Withdrawal For Health Reasons
A 30-day suspension has been ordered by the Iowa Supreme Court.
The attorney has been practicing for 40 years and been subject to prior sanctions
Sobel has incurred numerous admonitions and reprimands for his violations of our ethical rules of conduct.
Here
The alleged violations in this case stem from Sobel’s court-appointed representation of Mario Goodson in a sentencing hearing (the Goodson Matter) and Sobel’s representation of coplaintiffs Samir Golubovic and Ramiza Dervisedic (the Golubovic Matter). On September 14, 2021, Sobel was appointed to represent Goodson regarding his resentencing in a criminal case. Prior to Sobel’s appointment, the sentencing hearing had been set for October 4. On October 3, Sobel attempted to read the presentence investigation report (PSI) to prepare for the hearing and realized he could not access the PSI. Sobel neither contacted anyone to resolve the technical issues nor alerted the judge of his inability to access the PSI before the start of the proceeding. It was not until after the proceeding had begun, and the judge asked both parties if they had reviewed the PSI, that Sobel revealed he had not been able to access it. The judge ordered a brief break to allow Sobel and Goodson an opportunity to review the PSI. The hearing proceeded after the break, but Goodson indicated he did not have an adequate opportunity to review the PSI, so the judge ordered a second break. Following the second break, Goodson was sentenced. Additionally, Sobel did not communicate with Goodson in any manner until the morning of the hearing on October 4; however, he did communicate with Goodson’s mother before the hearing.
Respondent filed a complaint in the civil matter that was dismissed
Sobel filed a motion to set aside the dismissal and set the matter for hearing. In the motion, Sobel indicated his failure to respond was due to being sick with “bronchitis and ear issues,” difficulties with “diabetes management,” and needing his “rescue inhaler on multiple occasions.” He further indicated he was in quarantine after being exposed to COVID-19. In explaining why he did not effectuate timely service, Sobel stated he had undergone “scopes and biopsies and dilations to determine difficulty swallowing and motility of the digestive tract” and that he had contracted two infections after the procedures, all of which took two and a half months to complete. Sobel orally suggested to
his clients that they seek other counsel, but Sobel took no further steps to withdraw from representation in the Golubovic Matter. On October 11, the district court set aside the dismissal for “good cause attributable to excusable neglect.”
Failure to withdraw finding upheld
Here, Sobel failed to timely serve the defendant in the Golubovic Matter, missed two hearings, and neither resisted the defendant’s motion to dismiss nor sought a continuance or extension to respond. It was not until the court dismissed the case that Sobel decided to address his many failures. In his motion to set aside the dismissal, Sobel indicated he had been sick during the time to file a resistance, that he had “bronchitis and ear issues,” difficulties with “diabetes management,” needed to use his “rescue inhaler on multiple occasions,” and was quarantining because he had been exposed to COVID-19. He further indicated that he did not timely serve the defendant because he had undergone numerous procedures to solve various medical issues, a process which took over two and a half months to complete, from scheduling to follow-up appointments.
By his own admission, Sobel’s physical health prevented him from timely serving the defendant and responding to the motion to dismiss, both of which were crucial to the continuation of his clients’ case. Unlike Cunningham and McCarthy, it is evident that Sobel’s physical health materially impaired his ability to represent his clients in the Golubovic Matter. Rather, Sobel’s circumstances are analogous to those of Hoglan and Kingery. While we are sympathetic to Sobel’s various physical health impairments, they do not excuse misconduct.
Sanction
In connection with the Goodson Matter and the Golubovic Matter, we determine that Sobel violated five rules: 32:1.3, 32:1.4(a)(3), 32:1.16(a)(2), 32:3.2, and 32:8.4(d). Sobel has been privately admonished six times since 2002 and has been publicly reprimanded three times since 2010. Particularly relevant to our analysis is the fact that Sobel has previously been admonished or reprimanded for violating all five of the rules he violated here. Some of which he was admonished or reprimanded for violating on more than one occasion.
And
We are further troubled by the fact that Sobel does not view his conduct as improper. Given the nature of Sobel’s misconduct, coupled with the extensive aggravating factors, we conclude a thirty-day suspension is appropriate.
(Mike Frisch)