In Trust We Trust

The Iowa Supreme Court has suspended an experienced immigation practitioner for 30 days

The Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board brought a complaint against an experienced immigration attorney for failing to follow proper trust account practices. The attorney did not timely answer the complaint, so the Iowa Supreme Court Grievance Commission deemed the factual allegations admitted. The commission held a hearing at which the attorney testified, found that a number of disciplinary rule violations had occurred, and recommended a sixty-day suspension.

Upon our review, we determine most of the alleged ethical violations took place. With regard to sanction, we give particular consideration to the attorney’s failure to rectify his trust account problems after the same problems had arisen in 2014, his seeming resistance to following proper trust account practices, his years of dedicated service to an underserved community, and his intention to retire. Ultimately, we suspend the attorney’s license to practice law in Iowa for thirty days.

Respondent

After attending law school when he was already in his forties, Ta-Yu Yang became admitted to practice law in Iowa in 1993. He opened his own firm in 1994 and has continued to practice there. At the time of these proceedings, Yang worked primarily in immigration law. In the past, Yang has taught a law school class on immigration law.

Yang’s immigration practice involves representing individuals. Many of them are foreign nationals of limited means who recently entered the United States. They may need help with such matters as a visa, a work authorization, an asylum application, or a cancellation of removal. This practice is characterized by frequently stiff application fees (in the hundreds of dollars or more) that must be collected from the client and then forwarded to the federal government. Legal proceedings may move erratically or slowly. In addition, Yang’s clients often are not familiar with and do not understand the concept of an hourly rate.

Misconduct

We conclude that Yang violated rule 32:1.15(a) and (f) and rule 45.2(3)(a)(2), (7), and (9) because he failed to maintain client ledger sheets, records of outstanding checks and deposits, and information on client subaccounts and because he did not complete monthly triple reconciliations.

Sanction

we have decided to suspend Yang’s license for thirty days. We will also adopt the commission’s recommendation that Yang be required to attend four hours of CLE on trust accounting before any resumption of practice. We do not adopt the commission’s recommendation that Yang be required to hire a bookkeeper/accountant or practice under the supervision of another attorney who maintains full responsibility for the firm’s trust accounting.

MCDONALD, Justice (concurring in part and dissenting in part).

This matter is before the court for disposition with respect to sanctions pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 36.21. Because this matter only involves the question of sanctions under Iowa Court Rule 36.21, the sufficiency of the evidence supporting each of the ethical violations is not properly before the court. See Iowa Sup. Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Tindal, 949 N.W.2d 637, 646–648 (Iowa 2020) (McDonald, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). I thus concur in all parts of the court’s opinion except part IV reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence supporting each of the violations…

This court is the body that drafts and adopts the Iowa Court Rules. We have adopted two separate and distinct rules governing disposition of attorney disciplinary proceedings. Rather than ignoring the Iowa Court Rules, I would follow them and not address the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the alleged ethical violations. I thus concur in part and dissent in part.

May, J., joins this concurrence in part and dissent in part.

(Mike Frisch)