author: TERNUS, Justice.

text:
    Terri BERGANTZEL, Appellee, v. Jan R. MLYNARIK, Appellant.
    No. 98-0530.
    Supreme Court of Iowa.
    Nov. 16, 2000.

      Randall J. Shanks of Shanks Law Firm, Council Bluffs, for appellant.
    Terri Bergantzel, Council Bluffs, pro se.

       Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (1999).

   TERNUS, Justice.

The appellee, Terri Bergantzel, brought a small claims action against the appellant, Jan Mlynarik, to recover a contingent fee based on Bergantzel’s assistance in negotiating a settlement of Mlynarik’s personal injury claim. We granted discretionary review of the district court’s affirmance of the small claims judgment allowing such a fee. Because Bergantzel is not a licensed attorney, we hold that the contingent fee contract is against public policy and may not be enforced. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for dismissal of Bergantzel’s action.

I. Scope of Review.

The scope of review of a small claims action depends upon the nature of the case. See Credit Bureau Enters., Inc. v. Pelo, 608 N.W.2d 20, 23 (Iowa 2000). The claim in the case before us is for breach of contract, a law action. See Rogers v. Webb, 558 N.W.2d 155, 156 (Iowa 1997). Therefore, our review is for correction of errors of law. See id. The trial court’s findings of fact “are binding if supported by substantial evidence.” Land O'Lakes, Inc. v. Hanig, 610 N.W.2d 518, 522 (Iowa 2000). In the present appeal, Mlynarik does not challenge the trial court’s findings of fact, but rather claims that the court incorrectly applied the law in determining that the contract was enforceable under these circumstances. This court is not bound by the trial court’s “legal conclusions and application of legal principles.” Id.

II. Background Facts and Proceedings.

The trial court found the following facts. The defendant in this action, Jan Mlynarik, was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident. He entered into a written contract with the plaintiff, Terri Bergantzel, under which Bergantzel was to “assist in the negotiation with the insurance companies and attorney, if necessary, in the settlement of [Mlynarik’s] claim” resulting from the accident. In consideration for this assistance, Bergantzel was to receive fifteen percent of the amount recovered after payment of doctors’ bills. The contract stated that Bergantzel was not an attorney and that the payment to her was to cover her expenses only. In the event that the services of an attorney were required, the contract provided that Ber-gantzel would “either pay for the consultation with an attorney or, if the attorney fees exceed the fifteen percent, [would] forfeit all claims to the settlement money.”

It is undisputed that, pursuant to this agreement, Bergantzel negotiated a settlement with the tortfeasor’s insurance carrier for the limits of the tortfeasor’s policy— $100,000. Her work included locating witnesses, preparing affidavits, making long-distance phone calls, obtaining Mlynarik’s medical and school records, obtaining a physician’s opinion letter, and communicating with the insurance company. For her work, Mlynarik paid Bergantzel slightly over $12,000, which was fifteen percent of the recovery after medical expenses were deducted.

Bergantzel then undertook similar efforts to negotiate a settlement with Mly-narik’s underinsured motorist (UIM) carrier. Bergantzel obtained a settlement offer from the insurance company for $35,000. She told Mlynarik that if he wanted a larger recovery, he would need to hire an attorney. Mlynarik decided to consult with an attorney and entered into a contingent fee agreement with attorney Randall Shanks. Shanks successfully negotiated a $65,000 settlement with Mlynarik’s UIM carrier and received his contingent fee. Bergantzel was also paid her contingent fee, with the exception of $1,650. Bergant-zel brought suit against Mlynarik for this sum.

At trial, Mlynarik urged that Bergantzel engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and, therefore, could not recover under then- contract. The trial court rejected this defense, stating:

Bergantzel did not represent Mlynar-ik in court, nor did she file any pleading on his behalf. The court concludes that her efforts to locate witnesses, prepare affidavits, obtain medical and school records, and talk with insurance companies did not involve “the art of exercising professional judgment” and [did] not constitute the unauthorized practice of law. Bergantzel did not give Mlynarik advice about his rights under the law. She encouraged him to consult with an attorney. She did not hold herself out to be an attorney.

Based on these conclusions, the court entered judgment in favor of Bergantzel for $1,650 plus interest and court costs.

Mlynarik filed an appeal to the district court. See Iowa Code § 631.13 (1999). The district court affirmed the decision of the small claims court. Mlynarik then sought discretionary review by this court, which was granted. See id. § 631.16.

III. General Principles Governing Contracts Alleged to be Unenforceable on Public Policy Grounds.

This court recently reviewed the principles governing claims that a contract is unenforceable on the basis of public policy in Mincks Agri Center, Inc. v. Bell Farms, Inc., 611 N.W.2d 270 (Iowa 2000). In Mincks, we adopted the following rule from the Restatement (Second) of Contracts:

If a party is prohibited from doing an act because of his failure to comply with a licensing, registration or similar requirement, a promise in consideration of his doing that act or of his promise to do it is unenforceable on grounds of public policy if
(a) the requirement has a regulatory purpose, and
(b) the interest in the enforcement of the promise is clearly outweighed by the public policy behind the requirement.

611 N.W.2d at 275 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 181, at 21 (1981) [hereinafter “Restatement”]).

There is no dispute in the case before us that Bergantzel seeks to recover payment under the contract for her services in negotiating a settlement with Mlynarik’s UIM carrier. That leaves three issues for our consideration: (1) Was Bergantzel prohibited from negotiating this settlement because she was not a licensed attorney?; (2) If so, does the attorney licensing requirement have a regulatory purpose?; and (3) Is the interest in enforcement of a contingent fee contract for the performance of legal services by a nonlawyer clearly outweighed by the public policy underlying the attorney licensing requirement? We consider each question separately.

IV. Was Bergantzel Prohibited From Negotiating a Settlement of Mly-narik’s UIM Claim Because She Was Not a Licensed Attorney?

Iowa Code section 602.10101 states:

The power to admit persons to practice as attorneys and counselors in the courts of this state, or any of them, is vested exclusively in the supreme court which shall adopt and promulgate rules to carry out the intent and purpose of this article.

Pursuant to this authority, the court has adopted rules pertaining to the practice of law, requiring that persons desiring to practice law in Iowa be admitted to the bar. See Iowa Sup.Ct. Rs. 100-114. There is no dispute that Bergantzel was not admitted to practice law in Iowa.

That brings us to the most problematic issue in this case: was Bergantzel’s negotiation of a UIM settlement the practice of law? Like many other states, Iowa has found it difficult to articulate an “all-inclusive definition of the practice of law.” Comm. on Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Baker, 492 N.W.2d 695, 701 (Iowa 1992); see also In re Bodkin, 21 Ill.2d 458, 173 N.E.2d 440, 441 (1961) (stating “it is difficult to state a formula as to what constitutes the practice of law”); State Bar v. Cramer, 399 Mich. 116, 249 N.W.2d 1, 7 (1976) (stating “any attempt to formulate a lasting, all encompassing definition of ‘practice of law’ is doomed to failure ‘for the reason that under our system of jurisprudence such practice must necessarily change with the everchanging business and social order’ ”) (quoting Grand Rapids Bar Ass’n v. Denkema, 290 Mich. 56, 287 N.W. 377, 380 (1939)); Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Jones, 344 Mo. 932, 130 S.W.2d 945, 954 (1939) (“ ‘It would be difficult to give an all-inclusive definition of the practice of law, and we will not attempt to do so.’ ” (quoting Clark v. Austin, 340 Mo. 467, 101 S.W.2d 977, 982 (1937))); In re Opinion No. 26, 139 N.J. 323, 654 A.2d 1344, 1352 (1995) (“ ‘What constitutes the practice of law does not lend itself to precise and all inclusive definition.’ ” (quoting Auerbacher v. Wood, 142 N.J. Eq. 484, 59 A.2d 863, 864 (1948))); Wash. State Bar Ass’n v. Great W. Union Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 91 Wash.2d 48, 586 P.2d 870, 875 (1978) (“The ‘practice of law’ does not lend itself easily to precise definition.”).

We are not without guidance, however, in our endeavor to determine whether a particular activity is the practice of law. See Baker, 492 N.W.2d at 701 (referring to EC 3-5 of the Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility). Such guidance is provided by Ethical Consideration 3-5 of the Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility:

[T]he practice of law includes, but is not limited to, representing another before the courts; giving of legal advice and counsel to others relating to their rights and obligations under the law; and preparation or approval of the use of legal instruments by which legal rights of others are either obtained, secured or transferred even if such matters never become the subject of a court proceeding. Functionally, the practice of law relates to the rendition of services for others that call for the professional judgment of a lawyer. The essence of the professional judgment of the lawyer is the educated ability to relate the general body and philosophy of law to a specific legal problem of a client; and thus, the public interest will be better served if only lawyers are permitted to act in matters involving professional judgment. Where this professional judgment is not involved, nonlawyers, such as court clerks, police officers, ab-stracters, and many governmental employees, may engage in occupations that require a special knowledge of law in certain areas. But the services of a lawyer are essential in the public interest ivhenever the exercise of professional legal judgment is required.

