No Colorable Claim
The unforgiving consequences of mishandling entrusted funds are underlined by a license revocation of an attorney admitted in 2016 by the Iowa Supreme Court.
In this disciplinary matter, we consider whether a lawyer’s depositing of $7500 advanced by a client into a personal account amounts to theft as alleged and, if so, whether the lawyer can avoid revocation by showing that she had a colorable claim to the funds.
The respondent
Tina Muhammad is a licensed Iowa lawyer. Prior to becoming a lawyer, Muhammad was a stay-at-home mother and worked for a period of time outside the legal profession. She graduated from law school in 2015 and was admitted to the Iowa bar in 2016. During her law school years, Muhammad worked with Black Lawyers for Justice in support of their nationwide efforts against police brutality and served as an assistant on cases.
At the time she obtained her Iowa law license, Muhammad was employed as a compliance officer with a Des Moines-based company. She left her employment there in the summer of 2016, and in August 2016, she entered solo practice focusing on family and criminal law. At the time of the disciplinary hearing in this case, Muhammad was employed by Upright Law, a Chicago law firm specializing in bankruptcy matters. She also on occasion performed contract work reviewing documents. Muhammad has no prior disciplinary history.
The complainant had retained the attorney to handle a claim for a matter that took place in Washington State.
The complainant sought an out-of-state attorney and found respondent through an Internet search.
Pursuant to the Agreement, the Board alleged that Peebles paid Muhammad $7500 in advance for expenses in connection with the personal injury/civil rights representation. According to the Board, Muhammad deposited the funds in a nontrust account. The Board claimed that when Peebles severed the attorney–client relationship with Muhammad, she requested an accounting of the $7500 advanced for expenses. The Board stated that no accounting was forthcoming and that none of the $7500 was returned to Peebles.
The explanation for using the funds
Muhammad answered the Board’s complaint. She asserted that Peebles agreed to pay her a $15,000 flat fee to assist in the settlement of a separate action related to public disclosure of video footage but not for expenses associated with her potential personal injury/civil rights claim. Thus, according to Muhammad, the payment of the $7500 was “already earned.”
There was no “colorable claim”
We…conclude, as did the commission, that the Board has proved by a convincing preponderance of the evidence that Muhammad violated Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct 32:8.4(b) and 32:8.4(c) and that she had no colorable present or future claim offsetting her misappropriation.
…Sanction. Under the caselaw cited above, revocation of license is virtually automatic when a lawyer converts client funds. We see no basis for an exception in this case. As a result, we conclude that the appropriate sanction in this case is revocation.
(Mike Frisch)