Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. Fenton

1

Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board, Complainant, v. Joel E. Fenton, Respondent.

No. 24-0538

Supreme Court of Iowa

October 4, 2024

On review of the report of the Iowa Supreme Court Grievance Commission.

The grievance commission recommends ninety-day suspension for ethical violations. License Suspended.

Tara van Brederode, Allison A. Schmidt, and Robert A. Howard III Des Moines, for complainant.

Joel E. Fenton, Des Moines, pro se.

Waterman, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which all justices joined.

Waterman, Justice.

The Iowa Supreme Court Disciplinary Board in August 2023 charged attorney Joel E. Fenton with violating rules of professional conduct while he was under a deferral agreement entered after he served a sixty-day disciplinary suspension in 2020 for similar violations. Fenton is a sole practitioner who has struggled with depression and anxiety for many years. His recurring misconduct includes missing court hearings neglect, and failure to communicate with clients. A panel of the Iowa Supreme Court Grievance Commission found Fenton violated multiple rules and recommended a ninety-day suspension.

On our de novo review, we agree Fenton violated our ethical rules. We suspend his law license indefinitely with no possibility for reinstatement for ninety days. As recommended by the Board, we require that Fenton provide an evaluation by a licensed healthcare practitioner verifying his fitness to practice law as a condition for his reinstatement.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

We find the following facts as stipulated or otherwise established by the record. Fenton received his Iowa law license in 1996. In 2002, due to his "chronic difficulties with anxiety and depression," our court placed Fenton on a disability suspension. Ten years later, Fenton's law license was reinstated. He opened a solo practice in Des Moines and began accepting court-appointed cases through the State Public Defender's Office. Fenton works without any support staff, meaning he is responsible for administrative tasks, including ensuring deadlines and hearings are properly placed on his calendar. By his own admission, Fenton has not developed an effective calendaring system and has turned down suggestions that he hire support staff to assist him.

In 2017, Fenton received a private admonishment based on his failure to communicate with his client over several months, his failure to attend a court hearing, and his failure to ensure his client appeared at that same hearing.

A. Fenton's Sixty-Day Consent Suspension.

Fenton admittedly failed to adequately represent eight clients from 2018 through 2020. Specifically, Fenton failed to communicate with these clients and missed multiple court hearings. He repeatedly missed filing deadlines, and his failure to resist motions for summary judgment in two cases resulted in dismissal of his clients' claims. The federal district court ordered monetary sanctions against Fenton in three cases for failing to comply with deadlines. Fenton did not timely pay the sanctions and paid belatedly only after the district court scheduled a show-cause contempt hearing.

Fenton also failed to timely file appellate documents for other clients, resulting in thirty default penalties being assessed against him. Fenton consented to a sixty-day disciplinary suspension of his license in 2020. His license was reinstated in August of that year.

B. Deferral Agreement.

Fenton's problems persisted the following year. On June 8, 2021, Fenton agreed to represent Shanell Peavy in a federal workers' compensation case. Peavy attempted to contact Fenton multiple times that summer, and eventually they exchanged signed documents in August. Fenton did not contact Peavy again despite her persistent efforts to reach him. Fenton took no action on her case. The following February, Fenton withdrew from representing Peavy after she filed an ethics complaint against him.

In December, Fenton agreed to represent Paul Sanborn in a workers' compensation case. Fenton took no action on the case and failed to communicate with Sanborn for over four months despite Sanborn's email asking if he still represented him. Fenton withdrew his representation in May when Sanborn filed an ethics complaint against him.

On September 13, 2022, based on the complaints of Peavy and Sanborn, the Board and Fenton entered into a one-year deferral agreement pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 35.14. Under this rule, the Board "may defer further proceedings [against an attorney] pending the attorney's compliance with conditions the board imposes for supervision of the attorney for a specified period of time not to exceed one year unless the board extends the time prior to the conclusion of the specified period." Iowa Ct. R. 35.14(1). The attorney must execute an affidavit admitting the conduct that the Board is investigating, agreeing on the conditions the Board will impose, and acknowledging that the Board may file a formal complaint against the attorney and use the attorney's admissions in the affidavit as evidence if the attorney fails to comply with the conditions. Id. r. 35.14(3).