Iowa Code of Profl Responsibility EC 3-5 (emphasis added).

Based on this ethical consideration, this court in Baker concluded that the exercise of professional judgment was at the core of the practice of law. 492 N.W.2d at 701. We distinguished a lawyer’s ability to exercise professional judgment from a layperson’s use of their knowledge of the law:

When lawyers use their educated ability to apply an area of the law to solve a specific problem of a client, they are exercising professional judgment.... [In law school, lawyers] learn to recognize issues first and then how to solve those issues in an ethical manner, using their knowledge of the law. See EC 3-2 (“Competent professional judgment is the product of a trained familiarity with law and legal processes, a disciplined, analytical approach to legal problems, and a firm ethical commitment.”). The practice of law is no different: lawyers determine what the issues are and use their knowledge of the law to solve them in an ethical way. This is the art of exercising professional judgment.
In contrast, nonlawyers who use their knowledge of the law for informational purposes alone are not exercising a lawyer’s professional judgment. For example, an abstracter must have knowledge of what constitutes a lien on real estate. An abstracter uses this knowledge, which is legal in nature, when the abstracter shows the lien in the abstract of title. In doing so, the abstracter is simply furnishing the title examiner — a lawyer — information that the lawyer needs in advising the client on the marketability of title. In this scenario, the abstracter is simply furnishing information; the title examiner is exercising professional judgment on a legal question. The abstracter is not practicing law; the title examiner is.

Id. at 701-02; accord Dauphin County Bar Ass’n v. Mazzacaro, 465 Pa. 545, 351 A.2d 229, 233 (1976) (“Where, however, a judgment requires the abstract understanding of legal principles and a refined skill for their concrete application, the exercise of legal judgment is called for.”). Thus, the definitive issue here is whether Bergantzel’s actions required the exercise of professional judgment on a legal issue or question that affected the rights of a third party.

In reviewing Bergantzel’s efforts on behalf of Mlynarik, we find her negotiations with the insurance companies of greatest concern. Whether the negotiation of a personal injury settlement is the practice of law is an issue of first impression in this jurisdiction. Therefore, we turn to cases from other states for guidance.

It appears from our review of the case law that courts considering this issue have concluded that the negotiation of a settlement on behalf of the injured party requires the exercise of professional judgment and is, therefore, the practice of law. See, e.g., In re Bodkin, 173 N.E.2d at 442; People ex rel. Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Goodman, 366 Ill. 346, 8 N.E.2d 941, 944 (1937); Meunier v. Bernich, 170 So. 567, 572 (La.Ct.App.1936); Fitchette v. Taylor, 191 Minn. 582, 254 N.W. 910, 911 (1934); Akron Bar Ass’n v. Bojonell, 88 Ohio St.3d 154, 724 N.E.2d 401, 402 (2000); Cincinnati Bar Ass’n v. Cromwell, 82 Ohio St.3d 255, 695 N.E.2d 243, 244 (1998); Mazzacaro, 351 A.2d at 234; Brown v. Unauthorized Practice of Law Comm., 742 S.W.2d 34, 42 (Tex.Ct.App.1987); accord 16 John A. Appleman and Jean Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice § 8649, at 137 (1981) (“generally the courts have held that if a lay adjuster attempts to handle claims on behalf of plaintiffs, or to effect settlements for them, even though litigation is not required, such amounts to the practice of law”); cf. Unauthorized Practice of Law Comm. v. Jansen, 816 S.W.2d 813, 814-16 (1991) (holding that public insurance adjusters were not engaged in the practice of law when they merely “document[ed] and presented] first-party claims for property damage to insurance companies,” even though they discussed the competing valuations with the in-house insurance adjuster; the court distinguished these activities from the evaluation and presentation of personal injury claims and from the negotiation of settlements). The reasoning of these courts is helpful in analyzing the facts before this court.

In Mazzacaro, a county bar association sought to enjoin a licensed casualty adjuster on the ground that the adjuster’s representation of tort claimants constituted the unauthorized practice of law. 351 A.2d at 280. The record showed that the adjuster only represented claimants where liability was undisputed. Id. In such cases, for a contingent fee, the adjuster investigated the accident, estimated the amount of damages sustained, made a demand upon the tortfeasor or the tortfeasor’s insurance company, and attempted to negotiate a settlement. Id. Based on these facts, the district court granted the requested in-junctive relief and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed. Id. at 230-31. In rejecting the adjuster’s argument that his actions did not require the exercise of any legal judgment on behalf of the injured party, the court stated:

While the objective valuation of damages may in uncomplicated cases be accomplished by a skilled lay judgment, an assessment of the extent to which that valuation should be compromised in settlement negotiations cannot. Even when liability is not technically “contested,” an assessment of the likelihood that liability can be established in a court of law is a crucial factor in weighing the strength of one’s bargaining position. A negotiator cannot possibly know how large a settlement he can exact unless he can probe the degree of unwillingness of the other side to go to court. Such an assessment, however, involves an understanding of the applicable tort principles (including the elements of negligence and contributory negligence), a grasp of the rules of evidence, and an ability to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the client’s case vis a vis that of the adversary. The acquisition of such knowledge is not within the ability of laypersons, but rather involves the application of abstract legal principles to the concrete facts of the given claim. As a consequence, it is inescapable that lay adjusters who undertake to negotiate settlements of the claims of third-party claimants must exercise legal judgments in so doing....
In sum, we conclude that such third-party claimant representation by lay adjusters constitutes the unauthorized practice of law.

Id. at 233-34.

In a similar early case from Louisiana, the Louisiana Court of Appeals held that a lay claims adjuster who undertook to investigate and settle a wrongful death claim was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. Meunier, 170 So. at 572. Like the agreement in the present case, the contract in Meunier stated that the adjuster was not a lawyer and, if the adjuster could not obtain a satisfactory settlement offer from the tortfeasor, the claimants were free to engage the services of an attorney. Id. at 568-69. The lawsuit arose when the claimants refused to pay the adjuster the contingent fee upon which they had agreed. Id. at 570. In rejecting the adjuster’s claim that he was not engaged in the practice of law, the court stated:

But, [the adjuster] does more than mere investigation work. He undertook, by contract, to enforce, secure, settle, adjust, or compromise whatever claim the Bernichs had arising out of the fatal accident. In this employment, it became necessary for him to examine the facts of the case, and to advise the Bernichs regarding the liability of the [railroad] in damages for the death of their child. Not only did he advise the defendants that liability existed, but he made a lawyer’s demand on the railroad company, informing [it] that responsibility had attached to it for the negligent killing of the little girl.
Thus, in the performance of his contract, [the adjuster] had to advise his client concerning the redress of a legal wrong, which advice he was not qualified to impart, because he does not possess the legal training exacted by the Supreme Court.... [H]e is engaged in the business of settling and adjusting personal injury claims, and it is well established that the doing of these acts constitutes the practice of law.

Id. at 572 (citations omitted).

We agree with the reasoning of these courts that the negotiation of a settlement of an injured party’s claim for damages requires the exercise of professional judgment. Here, Bergantzel, in determining the amount of any settlement demand or counteroffer, was required to have “an understanding of the applicable tort [and underinsured motorist] principles ..., a grasp of the rules of evidence, and an ability to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of [Mlynarik’s] case vis a vis that of the [UIM carrier].” Mazzacaro, 351 A.2d at 234. The fact that the liability of the tortfeasor may not have been a contested issue at this point, a fact not entirely clear from the record, does not change our conclusion. See id. (“Even when liability is not technically ‘contested,’ an assessment of the likelihood that liability can be established in a court of law is a crucial factor in weighing the strength of one’s bargaining position.”); Brown, 742 S.W.2d at 42 (“A claim or cause of action for personal injury and/or property damage also involves the issue of damages, and as long as the damage issue is unresolved, the claim is a disputed and contested claim. There [was] ample proof ... that Brown negotiated the amount of damages to be paid on behalf of parties other than himself. This activity required the use of legal skill and knowledge and, thus, constituted the practice of law.”). Nor does the fact that Bergantzel did not advise Mly-narik whether to accept the carrier’s offer affect our determination. The mere process of negotiating with the insurance company involved legal assessments that required the exercise of professional judgment regardless of whether Bergantzel shared her assessments or evaluations with Mlynarik. By negotiating a settlement on Mlynarik’s behalf, Bergantzel was indirectly advising Mlynarik on the settlement value of his claim. Cf. Brown, 742 S.W.2d at 41 (holding that adjuster impliedly advised his clients to accept a certain sum in settlement of their claim when he “approved” a settlement). We hold that Bergantzel engaged in the practice of law when she represented Mlynarik in negotiation of a settlement of Mlynarik’s UIM claim.

