Preview:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 62 / 06-0003 Filed July 28, 2006 IOWA SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD, Complainant, vs. THOMAS P. FRERICHS, Respondent.

On review of the report of the Grievance Commission.

Iowa Supreme Court Grievance Commission recommends a six-month suspension of respondent's license to practice law. LICENSE SUSPENDED.

Charles L. Harrington and Laura M. Roan, Des Moines, for complainant.

Clemens A. Erdahl of Nidey, Peterson, Erdahl & Tindal, Cedar Rapids, for respondent.

2 WIGGINS, Justice. The Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board (Board) filed a complaint alleging Thomas P. Frerichs violated numerous rules of the Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers in handling a legal matter. The Grievance Commission (Commission) found the Board had proved the allegations of the complaint and recommended we suspend Frerichs' license to practice law for six months. We agree with the Commission that

Frerichs' conduct violated numerous rules of the Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers; however, we disagree with its recommended sanction and suspend Frerichs' license to practice law in this state indefinitely with no possibility of reinstatement for three months. I. Scope of Review. This court reviews attorney disciplinary proceedings de novo. Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Honken, 688 N.W.2d 812, 815 (Iowa 2004). We consider the factual findings and disciplinary

recommendations of the Commission in deciding the matter. Iowa Supreme Ct. Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. Moonen, 706 N.W.2d 391, 396 (Iowa 2005). Ethical violations must be proven by a convincing preponderance of the evidence. Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Williams, 675 N.W.2d 530, 531 (Iowa 2004). II. Background Facts and Proceedings. The Board filed a complaint against Frerichs consisting of two counts alleging various violations of the Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers. Frerichs filed an answer admitting and denying various parts of the complaint. The Commission held a hearing at which Frerichs testified. At the hearing, the Board's and Frerichs' exhibits were admitted by agreement of the parties. One of the exhibits contained a stipulation by the

3 parties to certain facts, ethical violations, and prior disciplinary action against Frerichs. On our de novo review, we find Frerichs represented a client who had been personally served with a notice of forfeiture. The Iowa Code provides such a party must file a claim opposing forfeiture within thirty days of service in order to avoid forfeiture of the subject property to the State. Iowa Code

Download IOWA SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD vs. THOMAS P. FRERICHS.pdf

Iowa Law