Fee Change Must Be Communicated To Client

The Iowa Supreme Court ordered a 30-day suspension of an attorney, upholding the conclusions of the Grievance Commission that sustained some charges of misconduct while rejecting others .

We agree with the commission that these alleged violations were not established by a convincing preponderance of the evidence. Nelissen’s reasons for seeking continuances were justified, and the continuances were brief and nonprejudicial. We also cannot conclude that Nelissen’s communication with Almburg was so deficient as to amount to an ethical violation. Rather, we concur in the following assessment by the commission:

The emails reflect a stressed client taking an active interest in her child support modification matter and asking pertinent questions about the proceedings. Nelissen was not always prompt in responding to [Almburg’s] emails. Nevertheless, the record shows that Nelissen normally responded to emails from [Almburg] the same day or within one or two days. Similarly, we agree with the commission that an improper $12.61 late charge on a “pre-bill” that was subsequently removed does not constitute a violation of rule 32:1.5(a).

However, we uphold the violations that the commission found. Rule 32:1.5(b) requires that “[a]ny changes in the basis or rate of the fee or expenses shall also be communicated to the client.” Id. r. 32:1.5(b). In February 2012, Nelissen increased her hourly rate by 33⅓% to $200 per hour. Yet she did not inform her client of this change, other than by using the new rate in her billing. This oversight violated rule 32:1.5(b). More serious are the trust account violations. The commission found, as do we, that Nelissen breached various ethical rules relating to trust accounts by mishandling funds she received from Almburg. Nelissen never communicated to Almburg that withdrawals were being made from the initial $2500 retainer.

The attorney represented the client in an attempt to have the client’s child support payments reduced and prevailed in the case. Health issues mitigated the sanction; prior trust account discipline was an aggravating factor. (Mike Frisch)