This conclusion does not, however, end our inquiry. We must still determine whether Bergantzel’s actions were unauthorized. That is because, in other areas, we have permitted nonlawyers to perform tasks that are arguably the practice of law; the preparation of tax returns by accountants is a good example. See Comm. on Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Mahoney, 402 N.W.2d 434, 436 (Iowa 1987) (“Doing tax preparation and labor negotiation is not necessarily the practice of law and properly may be done by nonlawyers.”). The New Jersey Supreme Court has recently wrestled with this issue and suggested the following analysis:

[Recent cases in this area] reflect the conclusion that the determination of whether someone should be permitted to engage in conduct that is arguably the practice of law is governed not by attempting to apply some definition of what constitutes that practice, but rather by asking whether the public interest is disserved by permitting such conduct. The resolution of the question is determined by practical, not theoretical, considerations: the public interest is weighed by analyzing the competing policies and interests that may be involved in the case; the conduct, if permitted, is often conditioned by requirements designed to assure that the public interest is indeed not disserved.

In re Opinion No. 26, 654 A.2d at 1352. The court also noted that in “determining what is the unauthorized practice of law,” “practical considerations and common sense will prevail, not impractical and technical restrictions that may hamper or burden the public interest with no reasonable justification.” Id. at 1354.

In considering Bergantzel’s services from this perspective, we conclude that the public interest is not served by allowing laypersons to negotiate settlements on behalf of injured parties. Although the record shows that Bergantzel had experience as a private investigator, her skills as an investigator and her knowledge of the necessary information required to document a claim are far removed from the legal assessments necessary to an evaluation of that claim for purposes of determining a likely recovery from the tortfea-sor or UIM carrier. The public is best served, we think, by requiring that licensed attorneys perform this service so that the benefits of their legal education, skills and experience can be used to negotiate a fair settlement with the tortfeasor or the tortfeasor’s insurer. From a practical standpoint, we note that such services are readily available to the public from lawyers on a contingent fee basis; thus, there is no need to permit nonlawyers to perform these functions.

Consistent with our conclusions, we hold that Bergantzel was prohibited under Iowa law from rendering the negotiation services required by her contract with Mly-narik because she was not licensed to practice law in this state. We must now determine whether Iowa’s attorney licensing requirement is regulatory in nature.

V. Does the Attorney Licensing Requirement Have a Regulatory Purpose?

Individuals licensed to practice law in Iowa must graduate from an accredited law school and must demonstrate proficiency in the practice of law, either by successfully passing the Iowa bar examination or by demonstrating five years of legal practice in another jurisdiction. See Iowa Sup.Ct. Rs. 102, 107, 111. In addition, licensed attorneys must complete fifteen hours of continuing legal education each year to maintain their law license. See Iowa Sup.Ct. R. 123.8. Finally, lawyers practicing in Iowa must comply with the Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility; their failure to do so may result in a reprimand, a suspension of their license, or a permanent revocation of their license. See Cornell v. Wunschel, 408 N.W.2d 369, 377 (Iowa 1987) (stating that “the code of professional responsibility sets the standard for an attorney’s conduct in any transaction in which his professional judgment may be exercised”); Iowa Sup.Ct. R. 118.10 (discussing discipline by supreme court). It is also significant that the underlying goal of the licensing and supervision of attorneys is to protect the public from the consequences of unqualified legal advisors. See Comm. on Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Lawler, 342 N.W.2d 486, 488 (Iowa 1984).

These facts unquestionably demonstrate that the attorney licensing requirement has a regulatory purpose. Cf. Mincks, 611 N.W.2d at 277 (holding that grain dealer licensing statute has a regulatory purpose where the department of agriculture and land stewardship has general supervision over grain dealers and the purpose behind the statutory licensing requirement is protection of the public). We now determine whether “the interest in the enforcement of the [contract] is clearly outweighed by the public policy behind the [licensing] requirement.” Restatement § 181(b), at 21.

VI. Is the Interest in Enforcement of the Agreement Between Bergantzel and Mlynarik Clearly Outweighed by the Public Policy Behind the Attorney Licensing Requirement?

The Restatement has identified several factors to consider in balancing the competing interests implicated in the enforcement of a contract that violates public policy:

(2) In weighing the interest in the enforcement of a term, account is taken of
(a) the parties’ justified expectations,
(b) any forfeiture that would result if enforcement were denied, and
(c) any special public interest in the enforcement of the particular term.
(3) In weighing a public policy against enforcement of a term, account is taken of
(a) the strength of that policy as manifested by legislation or judicial decisions,
(b) the likelihood that a refusal to enforce the term will further that policy,
(c) the seriousness of any misconduct involved and the extent to which it was deliberate, and
(d) the directness of the connection between that misconduct and the term.

Restatement § 178(2)-(3), at 6-7.

First, under the available record, we cannot determine whether Bergantzel knew her negotiation of the settlements constituted the practice of law. Given the fact that she had performed under the contract, she certainly expected to be paid. For purposes of our analysis, we assume, without deciding, that this expectation was justified. Second, it appears that Bergant-zel will suffer a forfeiture in that she has already rendered her performance and will be denied compensation for those services. Cf. Restatement § 181 cmt. c, at 22 (“If the party who has failed to comply with the [licensing] requirement has done nothing by way of preparation or performance, the interest in enforcement of the promise is easily outweighed.”). As a final matter, there does not appear to be any ascertainable special public interest in the enforcement of this contract. As noted in Mincks, where performance of an activity is illegal, the public interest weighs against enforcement. 611 N.W.2d at 279.

Although the factors just discussed reveal some interest in enforcement, that interest is clearly outweighed by the factors militating against enforcement. The factors weighing against enforcement, as previously stated, include (1) the strength of the public policy against the unauthorized practice of law, (2) the likelihood that refusal to enforce the contract will further that policy, (3) the seriousness of any misconduct involved and the extent to which Bergantzel was culpable, and (4) the directness of the connection between the unauthorized conduct and the contract. See Restatement § 178(3), at 6-7.

Our first step is to identify the public policy underlying the licensure requirement. We agree with the Minnesota Supreme Court’s discussion of the rationale for regulating the practice of law:

[The] purpose [for which lawyers are licensed as the exclusive occupants of their field] is to protect the public from the intolerable evils which are brought upon people by those who assume to practice law without having the proper qualifications....
... The law practice franchise or privilege is based upon the threefold requirements of ability, character, and responsible supervision. The public welfare is safeguarded not merely by limiting law practice to individuals who are possessed of the requisite ability and character, but also by the further requirement that such practitioners shall thenceforth be officers of the court and subject to its supervision.... Protection of the public is set at naught if laymen who are not subject to court supervision are permitted to practice law.

Gardner v. Conway, 234 Minn. 468, 48 N.W.2d 788, 794-95 (1951); accord Lawler, 342 N.W.2d at 488 (noting that the “ ‘underlying purpose of regulating the practice of law ... is to protect the public against the often drastic and far reaching consequences of [the] inexpert advice’ [of unqualified legal advisors]” (quoting In re Baker, 8 N.J. 321, 85 A.2d 505, 514 (1951))). We think it is not subject to debate that the public policy underlying the regulation of the practice of law is strong. The importance of the licensing requirement is further evidenced by the fact that a person who assumes to be an attorney and acts as such without authority may be held in contempt of court and fined up to one thousand dollars or imprisoned in the county jail for up to six months, or both. See Iowa Code §§ 665.3, .4.

As for the second factor against enforcement, we think that a refusal to enforce the contract will further the public policy evidenced by the attorney licensure provisions. As we noted in Mincks, “taking the economic benefit out of contracts that violate [public policy] by holding them unenforceable ‘very definitely would promote the public policy.’” 611 N.W.2d at 280 (quoting Springlake Corp. v. Symmarron Ltd. P’ship, 81 Md.App. 694, 569 A.2d 715, 722 (1990)).

Turning to the third factor, we find nothing in the record to suggest that Ber-gantzel knew her actions were unauthorized, yet deliberately proceeded. Nonetheless, it cannot be questioned that the unauthorized practice of law is a very serious matter. Both lawyers and nonlawyers are subject to severe sanctions for such conduct. See Iowa Code of Profl Responsibility DR 3-101 & EC 3-1 to 3-9 (providing that a lawyer “should assist in preventing the unauthorized practice of law” and providing for the imposition of sanctions for acts that aid in such conduct); Iowa Code §§ 665.3, .4 (providing for fines and imprisonment for acting as an attorney without authority).

