Pattern Of Neglect

The Iowa Supreme Court has suspended an attorney with no possibility for reinstatement for 90 days

We find the following facts as stipulated or otherwise established by the record. Fenton received his Iowa law license in 1996. In 2002, due to his “chronic difficulties with anxiety and depression,” our court placed Fenton on a disability suspension. Ten years later, Fenton’s law license was reinstated. He opened a solo practice in Des Moines and began accepting court-appointed cases through the State Public Defender’s Office. Fenton works without any support staff, meaning he is responsible for administrative tasks, including ensuring deadlines and hearings are properly placed on his calendar. By his own admission, Fenton has not developed an effective calendaring system and has turned down suggestions that he hire support staff to assist him.

Prior issues led to suspension

Fenton consented to a sixty-day disciplinary suspension of his license in 2020. His license was reinstated in August of that year.

After reinstatement

On September 13, 2022, based on the complaints of Peavy and Sanborn, the Board and Fenton entered into a one-year deferral agreement pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 35.14. Under this rule, the Board “may defer further proceedings [against an attorney] pending the attorney’s compliance with conditions the board imposes for supervision of the attorney for a specified period of time not to exceed one year unless the board extends the time prior to the conclusion of the specified period.” Iowa Ct. R. 35.14(1).

But

During the term of the deferral agreement, Fenton violated its conditions in five different matters. The Board revoked the deferral agreement and filed its complaint.

This proceeding

After revoking the deferral agreement, the Board charged Fenton with multiple rule violations in a two-count complaint. The parties submitted a partial stipulation but disagreed over mitigating and aggravating circumstances, one rule violation, and the appropriate sanction. The commission held a hearing on December 18. 

As a result

The commission issued its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations on April 1, 2024. The commission found that Fenton violated multiple rules. The commission found several mitigating factors: Fenton’s history of taking pro bono cases and serving marginalized communities, his service to the bar association, his court appointments, his mental health difficulties, his mother passing away in September 2023, and his acceptance of responsibility for his actions.

The commission also found several aggravating factors: Fenton’s seventeen years of practice, his admission that “it was easy” to neglect his marginalized clients because of their status, his prior discipline for similar misconduct, the multiple rule violations with multiple clients, and his violation of his deferral agreement. The commission recommended a ninety-day suspension.

The court weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors

On balance, we believe a ninety-day suspension is appropriate. Fenton neglected seven client matters. He has a history of neglect and lack of client communication—highlighted by his deferral agreement, his prior sixty-day suspension, and his prior admonition for similar misconduct.

Given Fenton’s lengthy mental health history, we agree with the Board’s recommendation that Fenton provide an evaluation by a licensed mental health professional verifying his fitness to practice law as a condition for reinstatement.

(Mike Frisch)