Preview:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 142 / 07-0957 Filed March 21, 2008 IOWA SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD, Appellee, vs. ALLAN H. RAUCH, Appellant. Appeal from report of the Grievance Commission.

Grievance Commission reports respondent has committed ethical misconduct and recommends revocation of respondent's license to practice law. LICENSE REVOKED.

Allan H. Rauch, Windsor Heights, pro se.

Charles L. Harrington and Teresa A. Vens, Des Moines, for appellee.

2 STREIT, Justice. The Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board ("Board") accused Allan Rauch of practicing law while his license was suspended, deceiving a client and the district court, neglecting a client's matter, failing to account for and refund a portion of a client's retainer, and failing to cooperate with the Board's investigation. The Grievance

Commission of the Supreme Court of Iowa ("Commission") found Rauch violated the Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers and recommended revocation of Rauch's license in light of his prior ethical violations. We agree with the Commission and revoke Rauch's license. I. Background Facts. He has been

Rauch was admitted to the Iowa bar in 1970.

disciplined for violating our ethics rules on four separate occasions. In 1988, we reprimanded Rauch for failing to act with competence and proper care in representing clients in a personal injury case. Comm. on Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Rauch, 417 N.W.2d 459, 460 (Iowa 1988). We found he neglected his clients' case and failed to adequately prepare for trial. Id. In 1992, we suspended Rauch's license for one year because he misappropriated testamentary trust funds, collected a conservatorship fee without court approval, maintained disorganized client trust

accounts, acted undignified and discourteous toward a tribunal, and mishandled an adoption proceeding. Comm. on Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Rauch, 486 N.W.2d 39, 40 (Iowa 1992). We later extended Rauch's

suspension by three months because he failed to notify his clients and opposing counsel of his suspension. Comm. on Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Rauch, 508 N.W.2d 628, 629 (Iowa 1993). Rauch's license was

reinstated in February 1994. In 2002, we suspended Rauch's license for one year because he neglected a client's case at both the trial and

3 appellate levels, had three ex parte conversations with three judges, obtained two ex parte orders knowing there was another attorney involved in the case, and lied to a judge. Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Rauch, 650 N.W.2d 574, 580 (Iowa 2002). Rauch's license remains suspended. The present case concerns a complaint the Board filed against Rauch in 2004. The Board made the following allegations: In Count I, the Board claimed Rauch agreed to represent Neal Howser on September 20, 2002--fifteen days after we suspended Rauch's law license. Howser agreed to pay Rauch $250 in two installments. Rauch did not inform Howser of the suspension. $100, Rauch prepared a motion to quash. After Howser paid Rauch Rauch took the motion to

Howser's home for Howser to sign and then filed the motion with the district court. The motion did not contain any indicia Rauch prepared it or that he represented Howser. About a week later, Howser went to

Rauch's office to pay him the final $150. Rauch's office was completely empty. Howser was unsuccessful in his attempts to contact Rauch.

Howser filed a complaint with the Board to which Rauch never responded. Count II alleged Derrold and Dena Anderson hired Rauch to represent their nephew, Ned Osborn, in April 2001. The Andersons paid Rauch $500 to pursue a reduction in Osborn's child support obligation. Rauch filed a motion to quash and the matter was set for hearing. However, no hearing was ever held. Rauch also wrote one letter to Child Support Recovery on behalf of Osborn. The Andersons had no further communication with Rauch. In January 2002, Mr. Anderson sent Rauch a certified letter requesting he either "do the job" or return the $500.

4 Rauch did not respond to Mr. Anderson, nor did he respond to the Board's notice of Mr. Anderson's complaint. The Board filed its complaint against Rauch in January 2004. The Commission made several attempts to serve Rauch with the complaint, all of which were unsuccessful. In February 2007, notice of the Board's complaint was served on the clerk of the supreme court pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 36.6(3). Rauch did not file an answer to the complaint.

Consequently, the Board's allegations were deemed admitted by the Commission. See Iowa Ct. R. 36.7. The Commission held a hearing on May 14, 2007. Rauch did not appear. Thereafter, the Commission filed its decision which recommended revocation of Rauch's law license. On June 25, 2007, Rauch filed an "Appearance and Motion for Time" in which he stated his recent receipt of the Board's brief was his "first and only actual notification of this action." (Emphasis in original.) Rauch claimed he would have responded to the Board's complaint had he received it. Rauch stated "[t]he inordinate and excessive lapses of

time involved in the prosecution of this action and the use of Court Rule 36.3(3) may well constitute a denial of due process and equal protection." He requested the opportunity to be heard on the merits of the case. In response, the Board claimed Rauch had only himself to blame for the delay. The Board noted Rauch received notices of its investigation but chose not to keep the Board informed of his current address.1 We granted Rauch fourteen days to file and serve notice of his appeal. In our order, we stated Rauch could raise on appeal his to notice and service in the underlying commission

challenges

proceeding. Subsequently, Rauch filed a notice of appeal. However, he
is not known why the Board took so long to serve the clerk of the supreme court with the complaint. Effective July 1, 2005, Iowa Court Rule 36.6 was amended to allow for substituted service in the event a lawyer cannot be found.
1It

5 failed to file a proof brief and only belatedly filed a designation of the contents of an appendix. Rauch has therefore waived any argument he had with respect to sufficiency of the notice. See Iowa R. App. P.

6.14(1)(c) (stating "[f]ailure in the brief to state, to argue or to cite authority in support of an issue may be deemed waiver of that issue"). II. Scope of Review.

We review the findings of the Grievance Commission de novo. Iowa Ct. R. 35.10(1). We give weight to the Commission's findings but we are not bound by those findings. Iowa Supreme Ct. Att'y Disciplinary Bd. v. McGrath, 713 N.W.2d 682, 695 (Iowa 2006). The Board has the burden to prove disciplinary violations by a convincing preponderance of the evidence. Iowa Supreme Ct. Att'y Disciplinary Bd. v. D'Angelo, 710

N.W.2d 226, 230 (Iowa 2006). This burden is " `less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but more than the preponderance standard required in the usual civil case.' " Id. (quoting Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l

Ethics & Conduct v. Lett, 674 N.W.2d 139, 142 (Iowa 2004)). III. The Commission's Findings.

With respect to Count I, the Commission found Rauch engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by agreeing to represent Howser while his law license was suspended. See Iowa Code of Prof'l Responsibility for Lawyers DR 3

Download IOWA SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD vs. ALLAN H. RAUCH.pdf

Iowa Law