The fourth and final factor concerns the nexus between the lack of license and the contract at issue. In the present case, there is an undeniably direct connection. The performance for which Bergantzel seeks compensation is the unauthorized practice of law, conduct that she was prohibited by law from performing. In other words, the unlicensed conduct is not a collateral matter.

Weighing all the factors, we conclude that the interest in refusing to enforce the contract must prevail. The fact that Ber-gantzel has already performed and, in that sense, Mlynarik will receive a windfall, simply does not outweigh the strong public policy against the unauthorized practice of law. See Meunier, 170 So. at 578 (holding that adjuster, who had fully performed, could not recover his contractual contingent fee due to the strong public policy against the practice of law by laypersons). Accordingly, we conclude that the contract is unenforceable.

VII. Summary and Disposition.

We hold that Bergantzel’s negotiation of a settlement of Mlynarik’s UIM claim constituted the unauthorized practice of law. The public policy underlying the attorney licensure requirement dictates that the contract obligating Bergantzel to perform the unauthorized acts is unenforceable. The trial court erred in ruling to the contrary, as did the district court on appeal. Therefore, we reverse the judgment in favor of Bergantzel and remand, this case for dismissal of Bergantzel’s claim.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

McGIVERIN, S.J. participates in place of SNELL, J., who takes no part.

      . We do not mean to imply that our articulation of the determinative issue here constitutes an all-encompassing test for what is the practice of law. We will continue, as we have done in the past, to “decide[ ] each case in this area largely on its own particular facts,” guided, of course, by our prior decisions. Baker, 492 N.W.2d at 701; see also Iowa Code of Prof'l Responsibility EC 3-5 ("It is neither necessary nor desirable to attempt the formulation of a single, specific definition of what constitutes the practice of law.”).

      . The court specifically rejected the defendant's argument that its holding would "invalidate[ ] the long-standing use of lay adjusters by insurance companies in 'negotiating settlements with third-party claimants." The court distinguished the company adjusters this way:
      The insurance company adjuster is an agent of the company hired to investigate and evaluate claims being made against the company. He does not hold himself out to the public as competent to represent their interests and indeed, only deals with the public from a plainly adversary posture....

      ... "When they deal with claimants it is on an adversary basis, not a representative basis implying a fiduciary relation."

        Mazzacaro, 351 A.2d at 234-35 n. 7 (quoting Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Jones, 344 Mo. 932, 130 S.W.2d 945, 960 (1939)).


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: CARTER, Justice.

license: Public Domain

text:
    IOWA SUPREME COURT BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS AND CONDUCT, Complainant, v. Gene A. WICKEY, Respondent.
    No. 00-1165.
    Supreme Court of Iowa.
    Nov. 16, 2000.
    Norman G. Bastemeyer and David J. Grace, Des Moines, for complainant.
    Gene A. Wickey, Sioux City, pro se.

       Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (1999).

   CARTER, Justice.

Respondent, Gene A. Wickey, an attorney, was charged with five counts of willful failure to pay Iowa income taxes that were legally owed and one count of failing to pay Iowa income taxes withheld from his employees. The years involved were 1993-1997. Some of the failure-to-pay counts also included allegations of failure to timely file his tax returns. The offenses charged were all class “D” felonies. Ultimately, one of the charges pertaining to the year 1997 was reduced to an aggravated misdemeanor. Respondent pled guilty to that charge, and the other charges were dismissed. Respondent was placed on probation and ordered to make restitution of $23,521.

The Iowa Supreme Court Board of Professional Ethics and Conduct filed a multi-count complaint against respondent, alleging that he willfully failed to timely file his Iowa income tax returns for the years 1993, 1994, 1996, and 1997 and also willfully failed to pay the tax owed for those years. Respondent concedes that his tax returns for these years were not filed on or before the April 30 filing date. He also admits that he failed to pay the total amount of tax owed for each of the years involved within the period that payment was required by law. He contends, however, that his accountant sought and obtained extensions of time from the taxing authorities for the filing of the returns. On the issue of nonpayment, he claims that financial hardship prevented him from paying at the time the taxes became due.

The only evidence in the record supporting respondent’s contention that he obtained extensions of time for filing his returns is his own testimony. The board’s request for documentation was not honored. There is ample evidence in the record that even if respondent had obtained an extension of time for filing his returns from the tax authorities, he did not act to file his returns within the time granted. The grievance commission did not resolve that issue. We find that he did not file his returns for the years in question within the time provided by law.

During the time that respondent was experiencing his Iowa income tax problems, he was also being visited with substantial financial sanctions as a result of a large federal income tax delinquency. The record indicates the amount of taxes and penalties owed the federal government was greater than respondent’s net worth. He lost his home and other assets as a result. His bank accounts were frequently garnished. He eventually compromised the federal government’s tax claim and made payment through loans from friends and relatives. He claims that as a result of these circumstances and poor financial planning he never had the funds required to pay his Iowa taxes. The basis for the federal income tax claims against respondent have not been made to appear in the record of this case. They form no basis for the disciplinary charges that have been made against respondent.

The grievance commission found that the board had established by a convincing preponderance of the evidence that he had failed to pay his Iowa income tax and failed to timely file his state income tax returns on the due dates for the four years involved in the complaint. It found that such conduct constituted a violation of DR 1 — 102(A)(3), (4), (5), and (6) of the Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers. The grievance commission also noted that respondent had previously received a public reprimand from the board for failure to account to a client after paying himself a fee from bond money recovered for the client. The grievance commission recommended that respondent’s license be suspended for an indefinite period of time with no possibility of reinstatement before three months. •

Respondent’s case is quite similar to two other disciplinary matters recently brought before this court. In Iowa Supreme Court Board of Professional Ethics & Conduct v. Runge, 588 N.W.2d 116 (Iowa 1999), the attorney involved had originally been charged with four class “D” felonies for failure to file state income tax returns and pay the taxes on the date due. Like Wickey, he obtained a concession allowing him to plead guilty to a reduced charge constituting an aggravated misdemeanor. Upon his pleading guilty to that count, the other charges were dismissed. After reviewing the range of discipline in other cases in which lawyers had failed to comply with the income tax laws, we noted in Runge that sanctions varied from three months to fifteen months, depending on the scope of the failure to. file and other circumstances presented. Runge, 588 N.W.2d at 118. We determined in the Runge case that the appropriate sanction was a suspension for not less than six months. Id. at 119.

In the more recent case of Iowa Supreme Court Board of Professional Ethics & Conduct v. Neuwoehner, 595 N.W.2d 797 (Iowa 1999), the attorney in question also pled guilty to an aggravated misdemeanor based on failure to file Iowa income tax returns for a single year. His nonfilings actually involved three years. This court imposed a suspension of not less than three months with the caveat that “[b]ut for Neuwoehner’s otherwise unblemished record of ethical practice, a more severe sanction would be warranted.” Neuavoehner, 595 N.W.2d at 798. As previously noted, respondent’s previous record is not unblemished as a result of a prior public reprimand from the board.

We conclude that respondent is guilty of the ethical violations the board found to have occurred. Although we give respectful consideration to the grievance commission’s recommendations, we are convinced in the present case that the length of suspension should be in accord with that imposed in the Runge case, rather than that which was imposed in the Neuivoeh-ner case. We therefore suspend attorney Gene A. Wickey’s license to practice law in this state indefinitely with no possibility of reinstatement for six months following the filing of this opinion. This suspension applies to all facets of the practice of law. See Ct.R. 118.12. Upon application for reinstatement, Wickey shall demonstrate that he has not practiced law during the period of suspension and that he has met the requirements for client notification set forth in Court Rule 118.18.

Costs are assessed against Wickey and payment of same shall be a condition of reinstatement.

LICENSE SUSPENDED.

McGIVERIN, S.J., participates in place of LARSON, J., who takes no part.


author: CADY, Justice.

text:
    IOWA SUPREME COURT BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS AND CONDUCT, Complainant, v. Michael W. FAY, Respondent.
    No. 00-1140.
    Supreme Court of Iowa.
    Nov. 16, 2000.

      Norman G. Bastemeyer and David J. Grace, Des Moines, for complainant.
    Michael W. Fay, Cedar Rapids, respondent, pro se.

       Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (1999).

   CADY, Justice.

This lawyer disciplinary proceeding requires us to review a recommendation by a division of the Grievance Commission that the license of Michael W. Fay to practice law in Iowa be suspended for a period of thirty days for his involvement in a business transaction with a client in violation of DR 6-104(A) and DR 1-102(A)(5) and (6). On de novo review, we concur with the recommendation of the commission.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

Michael W. Fay is a Cedar Rapids lawyer. He was admitted to practice law in Iowa in 1966. He received a public reprimand in 1992 for allowing others to influence his professional judgment in providing legal services to clients and aiding the unauthorized practice of law in violation of DR 5 — 107(B) and DR 3-101(A). Fay had been hired by an out-of-state corporation to provide legal advice to Iowans who purchased trust agreements from the corporation.

