Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board Vs. James William Ramey

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 129 / 07-0823
Filed March 14, 2008
IOWA SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY
DISCIPLINARY BOARD,
Complainant,
vs.
JAMES WILLIAM RAMEY,
Respondent.
On review of the report of the Grievance Commission.
The Iowa Supreme Court Grievance Commission recommends a
revocation of Ramey’s license. A public reprimand is imposed.
RESPONDENT REPRIMANDED.
Charles L. Harrington and Wendell J. Harms, Des Moines, for
complainant.
No appearance for respondent.
2
HECHT, Justice.
The Iowa Supreme Court Grievance Commission has recommended
revocation of attorney James Ramey’s license to practice law in Iowa for
violations of the Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers.1
Although we agree with the commission’s finding that Ramey’s conduct
violated several ethical rules, we conclude the appropriate sanction in this
case is a public reprimand.
I. Factual and Procedural Background.
This case represents the fourth charge of ethics violations against
James W. Ramey in the past twenty years. In 1988 we suspended Ramey
for six months for failing to timely file tax returns in three years, for making
a false statement on a client security questionnaire that one of those
returns had been filed, and for failing to respond to the inquiries of the
commission. See Comm. on Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Ramey, 424 N.W.2d
435 (Iowa 1988) (Ramey I). We also suspended Ramey’s license for three
months in 1994 for making a false statement to the court and failing to
disclose exculpatory evidence during the prosecution of a criminal case.
See Comm. on Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Ramey, 512 N.W.2d 569 (Iowa 1994)
(Ramey II).
We most recently suspended Ramey’s license in January 2002. Iowa
Supreme Ct. Disciplinary Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Ramey, 639 N.W.2d
243 (Iowa 2002) (Ramey III). That case stemmed from a complaint filed by
Ramey’s former client, Ms. Edna Downard. In July 2000 Ms. Downard
hired Ramey to represent her and her sisters regarding their brother’s
estate, and gave him a $1000 retainer. Id. at 244. Downard had one
1The conduct alleged in this case against Ramey occurred in 2001. Accordingly, the
violations found by the commission are based on the disciplinary rules of the Code of
Professional Responsibility in force in 2001.
3
additional conversation with Ramey, but thereafter never heard from Ramey
again. Ramey did not return the $1000 retainer and did not provide an
accounting for the services, if any, he provided. Id. We found Ramey’s
conduct violated numerous ethical rules and suspended his license for
three years. Id. at 246. He has not sought reinstatement during his
present suspension.2
The two complaints against Ramey in this case were originally filed
with the grievance commission in May 2003, but arise from matters
undertaken by him in the summer of 2000 when he committed the ethical
violations in connection with the Downard case. Pursuant to Iowa Court
Rule 34.5, the Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board notified
Ramey of the first of these two complaints in June 2001. Ramey did not
respond to the notification. The board could not locate Ramey to issue a
rule 34.5 notification for the second complaint, but it subsequently filed a
two-count complaint with the grievance commission which listed both
charges. Because the board was unable to personally serve Ramey with
notice of the complaint filed with the grievance commission, notice was
served on an assistant clerk of the Iowa Supreme Court on January 30,
2007. See Iowa Ct. R. 36.6(3) (“If service cannot be obtained pursuant to
rule 36.6(2) [providing for personal service], the clerk of the grievance
commission may serve notice of the complaint on the clerk of the supreme
court who is appointed to receive service on behalf of lawyers subject to
Iowa’s disciplinary authority. . . . Service on the clerk of the supreme court
is deemed to be completed service of the notice on the respondent.”).
Ramey did not file an answer to the complaint and failed to appear at the
2As a consequence of Ramey’s failure to demonstrate compliance with continuing
legal education requirements, his license to practice law has been suspended since
November 10, 2000.
4
disciplinary hearing in April 2007, at which the commission received the
board’s uncontroverted evidence. The following statement of facts is based
upon the complaint and the testimony of the board’s witnesses at the
disciplinary hearing.
A. Haberthur Dissolution. In 1998, Randy Haberthur, who had
recently separated from his wife, asked Ramey to calculate the child
support he should pay his wife during the separation. Ramey completed
the work without incident. In June 2000, Haberthur paid Ramey $430 as a
retainer for representing Haberthur in a dissolution of marriage action. In
December of that year, Ramey informed Haberthur that the divorce had
been completed, and provided him with a dissolution decree purportedly
entered on December 20, 2000. The decree bore a case number and
purported to have been filed in the Polk County District Court. Ramey did
not disclose to Haberthur that his license had been suspended in November
2000 for failure to comply with continuing legal education requirements.
