Preview:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 103 / 06-0649 Filed November 3, 2006 IOWA SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD, Complainant, vs. JEFFREY M. IRELAND, Respondent. ________________________________________________________________________ On review of the report of the Grievance Commission.

The Grievance Commission reports that respondent has committed ethical misconduct and recommends a suspension. LICENSE

SUSPENDED.

Charles L. Harrington and Wendell J. Harms, Des Moines, for complainant.

Jeffrey M. Ireland, Ozark, Missouri, respondent, pro se.

2 CADY, Justice. The Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board ("Board") charged Jeffrey M. Ireland with numerous violations of the Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers. The charges primarily stemmed from his neglect of client matters in two cases. Commission ("Commission") found Ireland violated The Grievance the Code of

Professional Responsibility. It recommended he be suspended from the practice of law for a period of not less than six months. On our review, we find Ireland violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and impose an indefinite suspension of not less than three months. I. Background Facts and Proceedings Jeffrey Ireland is an Iowa lawyer. He practiced law in Cedar

Rapids, Coralville, and Panora. Ireland moved from Iowa in December 2003, and his license was placed on inactive status in February 2004. He is not licensed to practice law in any other state. Ireland received a private admonition in July 2002 and a public reprimand in December 2002. In both instances, he committed neglect by failing to advise a

client of the move of his law office. Ireland resides in Ozark, Missouri, and is employed outside the legal profession. Two complaints were filed with the Board by former clients of Ireland. These complaints form the basis of these proceedings. The core facts surrounding the complaints are not in dispute. The first complaint (count I) was brought after Ireland failed to deliver a will to a client. Ireland drafted the will for the client in April 2002, and the client paid him for his legal services. Ireland kept the original will in his possession after it was executed by the client. The client later sought possession of the will by writing a letter to Ireland. The letter requested that Ireland send the will to her. He did not respond to the letter. Moreover, Ireland

3 took no action to comply with the request until the client filed a complaint against him more than two years later. The second complaint (count II) was brought after Ireland neglected a client's case. Ireland was retained by the client in April 2000 to pursue a civil rights action against an employer. The client was

eventually forced to file a pro se petition with the court in October 2000, after she became concerned that Ireland would fail to file the action prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations. Ireland then amended the petition, and continued to represent the client in the litigation. Over the next two years, however, Ireland neglected the case in several ways. He was tardy in responding to discovery requests and missed several court deadlines for filing matters. He failed to keep his client apprised of the case. He also failed to pursue discovery, and failed to attend scheduled depositions. Finally, Ireland failed to resist a motion for summary

judgment filed by the employer, and the case was dismissed by the court. One of the grounds to support summary judgment was that the petition was filed beyond the statute of limitations. Ireland did not contest the core facts of the complaints. Instead, he acknowledged his conduct, and was apologetic for his transgressions. He has not practiced law for over three years, and has no plans to return to Iowa to practice law. II. Commission Proceedings The Board charged Ireland with numerous violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The violations in count I included DR 1-

102(A)(6) (conduct that adversely reflects upon fitness to practice law) and DR 9-102(B)(4) (failure to promptly deliver client property). 1
1

The

Iowa has adopted the Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct, effective July 1, 2005. However, the conduct in this case occurred prior to July 1, 2005, making the Code of Professional Responsibility applicable to these proceedings.

4 violations in count II included DR 1-102(A)(5) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), DR 1-102(A)(6), and DR 6-101(A)(1) (handle a legal matter when not competent), DR 6-101(A)(2) (handle legal matter with inadequate preparation), and DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglect of client matter). Ireland stipulated that he violated each disciplinary rule, and further stipulated to the underlying facts. Based on the stipulation, the Commission found Ireland violated the specific provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility. It

recommended that he be suspended from the practice of law for not less than six months. III. Scope of Review "We review attorney disciplinary actions de novo." Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Bernard, 653 N.W.2d 373, 375 (Iowa 2002). "We are not bound by the findings of the commission, but we give them weight." Id. IV. Violations An attorney who possesses property of a client that the client is entitled to receive is obligated to promptly deliver the property to the client when the client requests the property. DR 9-102(B)(4). A violation of this duty could reflect adversely on the fitness of the lawyer to practice law. DR 1-102(A)(6). Ireland was in possession of a will belonging to a client. The client had paid Ireland for his services in connection with the preparation and execution of the will, and she was entitled to possession of the will upon request. Ireland violated DR 9-102(B)(4) when he failed to promptly

deliver the will to the client after the request was made. His continual failure to comply with the duty under DR 9-102(B)(4) reflects adversely on his fitness to practice law. See DR 1-102(A)(6).

5 Attorneys are required to act competently. DR 6-101. This duty not only includes refraining from taking cases, without associating with another competent lawyer, when the lawyer knows or should know that he or she is not competent to handle the case, but also includes the lack of adequate preparation and neglect of client matters. DR 6-101(A)(1)

Download IOWA SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD vs. JEFFREY M. IRELAND.pdf

Iowa Law