Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. James Stephen Conroy

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the attorney violated the rule because he only communicated with his client once and did not respond to any requests for information or updates on the case
• concluding that the attorney violated rule 32:1.4 by failing to communicate with six clients about the status of their appeals and only spoke to another client once in a year
• concluding an attorney should be suspended for six months because he neglected seven matters even after he had previously been suspended for sixty days for neglect and other violations
• concluding an attorney should be suspended for six months because he neglected seven matters even after he had previously been suspended for sixty days for neglect and other violations
• concluding an attorney who had “been suspended twice with escalating sanctions for neglect of client matters” was “on the clearest of notice regarding his failure to meet his ethical responsibilities,” and noting “neglect has become an unfortunate but recurrent theme”
• concluding an attorney who had “been suspended twice with escalating sanctions for neglect of client matters” was “on the clearest of notice regarding his failure to meet his ethical responsibilities,” and noting “neglect has become an unfortunate but recurrent theme”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).