Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Hoglan

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that attorney violated rule 32:3.2 when his client’s appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution after attorney received two notices of default and one extension
• holding attorney, who neglected several clients while suffering from debilitating back problems, was required to provide medical verification of his fitness to practice law prior to reinstatement
• holding an attorney’s failure to prosecute four appeals violated rules 32:1.3, 32:3.2, and 32:8.4(d)
• holding failure to prosecute constituted violation of rule requiring attorneys to expedite litigation
• observing the attorney’s neglect of four appeals resulting in the dismissal of those appeals was conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice
• finding a rule 32:3.2 violation where an attorney repeatedly failed to prosecute several appeals in different client matters

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).