Upon the attorney's successful compliance with the conditions the disciplinary board imposed, the board must dismiss or close the investigations pending before it at the time it determined to defer further proceedings. The attorney will not be considered to have been disciplined, but the attorney's admission of misconduct may be considered in imposing sanctions in a subsequent disciplinary matter not arising out of the same conduct.

Id. r. 35.14(5).

As part of the deferral agreement, Fenton acknowledged that he violated Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct 32:1.3 and 32:1.4 by failing to communicate with his clients and neglecting their cases. Fenton agreed to:

• Comply with all provisions of the Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct and the Iowa Court Rules.

• Cooperate with any investigation or inquiry by the Board.

• Complete the "Attorney Self-Assessment" within the first three months of the deferral period.

• Comply with all deadlines and scheduled appearances.

• Continue to monitor mental health, implement self-care practices, and comply with any mental health treatment recommendations from his primary care provider.

• Meet with his appointed supervisor monthly and certify to the Board that he has done so.

• Certify written reports to the Board documenting his compliance with each condition.

If he failed to meet any of the conditions, Fenton acknowledged that the Board may file a formal complaint against him.

C. Violations of Deferral Agreement.

During the term of the deferral agreement, Fenton violated its conditions in five different matters. The Board revoked the deferral agreement and filed its complaint.

1. Nicholl-Embree representation.

On April 12, 2022, Stephen Robert Nicholl-Embree filed a pro se complaint in federal court alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. Several months later, the court appointed Fenton to represent him. A scheduling order entered that October set the dispositive motion deadline for February 28, 2023. Fenton failed to conduct any discovery or communicate with Nicholl-Embree. On March 24, 2023, Nicholl-Embree wrote to the court asking for new counsel, stating that Fenton had never communicated with him. The defendants moved for summary judgment on March 28. Fenton obtained several extensions without preparing a resistance, conducting any discovery, or communicating with his client. Fenton moved to withdraw on April 27 and to extend deadlines. On May 31, the district court granted Fenton's motion to withdraw and faulted Fenton for not stating "why he failed to conduct discovery on Plaintiff's behalf or that he had any physical or mental impairment that prevented him from doing so prior to the dispositive motion deadline."

2. George representation.

On September 9, 2022, Joshua George filed a pro se complaint in federal court alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. The court appointed Fenton to represent George. Fenton was to file an amended complaint by November 4 but failed to do so. The district court, on its own, extended the deadline to December 23. That deadline was extended another four times, either sua sponte or at Fenton's request, with the final deadline on April 7, 2023. On April 27, Fenton missed a status conference, moved for another extension (which the court denied), and moved to withdraw, which the court granted.

3. Andre representation.

On September 19, 2022, Alan Andre filed a pro se complaint in federal court alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. Fenton was appointed to represent Andre on September 25. The court set November 21 as the deadline for filing an amended complaint. Fenton missed that deadline, as well as another three extended deadlines. Fenton moved to withdraw and missed an April status conference, and the court declined to reschedule. The court granted his withdrawal, citing Fenton's failure "to meet deadlines and appear at a status conference" in both Andre's and George's cases.

4. Sarceno Aguire representation.

On March 1, 2023, Fenton was appointed to represent Manuel Antonio Sarceno Aguire in a Polk County criminal case. Fenton failed to appear at the pretrial conference, which had already been continued once at his request. The court removed Fenton from the case.

5. Haynes representation.

On March 20, 2023, Fenton entered his appearance as court-appointed counsel for Devon Haynes in a criminal case. The court granted Fenton's request to continue a plea hearing to May 9. Fenton failed to appear at the hearing, which the court reset for May 16. He failed to appear again. The court removed Fenton from the case, noting his absence from two...