In 1998, Fay began representing Jeanice Havlik in a variety of personal and business matters. Havlik owned and operated an interior decorating business in Cedar Rapids called “Red Door Interiors.”

In April 1997, Havlik and the bookkeeper for the interior decorating business met with Fay in his office to discuss the operation of the business. The business was experiencing some financial difficulties and the lease of the business premise was about to expire. Havlik was interested in moving the business to a new location. She also wanted to reduce her expenditures by living and working in the same building.

During the course of the office conference, Fay suggested that Havlik lease the house he occupied as his residence. It was an older Victorian style home located on a corner lot in a pleasant, high traffic residential area of the city. The house was owned by Fay’s daughter, but Fay maintained an interest in the house in the nature of a life estate. The house was previously owned by Fay’s parents, and Fay had lived in the house since 1989. The property was zoned for residential use. The house was run down and in need of substantial repairs.

After touring the house and engaging in numerous other discussions with Fay, Havlik agreed to lease the house. Pursuant to their discussions, Fay would move from the house and make substantial repairs to the exterior. Havlik was free to alter the interior of the house to meet her personal and business needs. Fay told Havlik that he believed business use of the house would qualify under the home occupancy exception to the city zoning ordinance. He also' told Havlik he would pursue a zoning change or a variance at his own expense if the city officials did not approve the business use of the house under the exception. Fay and Havlik signed a standard form lease agreement, and agreed to a monthly rental payment.

Fay did not feel he was representing Havlik in the lease agreement. Consequently, he never told her that his interests in the transaction may be in conflict with her interests. Additionally, he had no recollection of advising Havlik to seek independent counsel during the negotiation of the lease. Havlik in fact did not consult an attorney for advice prior to signing the lease and moving into the house. ■

Havlik moved into the house in July 1997, and began operating her business. City officials, however, soon began to question the operation of the business from the house. They also discovered numerous code violations within the interior of the home. Havlik notified Fay of the problems, and he initiated discussions and negotiations with the city on behalf of Havlik. Havlik, however, became disenchanted with the developments and eventually contacted another lawyer.

Havlik later stopped paying the monthly rent required under the lease. Fay responded by serving Havlik with the initial prerequisite notice for eviction.

Havlik moved from the house in December 1997. She then brought a lawsuit against Fay based on a variety of claims, including negligent misrepresentation. Fay filed a counterclaim for unpaid rent. The lawsuit resulted in a judgment against Fay based on negligent misrepresentation.

Fay’s former wife filed a complaint with the Board of Professional Ethics and Conduct concerning Fay’s activities in the lease transaction with Havlik. The board brought this action against Fay for engaging in a business transaction with a client without disclosing the existence of a conflict of interest in violation of DR 5-104(A). The board also claimed the conduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice and adversely reflected on Fay’s fitness to practice law in violation of DR 1 — 102(A)(5) and (6). The commission,found Fay violated the disciplinary rules and recommended he be suspended from the practice of law for a period of thirty days.

II. Standard of Review.

Our review is de novo. Ct. R. 118.10. “Although we give respectful consideration to commission recommendations, we ultimately decide what discipline is appropriate under the [specific] facts of each case.” Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Beckman, 557 N.W.2d 94, 95 (Iowa 1996) (citing Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Gottschalk, 553 N.W.2d 322, 323 (Iowa 1996)). Misconduct must be proven by a convincing preponderance of the evidence. Beckman, 557 N.W.2d at 95.

III. Violations.

Fay claimed he did not violate DR 5-104(A) because he did not have a conflict of interest with. Havlik. He believed the transaction was beneficial to both parties and he did not engage in any dishonest or deceitful conduct. He also maintained Havlik knew he was not representing her in the lease and she did not expect him to exercise his professional judgment for her protection in the negotiation of the lease,

We have previously observed that Canon 5 of the Rules of Professional Responsibility clearly mandates “a lawyer cannot represent a client whose business interests conflict” with the lawyer’s own interests “in the absence of client consent after full disclosure.” Committee on Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Oehler, 350 N.W.2d 195, 198 (Iowa 1984). It is a rule which must be rigidly followed by our bar, and is strictly enforced. Id. at 199.

DR 5-104(A) specifically limits business transactions between lawyers and clients when the lawyer and client have “differing interests” in the transaction and when “the client expects the lawyer to exercise professional judgment [in the transaction] for the protection of the client....” When these circumstances are present, a lawyer must refrain from entering into the transaction unless the client has consented after full disclosure by the lawyer. See Committee on Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Carty, 515 N.W.2d 32, 35 (Iowa 1994). Business ventures between lawyers and their clients are normally discouraged. Committee on Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Postma, 430 N.W.2d 387, 391 (Iowa 1988). We first consider whether the circumstances of the rule apply in this case.

DR 5-104(A) applies only to transactions with clients. Yet, a client under the rule means not only an existing attorney-client relationship, but also a person “who regularly rel[ies] on an attorney for legal services ... on an occasional and on-going basis.” Carty, 515 N.W.2d at 35 (quoting Postma, 430 N.W.2d at 392). Thus, an attorney-client relationship cannot be turned off and on to avoid the rule as Fay seems to .suggest. Havlik had relied on Fay for legal services on an ongoing basis in the past and specifically consulted him about moving her business to a new location at the end of her existing business lease. Havlik was clearly a client under the rule at the time the lease was negotiated and executed.

The lease arrangement also constituted a business transaction with a client under the rule. See Committee on Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. McCullough, 465 N.W.2d 878, 884 (Iowa 1991) (noting any “commercial activity engaged in for a profit” constitutes a business transaction). A business transaction is a broad term under the rule and would clearly include a lease agreement. See id.

The transaction also involved a clear conflict of interest between Fay and Havlik. Fay maintained an interest in the property which was the subject of the lease. He also represented the interests of his daughter. The competing interests of a lessor and lessee necessarily present a conflict of interest under the rule. See Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Wagner, 599 N.W.2d 721, 726-27 (Iowa 1999) (recognizing obvious differing interests between a buyer and seller of real estate); Carty, 515 N.W.2d at 35 (EC 5-3 warns that the “self-interest of a lawyer resulting from property ownership may interfere with the lawyer’s judgment on behalf of a client”).

Finally, the nature of the business transaction between Fay and Havlik indicated Havlik expected Fay to exercise professional judgment for her protection and the protection of her business. The business transaction entered into between Fay and Havlik was the product of the very reason Havlik met with Fay and sought his legal advice in the course of their attorney-client relationship. Despite Fay’s suggestion that Havlik knew he was not actually representing her in the lease, Fay and Havlik maintained an attorney-client relationship and it was reasonable for Havlik to expect Fay to exercise his professional judgment in the course of that relationship for her benefit. We conclude the circumstances of DR 5-104(A) applied to the facts of this case. Thus, the question turns to whether Havlik consented after full disclosure.

Once a lawyer enters into a business transaction with a client which falls within DR 5-104(A), it is not enough for the lawyer to simply refrain from deceitful or dishonest conduct. See Wagner, 599 N.W.2d at 726 (conflict still existed despite fact attorney did not actually negotiate the purchase price). Similarly, it is not enough for the lawyer to maintain a good faith intent to achieve a favorable outcome for a client. See id. (board does not need to prove improper motive). Instead, the thrust of DR 5-104(A) is that an attorney who engages in such a business transaction with a client must take affirmative action to fully disclose to the client the conflict of interest and obtain the consent of the client. A person who seeks legal advice must be able to “expect unfettered independence of professional judgment of a lawyer whose loyalty to that person is total.” Oehler, 350 N.W.2d at 199. Thus, full disclosure not only means disclosure of the nature of the transaction, but it also means explaining to the client why he or she would benefit from independent counsel and insisting independent counsel be secured. Wagner, 599 N.W.2d at 728; see Carty, 515 N.W.2d at 36.

Fay failed to provide Havlik with full disclosure as required under the rule. We agree with the commission that his conduct violated DR 5-104(A). Similarly, his conduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of DR 1-102(A)(5) and adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law in violation of DR 1-102(A)(6).

IV. Discipline.

Past sanctions imposed on lawyers for entering into business transactions with clients in violation of DR 5-104(A) have ranged from reprimand to revocation of license, “depending on the severity of the violations.” Committee on Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Hall, 463 N.W.2d 30, 35-36 (Iowa 1990). In the end, the sanction in each attorney disciplinary case rests with the particular circumstances of each case. Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Carr, 588 N.W.2d 127, 129 (Iowa 1999). In determining sanctions under the circumstances of each case, “we not only consider the nature of the violations, but also the need for deterrence, protection of the public, maintenance of the reputation of the bar as a whole, and the [violator’s] fitness to continue to practice law.” Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Lemanski, 606 N.W.2d 11, 14 (Iowa 2000). In considering the particular facts, we look to a variety of circumstances, including the existence of prior violations. Id.

