Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board Vs. Mary Margaret Schumacher , 723 N.W.2d 802 ( 2006 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 124 / 06-1256
Filed November 17, 2006
IOWA SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY
DISCIPLINARY BOARD,
Complainant,
vs.
MARY MARGARET SCHUMACHER,
Respondent.
________________________________________________________________________
On review of the report of the Grievance Commission.
The Grievance Commission reports that respondent committed
ethical misconduct and recommends suspension. LICENSE
SUSPENDED.
Charles L. Harrington and Wendell J. Harms, Des Moines, for
complainant.
Nathan C. Moonen of Moonen Law Office, Epworth, for respondent.
2
CADY, Justice.
The Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board (Board)
charged Mary M. Schumacher with numerous violations of the Iowa Code
of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers. The charges primarily
stemmed from her neglect in three separate cases. The Grievance
Commission (Commission) found Schumacher violated the Code of
Professional Responsibility. It recommended she be suspended from the
practice of law for a period not less than nine months. On our review, we
find Schumacher violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and
impose an indefinite suspension not less than six months.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
Mary M. Schumacher is an Iowa lawyer. She practices law in
Dubuque. She was privately admonished in 1988 for handling a client
matter when not competent to do so.
These proceedings arise as a result of three separate complaints
filed with the Board against Schumacher. The Board, in response, filed a
three-count complaint against Schumacher. The basic facts of each
count were not disputed, and the matter was ultimately submitted to the
Commission on a stipulation entered into by the parties. Schumacher
acknowledged she violated the Code of Professional Responsibility, and
agreed her conduct warranted a suspension.
The first complaint involved Schumacher’s representation of a
client in an action to modify a decree for dissolution of marriage.
Schumacher was retained by the client in August 2001, and received a
retainer of $750. However, she subsequently took little action on the
case other than to obtain certified copies of some court documents and
to prepare a petition. The client finally terminated the attorney-client
relationship in December 2002 due to the lack of progress made in the
3
case, and requested a refund of the retainer. The client then filed a
complaint with the Board in February 2002, and Schumacher failed to
respond to three separate notices of the complaint from the Board.
Schumacher did not return the retainer to the client until after the Board
filed its complaint.
The second complaint also involved Schumacher’s representation
of a client in an action to modify a decree of dissolution of marriage. The
client had experienced a loss of income after changes in his employment,
and sought Schumacher’s assistance in January 2003 to modify the
child support provisions in his dissolution of marriage decree.
Schumacher filed a modification petition in February 2003, but did little
to pursue the action after that time despite frequent attempts by the
client for her to do so. Schumacher repeatedly failed to return phone
calls to the client and to respond to his letters. The case was set for trial
in August 2003 and subsequently continued several times. The client
filed a complaint with the Board in November 2003. The petition was
finally heard by the court in March 2004, resulting in a decrease in the
child support payments. As before, Schumacher failed to respond to
three separate notices of the complaint from the Board.
The third complaint involved Schumacher’s services as an attorney
for an executor in an estate. Schumacher opened the estate in January
2000. However, she failed to perform numerous essential services in a
timely manner, and simply failed to perform other services. Several
reports to the court were both untimely and incomplete. The inheritance
tax returns and estate tax returns were filed late, resulting in a
substantial penalty. Schumacher eventually paid the penalty with her
personal funds, totaling over $14,000. Schumacher also repeatedly
failed to respond to inquiries by beneficiaries and attorneys representing
4
beneficiaries. A successor executor was eventually appointed to close the
estate in 2005, and to correct mistakes in the fiduciary income tax
returns, resulting in additional taxes and penalties. For the third time,
Schumacher failed to respond to three notices from the Board concerning
the complaint.
II. Commission Proceedings
The Board charged Schumacher with numerous violations of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. The violations in count I included
DR 1-102(A)(1) (violation of a disciplinary rule), DR 1-102(A)(6) (conduct
that adversely reflects on the practice of law), and DR 9-102(B)(4) (failure
to promptly pay client funds). The violations in count II included DR 1-
102(A)(1), DR 1-102(A)(5) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of
justice), DR 1-102(A)(6), and DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglect of client matters).
