Committee on Professional Ethics & Conduct of the Iowa State Bar Ass'n v. Minette , 1988 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 169 ( 1988 )

PER CURIAM.

The Grievance Commission of this court found that the respondent, Richard P. Mi-nette, had violated several rules of professional conduct by neglecting four probate matters and by failing to cooperate with the ethics committee in its ensuing investigation. The commission recommended that the respondent be reprimanded. On our review, we suspend his license for a minimum of three months.

I.The Probate Matters.

Four probate matters are involved; two were decedents’ estates and two were con-servatorships for minors. In one of the decedents’ estates, the respondent failed to properly defend against a claim filed by a creditor. The administrator threatened to sue the respondent, but the suit was avoided by the respondent’s paying $200 toward the claim and waiving his attorney fees.

The second estate problem arose out of the respondent’s repeated failure to respond to delinquency notices sent to him by the clerk of the district court. See Iowa Code § 633.32(1985); Iowa R.Prob.P. 5.

The two remaining probate matters included a conservatorship to handle a small trust and a conservatorship opened for a minor for school purposes. The respondent also received notices of delinquency in these conservatorship cases but did not cure the delinquencies within the required time.

These probate problems on the part of the respondent are deemed to be admitted as a result of his failure to respond to the committee’s requests for admissions, see Iowa R.Civ.P. 127, and by his testimony at the commission hearing.

We agree with the commission that the respondent’s handling of the probate matters violated several of our ethics rules. Specifically, he has violated DR 1-102(A)(1) (violation of disciplinary rule); DR 1-102(A)(5) (conduct prejudicial to administration of justice); DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting a legal matter); EC 6-1 (failure to act with competence and proper care); EC 6-4 (failure to adequately prepare for and give appropriate attention to legal work).

II. Failure to Cooperate with Committee.

When the ethics committee of the bar association attempted to resolve the respondent’s problems in the probate cases, it was met with a total lack of response by him. Following receipt of a complaint, the committee notified the respondent by certified mail and asked him to reply. See R. of P.Comm. on Prof. Ethics & Conduct of the Iowa State Bar Ass’n 3.2. No response was forthcoming. The committee then sent a second notice, under committee rule 3.3, which required a response within ten days. There was still no reply. The respondent admitted his failure to respond to the committee inquiries but testified that it was the result of a mental block, an inability to face the reality of the situation, and not a case of contumacious conduct or defiance of the committee.

Nevertheless, failure of a lawyer to cooperate in an ethics committee investigation is itself a violation of our ethics rules. See Committee on Professional Ethics & Conduct v. Miller, 412 N.W.2d 622, 624 (Iowa 1987); Committee on Professional Ethics & Conduct v. Stienstra, 390 N.W.2d 135, 137 (Iowa 1986); Committee on Professional Ethics & Conduct v. Horn, 379 N.W.2d 6, 9 (Iowa 1985). This brings us to the question of disposition.

III. Disposition.

The commission recommended a reprimand. It appears that the respondent has taken steps to correct his problems. He associated himself with a partner who has apparently helped him in completing his work. He has received psychiatric counseling and has sought the advice of another attorney in coping with his problems. He has also put in place office procedures aimed at eliminating deadline problems. These efforts are commendable.

While we agree with the Grievance Commission that the respondent has taken these steps to prevent future problems, we cannot overlook the fact that he not only neglected the legal matters entrusted to him but failed to respond to the communications by the ethics committee. The ethics committee, and our Grievance Commission, are made up of busy lawyers and laypeople who should not be required to expend unnecessary time to deal with lawyers who fail to respond to the attempts to investigate complaints. A prompt response on the part of the lawyer could well eliminate a considerable amount of work on the part of everyone.

Although we see some merit in the commission’s recommendation for a reprimand, we believe a more serious sanction is more consistent with our recent disciplinary cases of a similar nature. See, e.g., Committee on Professional Ethics & Conduct v. Rosene, 412 N.W.2d 634, 637 (Iowa 1987) (failure to close two estates and failure to cooperate; three-month suspension); Miller, 412 N.W.2d at 624 (neglect in two estates and failure to respond to committee inquiries; three-month suspension); Committee on Professional Ethics & Conduct v. Paulos, 410 N.W.2d 260, 262 (Iowa 1987) (failure to complete four probate matters, coupled with failure to respond to committee inquiry; six-month suspension).

We conclude that respondent’s violations warrant an indefinite suspension of his license to practice law. This suspension shall be with no possibility of reinstatement for three months from the date of this opinion. This suspension shall apply to all facets of the practice of law, Iowa Sup.Ct. R. 118.12, and any application for reinstatement shall be governed by rule 118.13.-

Costs are taxed to the respondent pursuant to Iowa Supreme Court Rule 118.22.

LICENSE SUSPENDED.

All Justices concur except SCHULTZ, CARTER, LAVORATO, and NEUMAN, JJ., who dissent.