Although Fay sincerely believed he was helping his client and was not motivated by any personal gain or profit, there are aggravating factors which militate in favor of the sanction recommended by the commission. The first factor is the harm to the client. Wagner, 599 N.W.2d at 730; see also Committee on Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Baker, 269 N.W.2d 463, 466 (Iowa 1978) (finding economic harm aggravates conflict of interest violation). If Havlik had secured independent counsel, it is likely the lease would not have been entered into until the zoning issue was resolved so that the business could be legally operated from the house. Although Havlik eventually recovered her loss in her civil action against Fay, this does not change the fact that Fay’s actions produced harm to a client. See Committee on Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Gardalen, 414 N.W.2d 124, 129 (Iowa 1987) (“damage payment to a client is not a mitigating [factor]”).

Another aggravating factor in this case is that Fay has received a prior reprimand. Moreover, this prior reprimand involved a Canon 5 violation. Additionally, Fay is an experienced lawyer who should be intimately familiar with the rules relating to dual representation, especially after his prior reprimand. Finally, we give respectful consideration to the commission’s recommendation. Committee on Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Humphrey, 529 N.W.2d 255, 258 (Iowa 1995).

Considering all the circumstances, we agree with the recommendation of the commission. We suspend the license of Michael W. Fay to practice law in Iowa with no possibility of reinstatement for one month from the filing of this opinion. The suspension shall apply to all aspects of the practice of law. See Ct. R. 118.12. Any application for reinstatement shall be governed by court rule 118.18.

Costs are assessed to Fay under court rule 118.22.

LICENSE SUSPENDED.

McGIVERIN, Senior Judge, participates in place of CARTER, J., who takes no part.


author: LAVORATO, Chief Justice.

text:
    IOWA SUPREME COURT BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS AND CONDUCT, Complainant, v. Linda Jean LYZENGA a/k/a Linda Lyzenga Shields, Respondent.
    No. 00-1102.
    Supreme Court of Iowa.
    Nov. 16, 2000.

      Norman G. Bastemeyer and Charles L. Harrington, Des Moines, for complainant.
    Linda Jean Lyzenga, Davenport, pro se.

       Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (1999).

   LAVORATO, Chief Justice.

In this lawyer disciplinary proceeding, we review the Grievance Commission’s recommendation that Linda Jean Lyzen-ga’s license to practice law in Iowa be revoked for her multiple violations of DR 1-102(A)(3), (4), (5), and (6) stemming from her fourteen convictions for theft, prostitution, trespass, forgery, and deceptive practices. Upon our de novo review, we agree with the commission that Lyzenga’s license should be revoked.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

From May 1991 to April 1995, Lyzenga had been practicing at the State of Iowa Public Defender’s Office. In April 1995, she moved to Davenport to handle her mother’s estate. Unable to find work in Davenport, she discontinued practicing law.

On March 15, 2000, the Iowa Supreme Court Board of Professional Ethics and Conduct filed a complaint with the commission alleging that Lyzenga had violated Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-102(A)(3) (lawyer shall not engage in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude), (4) (lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), (5) (lawyer shall not engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), (6) (lawyer shall not engage in any other conduct reflecting adversely on fitness to practice law).

The complaint was based on the following criminal convictions entered against Lyzenga from 1996 to 1999:

1. Three aggravated misdemeanor convictions for prostitution on February 25, 1997, and one such conviction on May 21, 1999.
2. Three aggravated misdemeanor convictions for theft on January 1, 1996, February 25, 1997, and May 21, 1999.
3. Four simple misdemeanor convictions for theft on March 18, 1996, June 25, 1996, September 26, 1996, and February 9,1997.
4. One simple misdemeanor conviction for trespass on September 26, 1996.
5. One felony conviction for forgery on April 4, 1996.
6. One misdemeanor conviction for deceptive practices on April 4,1996.

As to the deceptive practices conviction and three of the theft convictions, Lyzenga wrote bad checks. As to the felony forgery conviction, Lyzenga wrote a check on an account for which she was not a listed executor. As to the five other theft charges, Lyzenga shoplifted a sweater, food, and undisclosed merchandise. As to the trespass conviction, Lyzenga was on shopping mall property from which she had previously been banned.

Except for two, all of these convictions occurred in Iowa. The two exceptions— felony conviction for forgery on April 4, 1996, and misdemeanor conviction for deceptive practices on April 4, 1996 — occurred in Illinois.

A request for admissions accompanied the complaint. The board requested Lyz-enga to admit or deny the foregoing criminal convictions as well as its assertion that her license was already under suspension pursuant to Court Rules 121 and 123 for failure to comply with client security and continuing legal education requirements.

Lyzenga sent the board a letter on August 9, 1999, in response to a complaint the board had received. She acknowledged the convictions and the license suspension, but offered a variety of explanations for her conduct, mostly centering on the death of her parents, the collapse of her marriage, an abusive relationship, and her inability to find work both in and outside the legal profession.

The commission held a hearing on May 30, 2000. Although the record shows she was served, Lyzenga did not appear.

Following the hearing, the commission filed its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation. The commission deemed admitted the statements in the request for admissions based on its finding that Lyzenga had failed to respond to the request. See Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Palmer, 563 N.W.2d 634, 635 (Iowa 1997). The commission further found that, in her letter to the board, Lyzenga had not acknowledged personal responsibility for her criminal convictions and had given no information that she had sought or received counseling for any personal problems that may have contributed to her criminal behavior.

Based on the criminal convictions, the commission concluded that Lyzenga had violated DR 1-102(A)(3), (4), (5), and (6). The commission further concluded that her felony forgery conviction was conclusive evidence of conduct involving dishonesty and therefore warranted revocation.

II. Scope of Review.

Lyzenga has not appealed from the commission’s recommendation. See Ct. R. 118.11. Nevertheless, we review the record de novo. Ct. R. 118.10. We give respectful consideration to the commission’s recommendation; however, we must ultimately determine what discipline is appropriate under the facts of each case. Id.; Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Leon, 602 N.W.2d 336 (Iowa 1999). The board must prove the alleged ethical violations by a convincing preponderance of the evidence, a burden of proof that is greater than in a civil case but less than in a criminal case. Leon, 602 N.W.2d at 337.

Several important considerations guide our determination of the appropriate discipline. They include the nature of the alleged violations, the need for deterrence, the protection of the public, the mainte-' nance of the reputation of the bar, and Lyzenga’s fitness to continue in the practice of law. See Committee on Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Kaufman, 515 N.W.2d 28, 30 (Iowa 1994).

III. The Commission’s Findings.

We agree with the commission that the board established all of the convictions. We also agree with the commission that Lyzenga’s criminal convictions for theft, trespass, forgery, and deceptive practices reflect adversely on her fitness to practice law in violation of DR 1—102(A)(6). See, e.g., Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Schatz, 595 N.W.2d 794, 796 (Iowa 1999) (felonious theft—conversion of law firm funds); Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Thompson, 595 N.W.2d 132, 134 (Iowa 1999) (trespass); Committee on Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Cody, 412 N.W.2d 637, 640 (Iowa 1987) (aggravated misdemeanor theft by bad (dishonored) checks); see also Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Lesyshen, 585 N.W.2d 281, 286 (Iowa 1998) (though no underlying criminal conviction, forgery of court documents held to be a violation of DR 1—102(A)(6)).

These convictions for theft, trespass, forgery, and deceptive practices also constituted conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of DR 1-102(A)(5). Any time a lawyer violates essential criminal laws, such conduct prejudices the administration of justice because “ ‘there inexorably follows an intensified loss of lay persons’ respect for the law.’ ” Committee on Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Lapointe, 415 N.W.2d 617, 619 (Iowa 1987) (quoting Committee on Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Patterson, 369 N.W.2d 798, 801 (Iowa 1985)).

Lyzenga’s convictions for theft, forgery, and deceptive practices also demonstrate conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation in violation of DR 1-102(A)(4). See, e.g., Schatz, 595 N.W.2d at 796 (felonious theft—conversion of law firm funds); Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Sylvester, 548 N.W.2d 144, 147 (Iowa 1996) (felonious theft—conversion of client and law firm funds); see also Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Walters, 603 N.W.2d 772, 777 (Iowa 1999) (though no underlying criminal conviction, writing bad check to client violated DR 1—102(A)(4)); Lesyshen, 585 N.W.2d at 286 (though no underlying criminal conviction, forgery of court documents held to violate DR 1-102(A)(4)). These convictions also constitute illegal conduct involving moral turpitude in violation of DR 1-102(A)(3). See, e.g., Schatz, 595 N.W.2d at 796 (felonious theft—conversion of law firm funds); Cody, 412 N.W.2d at 640 (aggravated misdemeanor theft by bad (dishonored) checks); Committee on Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Rabe, 284 N.W.2d 234, 236 (Iowa 1979) (serious misdemeanor theft— shoplifting); see also Committee on Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. West, 387 N.W.2d 338, 341 (Iowa 1986) (though no underlying criminal conviction, attorney’s conduct in forging warranty deed conveying property to himself and subsequently causing his secretary to notarize the purported signatures violated DR 1—102(A)(3)).