The violations in count III included DR 1-102(A)(1), (5), and (6), DR 6-
101(A)(1) (handling legal matters without assistance when not
competent), and DR 6-101(A)(3).
The Commission found Schumacher violated each provision of the
Code. It recommended she be suspended from the practice of law for a
period not less than nine months.
III. Scope of Review
Our review of attorney disciplinary actions is de novo. Iowa
Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Bernard, 653 N.W.2d 373,
375 (Iowa 2002). We give weight to the findings of the Commission, but
are not bound by them. Id.
IV. Violations
The conduct in this case involved various forms of neglect and
incompetence. Schumacher failed to perform essential tasks for her
clients in a timely manner. She procrastinated again and again, despite
5
the urgency of the task or the repeated complaints of dissatisfaction by
clients or attorneys. Additionally, both her actions and inactions in the
estate proceeding revealed a lack of competency to handle such matters.
Schumacher violated the rules as alleged by the Board. See Iowa
Supreme Ct. Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. Ireland, ___ N.W.2d ___ (Iowa
2006) (attorney disciplined for failing to deliver a will to a client and for
neglecting client’s case in civil rights litigation).
V. Discipline
We consider numerous factors in determining appropriate
discipline, including the nature of the violation, the need for deterrence
and public protection, the preservation of the legal profession’s
reputation, and the lawyer’s fitness to continue practicing law. Id. at ___
(citing Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Honken, 688
N.W.2d 812, 820 (Iowa 2004); Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics &
Conduct v. Hohenadel, 634 N.W.2d 652, 655 (Iowa 2001)). Additional
considerations include harm to a client, multiple incidences of neglect,
and past history of discipline. Id. at ___ (citing Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of
Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Pracht, 656 N.W.2d 123, 126 (Iowa 2003); Iowa
Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Lane, 642 N.W.2d 296, 302
(Iowa 2002); Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Adams,
623 N.W.2d 815, 819 (Iowa 2001)).
We have observed that discipline generally ranges from a public
reprimand to a six-month suspension when neglect of client matters is
the principal violation. Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v.
Moorman, 683 N.W.2d 549, 553 (Iowa 2004). While this case involves a
broad range of violations, each was bound together by the common
thread of neglect and procrastination. Schumacher neglected to do the
work necessary to properly represent her clients, or neglected to do it in
6
a competent and thoughtful manner. She even failed to respond to
Board inquiries, just as she failed to respond to client and attorney
inquiries. Neglect permeated nearly all aspects of the cases involved in
this action, and even spilled into the arena of incompetency. The nature
of the conduct exhibited by Schumacher adversely reflects on her fitness
to practice law, and seriously undermines public confidence in the legal
profession.
While there may be underlying reasons not disclosed to us in the
record to explain the misconduct that occurred in this case, we conclude
the discipline imposed should fall on the high end of the general range of
discipline we have imposed in the past. The neglect was pervasive and
involved three separate cases. See Pracht, 656 N.W.2d at 126. Harm
was visited on clients and third parties. See Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of
Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Jay, 606 N.W.2d 1, 2–4 (Iowa 2000). The
reputation of the legal system has suffered. Consequently, we conclude
Schumacher should be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law
with no possibility of reinstatement for six months. This discipline is
consistent with our prior cases, and is warranted under the particular
facts and circumstances.
VI. Conclusion
We suspend Schumacher’s license to practice law with no
possibility of reinstatement for a period not less than six months from
the date of the filing of this opinion. The suspension applies to all facets
of the practice of law. Iowa Ct. R. 35.12(3) (“Any attorney suspended
shall refrain, during such suspension, from all facets of the ordinary law
practice . . . .”). Upon any application for reinstatement, Schumacher
shall have the burden to prove she has not practiced during the period of
suspension and that she meets all requirements of Iowa Court Rule
7
35.13. See Iowa Ct. R. 35.13 (providing the procedure on application for
reinstatement). The costs of this proceeding are taxed against
Schumacher, including the costs of the depositions admitted as evidence
pursuant to the stipulation of the parties.
LICENSE SUSPENDED.
All justices concur except Ternus, C.J., who takes no part.