Haberthur became suspicious of the decree’s validity. When he went
to the clerk’s office to inquire, Haberthur learned no petition for dissolution
had ever been filed, much less a decree. Haberthur retained other counsel
and his dissolution was completed in July 2001. Ramey did not return the
$430 retainer to Haberthur.
B. Hethershaw Real Estate Matter. Ramey was consulted in
July 2000 by Charles Hethershaw about the marketability of his title to
certain Alabama real estate inherited by Hethershaw. Hethershaw gave
Ramey a file containing documents including Hethershaw’s grandfather’s
1899 deed to the land.
About one month after delivering the file to Ramey, Hethershaw
attempted to contact Ramey to inquire about the status of the matter.
5
Ramey did not respond to Hethershaw’s calls or correspondence requesting
information about the matter. After approximately two to three months
without communication from Ramey despite repeated inquiries, Hethershaw
drove to Ramey’s office and found it closed and locked. Hethershaw made
no payment to Ramey, and had no further communication with him. The
board subsequently retrieved at least part of Hethershaw’s file from Ramey’s
vacated law office in Des Moines.3 Ramey did not notify Hethershaw that
his license to practice law was suspended in November 2000.
C. Commission’s Findings. Ramey’s failure to respond to the
complaints filed with the commission resulted in an admission of the
allegations. Iowa Ct. R. 36.7. Based on the uncontroverted evidence at the
hearing, the commission found Ramey violated DR 1–102(A)(4) (a lawyer
shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or
misrepresentation), DR 1–102(A)(5) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct
that is prejudicial to the administration of justice and shall respond to the
board’s notices), DR 1–102(A)(6) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that
adversely reflects on the fitness to practice law), DR 6–101(A)(3) (a lawyer
shall not neglect a client’s legal matter), DR 7–101(A)(1) (a lawyer shall not
intentionally fail to seek the lawful objectives of the client), DR 7–101(A)(2)
(a lawyer shall not intentionally fail to carry out a contract of employment),
DR 7–101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not intentionally damage a client during the
course of the professional relationship), DR 9–102(B)(3) (a lawyer shall
maintain complete records of all funds, securities, and other properties of a
client coming into the possession of the lawyer and render appropriate
accounts to the client regarding them), and DR 9–102(B)(4) (a lawyer shall
promptly pay or deliver to the client as requested by a client the funds,
3The deed was not among the papers retrieved from Ramey’s abandoned office.
6
securities, or other properties in the possession of the lawyer which the
client is entitled to receive). The board found “nothing in the record to
indicate that [Ramey] has acknowledged his mistakes and would practice
law as required by the disciplinary rules in the future.” Given his history of
disciplinary proceedings, the commission recommended that Ramey’s
license to practice law in the State of Iowa be revoked.
II. Standard of Review.
When an attorney fails to appeal the commission’s recommendation,
we review de novo the record made before the commission. Iowa Ct. R.
35.10(1); Comm. on Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Peterson, 524 N.W.2d 176, 178
(Iowa 1994). While we give respectful consideration to the commission’s
findings and recommendations, we are not bound by them. Iowa Supreme
Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Lemanski, 606 N.W.2d 11, 13 (Iowa
2000). The board must prove misconduct by a convincing preponderance of
the evidence. Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Moorman, 729
N.W.2d 801, 803 (Iowa 2007).
III. Findings.
Upon our de novo review, we find the record supports the
commission’s findings by a convincing preponderance of the evidence and
we conclude Ramey violated numerous ethical rules.
A. Neglect. DR 6–101(A)(3) states that attorneys shall not neglect
clients’ legal matters. “The rule requires an attorney to attend to matters
entrusted to his care and to do so in a reasonably timely manner.” Iowa
Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Dunahoo, 730 N.W.2d 202, 205 (Iowa
2007). In abandoning Haberthur’s and Hethershaw’s cases without
communication to the clients, Ramey neglected the interests of his clients,
and violated DR 6–101(A)(3). Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v.
7
Kirlin, 741 N.W.2d 813, 817 (Iowa 2007) (“Professional neglect involves
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.” (Internal quotation omitted)).
B. Intentional Failure to Carry Out Contract of Employment,
Failure to Seek the Client’s Lawful Objectives, and Intentionally
Damaging the Client. Ramey’s intentional abandonment of the Haberthur
and Hethershaw cases without communication to either client constituted
violations of DR 7–101(A)(1)–(3). Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v.
Gottschalk, 729 N.W.2d 812, 818–19 (Iowa 2007).
C. Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit, and Misrepresentation. DR 1–
102(A)(4) prohibits lawyers from “engag[ing] in conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.” Ramey’s representation to
Haberthur that his divorce was completed and his creation of a counterfeit
dissolution decree violated DR 1–102(A)(4). Comm. on Prof’l Ethics &
Conduct v. Wilson, 290 N.W.2d 17, 23 (Iowa 1980) (forging judge’s signature
to a divorce decree and deceiving a client are violations of DR 1-102(A)(4)).