Because the convictions for prostitution are violations of our criminal code, they necessarily constitute conduct (1) prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of DR 1-102(A)(5) and (2) reflecting adversely on Lyzenga’s fitness to practice law in violation of DR 1-102(A)(6). Cf. Richland County Bar Ass’n v. Brightbill, 56 Ohio St.3d 95, 96, 564 N.E.2d 471, 472 (1990) (holding that conviction for soliciting a prostitute to engage in sexual activity for hire was prejudicial to the administration of justice); In re Katz, 109 N.J. 17, 19, 532 A.2d 729, 730 (1987) (holding that attorney’s misdemeanor conviction for promotion of prostitution reflected adversely on his fitness to practice law).

On the question whether the prostitution convictions constitute illegal conduct involving moral turpitude, courts have acknowledged the problematic moral underpinnings of prostitution and conduct centering on prostitution:

Prostitution was not a common-law crime, unless the manner in which it was engaged constituted a public nuisance. It became a crime through statute and, despite suggestions that prostitution should be decriminalized, virtually all jurisdictions in this country continue to punish prostitution for utilitarian as well as religious and moral reasons.

State v. Clark, 406 N.W.2d 802, 804 (Iowa App.1987) (citations omitted).

Though not addressing conduct directly on point with the present case, several courts have held that conduct concerning prostitution does involve moral turpitude. Cf. In re Wolff, 490 A.2d 1118, 1120 (D.C.1985), aff'd on reh’g, 511 A.2d 1047 (1986) (en banc) (holding that attorney who accepted payment from undercover police officers to perform acts of sexual self-gratification was guilty of conduct involving moral turpitude); Brightbill, 564 N.E.2d at 471-72 (holding that conviction for soliciting a prostitute to engage in sexual activity for hire constituted illegal conduct involving moral turpitude); In re Howard, 297 Or. 174, 177, 681 P.2d 775, 776 (1984) (accepting and approving attorney’s admission that his misdemeanor conviction for paying a fee to engage in sexual conduct constituted “a conviction of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude”); Cogdill v. Committee of the Virginia State Bar, 221 Va. 876, 379, 269 S.E.2d 391, 393 (1980) (holding that conviction for procuring a woman for the purpose of prostitution evidenced violation of DR 1-102(A)(3)); In re Kosher, 61 Wash.2d 206, 377 P.2d 988, 990 (1963) (holding that aiding and abetting in the “illicit practice of prostitution” involved moral turpitude).

While society has in recent years become more open and tolerant of certain activities, and while some have advocated the legalization of prostitution, we think society in general still views prostitution as immoral conduct. For this reason and because prostitution remains proscribed by our criminal law, we conclude Lyzenga’s prostitution convictions constitute illegal conduct involving moral turpitude in violation of DR 1-102(A)(3).

IV. Discipline.

Having found that the record establishes the board’s charges in one manner or another, our remaining question is what discipline is appropriate.

At the outset, we note that Lyzenga’s felony forgery conviction as well as her convictions of misdemeanors involving moral turpitude are alone sufficient reason to suspend or revoke her license. See Iowa Code § 602.10122(1) (1999) (providing that conviction of a felony is sufficient cause for revocation or suspension); Ct. R. 118.10 (“This court may revoke or suspend the license of an attorney admitted to practice in Iowa upon any of the following grounds: conviction of a felony, conviction of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude .... ”). As mentioned, the commission recommended revocation.

In her letter to the board, Lyzenga pointed out that her criminal convictions occurred after she stopped practicing law. She argued that she should not be disbarred because she “[has] been through enough,” because she “[has] no mental health or substance abuse issues,” and because she just “[wants] to know that this is something [she has] left, that has not been taken from [her], as everything else has been.” She concluded that to deny her “the opportunity to practice again would be, in effect, taking away the one thing that [she has] clung to throughout this— [her] self-respect and the successes [she has] had.”

The commission rejected her pleas, stating that Lyzenga’s criminal conduct

[e]annot be excused as the result of a bad situation in which Respondent found herself or as a reflection on any person other than Respondent. Respondent’s failure to take personal responsibility for these convictions is viewed by the commission as an indication that this long pattern of criminal behavior is unlikely to stop. .
The commission is concerned about the impact on the public if an attorney with such a pattern of criminal convictions were to be allowed to continue practicing law. Attorneys are in a position of trust with the public in many ways; each client must be able to trust his or her own attorney implicitly, but also, in order for our legal system to work, clients must also be able to trust that opposing counsel will obey the law and will not act on improper motivations. The public at large must also be allowed to have confidence that attorneys who are duty bound to uphold the law will not go outside the law for their own personal gain. Respondent’s criminal record indicates that she would not deserve such trust.

We agree. Given the shear volume of convictions for conduct involving dishonesty, deceit, fraudulent intent and general moral turpitude, we see no alternative but revocation. This is particularly so in light of Lyzenga’s felony conviction for forgery, which strikes at the very heart of trustworthiness and honesty. See Palmer, 563 N.W.2d at 635 (revoking license of attorney convicted of crime involving theft and unauthorized use of credit card, even though misconduct was not associated with attorney’s practice of law; especially critical to discipline imposed was that conviction at issue involved dishonesty).

And it makes no difference that these convictions may have occurred after Lyz-enga ceased practicing law and were outside the context of a professional relationship between an attorney and client. See Thompson, 595 N.W.2d at 134 (citing Committee on Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Millen, 357 N.W.2d 313, 315 (Iowa 1984) (“It makes no difference that respondent was not acting as a lawyer at the time of his misconduct. Lawyers do not shed their professional responsibility in their personal lives.”)). As we have noted, we have imposed discipline for criminal convictions not even remotely related to the practice of law. See id.

Lyzenga’s letter to the board indicated she may have fallen on hard times. She insisted that the circumstances surrounding her convictions demonstrate that those convictions were not the result of intentional malice or ill will, but rather were the unfortunate by-product of the dire straits in which she found herself. While we may sympathize with her plight, her situation cannot excuse her misconduct. See Committee on Prof' l Ethics & Conduct v. Barrer, 495 N.W.2d 756, 759 (Iowa 1993) (“We have consistently refused to recognize a lawyer’s personal or emotional problems as a defense to charges of misconduct.”). As we said on one occasion:

Nearly every lawyer involved in these cases could cite personal problems as the cause of the professional downfall. But life in general is a series of problems and it is the fundamental purpose of our profession to face and solve them. Our profession certainly cannot excuse misconduct on the basis of personal problems.

Committee on Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Cook, 409 N.W.2d 469, 470 (Iowa 1987).

Lyzenga wants to retain her license so that she might have a way to begin her life anew. While this is a laudable goal, we must keep in mind the purposes of attorney disciplinary proceedings and give them foremost consideration. These purposes include protecting the courts and the public from persons unfit to practice law, vindicating public confidence in the integrity of our system of justice, assuring the public that the courts will maintain the ethics of the profession, and deterring other lawyers from similar misconduct. Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Hansel, 558 N.W.2d 186, 192 (Iowa 1997); Cody, 412 N.W.2d at 641. Lyzenga’s repeated unlawful conduct over a three-year period casts a dark cloud over the integrity of the profession. While permitting Lyzenga to retain her license might be good for her, allowing her to do so could no doubt be damaging to the public. With her track record, we have no assurance that she would not continue to break the law.

Also disturbing to us is Lyzenga’s apparent disinterest in these proceedings. Although served with notice of the hearing, she failed to appear. This lack of interest not only mocks the disciplinary process but casts serious doubt on her true commitment and dedication to rectify her past conduct and adhere to the highest standards of professional conduct in the future.

We revoke Lyzenga’s license to practice law in this state and assess costs to her pursuant to Court Rule 118.22.

LICENSE REVOKED.

McGIVERIN, S.J., participates in place of LARSON, J., who takes no part.


author: NEUMAN, Justice.

text:
    IOWA SUPREME COURT BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS AND CONDUCT, Complainant, v. N. Michael D'ANGELO, Respondent.
    No. 00-0920.
    Supreme Court of Iowa.
    Nov. 16, 2000.

