Ishamel Mitchell v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an attorney who committed extrinsic fraud did not violate Iowa's analogue to Colo. RPC 3.3 because he engaged in fraud in his own dissolution proceeding, rather than while representing a client
• recognizing that rule 32:3.3 is found in the “Advocate” section of the rules
• concluding attorney collected an unreasonable fee in violation of this rule by failing to deduct fees the client previously paid, as was required by their later agreement
• concluding attorney collected an unreasonable fee in violation of this rule by failing to deduct fees the client previously paid, as was required by their later agreement
• holding the Board did not prove a violation of rule 3:8.4(c) because “there [was] no evidence that [the attorney] was dishonest, deceitful, or that he committed fraud or made any misrepresentation”
• holding the Board did not prove a violation of rule 3:8.4(c) because “there [was] no evidence that [the attorney] was dishonest, deceitful, or that he committed fraud or made any misrepresentation”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).