked undelivered.
The Grievance Commission staff made informal efforts to locate
respondent, but proceeded to a hearing without him. Because respondent
had not answered the complaint, the allegations contained therein were
deemed admitted by the Grievance Commission. Based on those
admissions, the Grievance Commission found that respondent had violated
DR 6—101(A)(3) of the Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers
by neglecting a client’s legal matter and violated DR 1—102(A)(5) of that
code by failing to respond to the inquiries of the Disciplinary Board. We
find the record fully supports that finding. The Grievance Commission
recommended that respondent’s license be suspended for three months.
We note, as did the commission, that his license is currently under
suspension for failure to comply with the continuing legal education
requirements.
Appropriate discipline depends on the nature of the alleged violations,
the need for deterrence, the protection of the public, the maintenance of the
reputation of the bar as a whole, and the attorney’s fitness to continue in
the practice of law. Comm. on Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Havercamp, 442
N.W.2d 67, 69 (Iowa 1989). We are satisfied that the period of suspension
recommended by the Grievance Commission represents an appropriate
discipline to be imposed for respondent’s ethical violations.
We suspend respondent Theodore M. Meggers’ license to practice law
in this state indefinitely with no possibility of reinstatement for three
months following the filing of this opinion. The suspension shall apply to all
4
facets of the practice of law. See Iowa Ct. R. 35.12(3). Upon application for
reinstatement, respondent shall have the burden to prove he has not
practiced law during the period of suspension and that he has in all other
ways complied with Iowa Court Rule 35.21. Costs are assessed against the
respondent. See Iowa Ct. R. 35.25(1).
LICENSE SUSPENDED.