D. Prejudice to the Administration of Justice; Fitness to
Practice Law. The fraud perpetrated by Ramey on Haberthur was
prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of DR 1–102(A)(5),
because Haberthur was forced to independently uncover Ramey’s deception
and obtain different counsel to obtain the dissolution. Haberthur’s
dissolution was delayed over six months as a result of Ramey’s deceitful act.
Moreover, at the time he presented Haberthur with the forged decree,
Ramey had been suspended from the practice of law—information he failed
to provide to Haberthur. This conduct also adversely reflects on Ramey’s
fitness to practice law, a violation of DR 1–102(A)(6).
8
Additionally, Ramey’s failure to complete the Hethershaw matter and
return the client’s file upon request constitutes a violation of DR 1–102(A)(5)
and (6), because Hethershaw was delayed in the realization of his legal
objectives. Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Kennedy, 684
N.W.2d 256, 260 (Iowa 2004) (failure to initiate appropriate legal
proceedings adversely reflects on fitness to practice law and prejudices the
administration of justice).
E. Failure to Account. DR 9–102(B) requires attorneys to:
...
(3) Maintain complete records of all funds, securities, and
other properties of a client coming into the possession of the
lawyer and render appropriate accounts to the client regarding
them.
(4) Promptly pay or deliver to the client as requested by a
client the funds, securities, or other properties in the
possession of the lawyer which the client is entitled to receive.
Ramey’s failure to return Haberthur’s retainer or provide an account of
services rendered in the dissolution matter constituted a violation of DR 9–
102(B)(3) and (4). Ramey’s failure to maintain and return Hethershaw’s file
when requested resulted in a violation of the same disciplinary rules. Iowa
Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Earley, 729 N.W.2d 437, 442 (Iowa
2007).
F. Failure to Respond to Board Inquiries. Finally, Ramey’s
failures to respond to the board’s inquiries constitute independent
violations of DR 1–102(A)(5) and (6). Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics &
Conduct v. Kallsen, 670 N.W.2d 161, 167 (Iowa 2003).
IV. Discipline.
Having found Ramey violated several provisions of the Code of
Professional Responsibility in existence at the time of the infractions, we
9
must consider whether to impose the commission’s recommended sanction
of revocation. The appropriate sanction in any disciplinary case must be
based on the particular facts and circumstances of the case. Ramey III, 639
N.W.2d at 245. Ramey’s conduct in connection with the Haberthur and
Hethershaw matters occurred contemporaneously with the conduct which
formed the basis for our conclusion in 2002 that Ramey’s license should be
suspended with no possibility of reinstatement for three years. When the
misconduct forming the basis for a current disciplinary charge antedates or
is contemporaneous with conduct for which a previous suspension was
issued, we must determine whether we would have imposed a greater
suspension in the prior case had we been aware of the information now
before the court. See Moorman, 729 N.W.2d at 805–06; Comm. on Prof’l
Ethics & Conduct v. Clauss, 468 N.W.2d 213, 215 (Iowa 1991). Where the
attorney’s conduct in both cases is “similar and demonstrates the same
pattern of conduct,” a public reprimand may be more appropriate than
additional punishment. Moorman, 729 N.W.2d at 806.
Ramey’s conduct in this case is similar in nature to that which was
alleged against him in Ramey III, and appears to be part of a pattern of
conduct in which Ramey abandoned his practice without informing clients
or returning their files and previously advanced funds. It is unlikely we
would have imposed a more severe penalty in Ramey III had the Haberthur
and Hethershaw complaints and violations been considered. As in
Moorman, because Ramey’s license is presently under suspension and he
will be required to satisfy numerous conditions if he should apply for
reinstatement, a more severe penalty will not serve to protect the public or
deter future misconduct. Moorman, 729 N.W.2d at 806; see Bd. of Prof’l
Ethics & Conduct v. Scieszinski, 599 N.W.2d 472, 474 (Iowa 1999) (“The
10
canons of ethics are not primarily intended to mete out abstract justice to
wayward attorneys, but rather are chiefly intended to provide protection to
the public.”).
Accordingly, James William Ramey is hereby publicly reprimanded for
misconduct in connection with the Haberthur and Hethershaw matters. In
addition to the conditions prescribed in Ramey III, Ramey shall (1) pay $430
to Haberthur, and (2) return to Hethershaw any of his documents in
Ramey’s possession prior to filing any application for reinstatement. Costs
of this action are assessed to Ramey pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 35.25.
ATTORNEY REPRIMANDED.
All justices concur except Appel, J., who takes no part.