When faced with nearly identical facts in Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Yang, we found a violation of rule 32:1.4(b) because “Yang owed his client an explanation of the alternative course of action because it was reasonably necessary to permit [the client] to make an informed decision on the matter.” 821 N.W.2d 425, 430 (Iowa 2012). We also found the failure to withdraw under these circumstances violates rule 32:1.7(a)(2) because, “[i]n continuing the representation ... without disclosure of the apparent conflict of interest, Yang ignored a significant risk that the representation would be materially limited by Yang's personal interest in avoiding a potential ethical complaint.”
Moreover, Yang was publicly reprimanded in 2001 for neglecting to timely file an appeal and again in 2012 for making a misrepresentation in an appeal and failing to inform his client that he could file a motion to reopen the proceeding alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. See Iowa Sup. Ct. Att'y Disciplinary Bd. v. Yang, 821 N.W.2d 425, 430-31 (Iowa 2012). Although unrelated to the present charges and somewhat dated, these reprimands are aggravating to some extent.
In Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Yang, a lawyer and his client failed to attend an immigration court hearing, resulting in the dismissal of the client's case. 821 N.W.2d 425, 428-29 (Iowa 2012).
Since we find, as the commission did, that Said did meet with his client on December 6, we also conclude he violated rule 32:1.4(b) by failing to explain the missed deadline matter at that time so that the client could make an informed decision about the representation. See Iowa Supreme Ct. Att'y Disciplinary Bd. v. Mendez, 855 N.W.2d 156, 170 (Iowa 2014); Iowa Supreme Ct. Att'y Disciplinary Bd. v. Yang, 821 N.W.2d 425, 430 (Iowa 2012). The client should have been given information by Said to better participate in the objective of the representation.
We have applied these principles in several immigration law cases. See, e.g. , Said , 869 N.W.2d at 195 (determining that failure to advise client of dismissal and missed deadline constituted ethics violations); Iowa Sup. Ct. Att'y Disciplinary Bd. v. Mendez , 855 N.W.2d 156, 170 (Iowa 2014) (determining that a failure to advise of missed deadline constituted an ethics violation); Iowa Sup. Ct. Att'y Disciplinary Bd. v. Yang , 821 N.W.2d 425, 430 (Iowa 2012) (determining that the failure to explain to client grounds for reopening proceeding constituted an ethics violation). In addition, an attorney is expected to periodically communicate with clients about the status of representation.
An attorney violates this rule by failing to explain an alternative course of action that is reasonably necessary to permit the client to make an informed decision on the matter. See Iowa Supreme Ct. Att'y Disciplinary Bd. v. Ta-Yu Yang , 821 N.W.2d 425, 430 (Iowa 2012). We find that Turner did not communicate with a bankruptcy client "to the extent reasonably necessary to permit [her] to make informed decisions" such as whether it would be proper to file a Chapter 7 or Chapter 11 case.
The majority of sanctions imposed have been either a sixty-day suspension or a four-month suspension. See Iowa Supreme Ct. Att'y Disciplinary Bd. v. Mendez, 855 N.W.2d 156, 173–75 (Iowa 2014) (imposing a sixty-day sanction for multiple rule violations including trust account violations for forty-three clients); Qualley, 828 N.W.2d at 294 (imposing a sixty-day suspension for the violation of four rules of professional conduct); Iowa Supreme Ct. Att'y Disciplinary Bd. v. Yang, 821 N.W.2d 425, 430–31 (Iowa 2012) (imposing a public reprimand for the violation of rules 32:1.4, 1.7, and 8.4); Iowa Supreme Ct. Att'y Disciplinary Bd. v. Zenor, 707 N.W.2d 176, 181, 187 (Iowa 2005) (imposing a four-month suspension when the conflict of interest involved prosecuting persons who were clients). Sanctions above sixty days have generally been for more severe violations and in cases where multiple violations have occurred. See, e.g., Netti, 797 N.W.2d at 606–07 (imposing a two-year suspension for multiple rule violations of a “serious, egregious, and persistent nature”).
We have imposed a public reprimand and suspensions of varying duration for similar conduct. Iowa Supreme Ct. Att'y Disciplinary Bd. v. Ta–Yu Yang, 821 N.W.2d 425, 427 (Iowa 2012) (holding public reprimand was warranted for attorney who violated rule of professional conduct prohibiting attorney from engaging in conductinvolving misrepresentation, rule requiring attorney to explain matter to extent reasonably necessary to permit client to make informed decisions, and rule governing conflict of interest); Netti, 797 N.W.2d at 600, 607 (imposing a two-year suspension where attorney engaged in a conflict of interest with his client, among other violations); Iowa Supreme Ct. Att'y Disciplinary Bd. v. Zenor, 707 N.W.2d 176, 182, 187 (Iowa 2005) (imposing a four-month suspension where attorney represented opposing entities, among other violations); Iowa Supreme Ct. Att'y Disciplinary Bd. v. Howe, 706 N.W.2d 360, 378, 381–82 (Iowa 2005) (imposing a four-month suspension where attorney represented opposing entities, among other violations); Wagner, 599 N.W.2d at 723 (imposing a three-month suspension where attorney failed to inform the client of the attorney's financial