      Norman G. Bastemeyer and Charles L. Harrington, Des Moines, for complainant.
    N. Michael D’Angelo, Oakland, pro se, for respondent.

       Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (1999).

   NEUMAN, Justice.

A division of the Grievance Commission found that respondent, attorney N. Michael D’Angelo, violated at least seven provisions of the Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers in connection with the probate of five estates for which he was the designated attorney. The violations generally involve neglect, collecting fees before court authorization, improper trust accounting, misappropriating client funds, disregarding court orders, and failing to respond to inquiries by the Board of Professional Ethics and Conduct (Board). The Commission recommends that we suspend D’Angelo’s license for not less than six months.

The matter is now before us in accordance with Iowa Supreme Court Rule 118.10. D’Angelo has filed no appeal but the Board has filed a statement urging us to consider a harsher penalty. Given the nature and number of ethical violations revealed by the record, we agree that a more serious penalty is warranted.

I. Background Facts.

D’Angelo is a sole practitioner from Oakland, Iowa. He was admitted to practice in 1971. This is not his first brush with the lawyer disciplinary system. In 1988 we admonished him for taking probate fees prematurely. He received a reprimand in 1996 for securing a judge’s signature on an order that varied from a draft agreed upon by opposing counsel. Although he is described as personable and well-liked by his colleagues, he is also known as a lawyer who procrastinates and fails to get things done. Regrettably, the five probate matters before us substantiate that negative reputation.

Virginia Ford Estate. Ford’s four children, acting as co-executors, hired D’Angelo to probate their mother’s estate when she died in February 1995. D’Angelo had represented Virginia and her husband when they set up a family farm corporation some years earlier and divided the shares among the family members. He nevertheless included the entire value of the corporation in Virginia’s estate. The children, certain Virginia held only a minority interest, hired counsel at their own expense who convinced D’Angelo to prepare a revised inventory. Thereafter D’Angelo filed the federal estate tax return late, resulting in a $1500 penalty which he eventually paid.

A year later the IRS contacted one of the executors about the return, unable to get any response to requests for information from D’Angelo. The co-executor, Joan Shanno, was likewise unable to secure a response from him. She contacted a Council Bluffs lawyer, Frank Pechacek, who — after several unsuccessful tries'— eventually obtained the necessary information from D’Angelo to satisfy the IRS and conclude the audit.

Pechacek was ultimately hired by the heirs to close the estate. In doing so he discovered that D’Angelo had been paid $8590 for fees and costs in November 1995. The probate court set the matter of fees for hearing, ordering D’Angelo to file an itemized breakdown of his service to the estate and costs incurred. He failed to file the itemization. The court subtracted Pe-chaeek’s fees from the amount already paid, and ordered D’Angelo to reimburse him within fifteen days. D’Angelo missed that deadline but eventually paid Pechacek with a check drawn, not on his trust account, but from his operating account.

Before the estate could be closed, co-executor Shanno was forced to pay delinquent court costs that D’Angelo had assured her would be covered by the $8590 paid at the outset. D’Angelo reimbursed her for those costs only after she filed a complaint with the Board in October 1998.

Dorothy Green Estate. Marline Bryant, daughter of D’Angelo’s longtime client, Dorothy Green, hired D’Angelo to probate her mother’s estate. Another daughter, Patricia Johnston, hired Pechacek to help get information about the estate that she was unable to secure from Bryant or D’Angelo. Pechacek determined that D’Angelo had not timely filed the probate inventory. The record revealed that approximately one month after the probate inventory luas filed, D’Angelo secured a court order to pay full fees to himself and Bryant totaling $11,294. Pechacek also learned that Bryant, without notice to Johnston, had sold herself farm equipment, valued in the estate at $13,000, for roughly $2600.

Based on these and other irregularities, Pechacek sought Bryant’s removal and the appointment of Firstar Bank as successor executor. The order appointing the successor, as amended in June 1998, required Bryant and D’Angelo to immediately pay the Green Estate the fees received prematurely, plus interest from October 28, 1995. The court also ordered D’Angelo to pay $1075 in court costs that had been advanced to him but not applied to the costs. The payments were not forthcoming and a show cause hearing was scheduled. D’Angelo satisfied the court order just days before the contempt hearing.

After Pechacek took over as attorney for the estate, he discovered no fiduciary income taxes had been filed, resulting in a substantial overpayment of taxes by the beneficiaries. Neither had an inheritance tax clearance been secured. Pechacek ultimately resolved these matters. The hearing on the closing of the estate was pending at the time of D’Angelo’s disciplinary hearing.

Earl Smith Estate. Verla Mohn was the executor for the estate of Earl Smith, and D’Angelo was the estate’s attorney. An October 1999 audit of D’Angelo’s trust account by the Client Security and Attorney Disciplinary Commission revealed a check written by Mohn for $16,992 that was deposited in D’Angelo’s office operating account. Within a month the funds had been withdrawn. Upon inquiry D’Angelo acknowledged that the check represented inheritance taxes totaling $11,104 plus $5808 for projected fees. D’Angelo admitted that the check should have been deposited in his trust account and that the fees were taken before they were earned or any court authorization had been obtained. He took them, he explained, because the executor was terminally ill and eager to wrap up her responsibilities for the estate. He had no explanation for why the funds were not deposited in his trust account.

In the final report filed in the Smith Estate, D’Angelo misrepresented to the court that an accounting had been waived, when it had not, and that all statutory tax obligations had been complied with. D’Angelo eventually repaid the entire $16,992 to the Smith Estate and declined any fees for work allegedly performed.

Verla Mohn Estate. When Verla Mohn died her son, Daniel, was appointed the estate’s executor. Mohn’s will was admitted to probate in May 1996. The client security commission auditor inquired about a January 1997 deposit in D’Angelo’s operating account for $8003 in estate legal fees. D’Angelo explained that Daniel Mohn wrote the check and left it in D’Angelo’s office while he was out. He thought the fee had been approved by the court, although he could produce no order saying so, and he acknowledged that the funds were deposited directly into his operating account rather than a trust account. Another check received by D’Angelo from Mohn, in the sum of $3500, was never cashed because D’Angelo did not know what it was for. It was found in the file at a later date when the matter was transferred to another attorney for completion.

As with the Smith estate, D’Angelo returned all fees to the Mohn estate when his trust account violations came to light. He has subsequently sought no fees for work done on the estate.

Jeanette Calmer Estate. Jeanette Calmer died in March 1996 leaving a probate estate consisting solely of a modest checking account. The Pottawattamie clerk of court issued delinquency notices to the co-executors in November 1996, May 1998, and November 1998, for failure to file a probate inventory and interlocutory reports. One of the co-executors, Kaye Ris-den, repeatedly called D’Angelo about the status of the estate. Her calls were not returned. Eventually Risden told D’Angelo’s staff that she would pick up the file and conclude the probate herself. D’Angelo contacted her and told her that would not be necessary as the estate had been finalized.

The probate file revealed a final report signed by another co-executor, but not by Risden. Nor had Risden received notice of D’Angelo’s claim for attorney’s fees, or a copy of D’Angelo’s motion to extend the date for closing the estate. D’Angelo acknowledged that the final report was incomplete and should not have been in the court file. At the time of the disciplinary hearing in June 2000, the ninety-day extension had expired and the estate had not yet been closed.

II. Disciplinary Proceedings.

The Board’s complaint, as amended in five counts, charged D’Angelo with the following violations of the Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers: DR 1 — 102(A)(3), (4), (5), (6) (engaging in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or misrepresentation prejudicial to the administration of justice or that reflects adversely on fitness to practice law); DR 2-106(A) (collecting illegal fees); DR 6-101(A) (neglect and/or incompetence in matters entrusted to the lawyer); DR 7-106(A) (disregarding court order); and DR 9-102(A) (failure to keep client’s funds in a trust account).

D’Angelo filed no response to the complaint, nor did he answer interrogatories or the Board’s multiple requests for admissions. The Board filed a motion to compel discovery, which was likewise ignored by D’Angelo, followed by a motion for sanctions. D’Angelo’s utter lack of cooperation prompted the Commission to prohibit him from calling witnesses or tendering exhibits at the hearing. He did, however, appear at the hearing and testify in his own behalf.

Due to D’Angelo’s failure to admit or deny any of the allegations of the Board’s complaint or respond to any of the requests for admissions, the Commission accepted the truth of all allegations and deemed all requests admitted. It found that D’Angelo plainly neglected work entrusted to him and failed to communicate effectively with his clients, all in violation of DR 6-101(A). With respect to DR 1-102, the Commission found no proof that D’Angelo charged excessive fees or that he was intentionally dishonest with regard to the matter of fees. It determined, however, that his failure to obtain prior court approval before taking probate fees and his failure to deposit fees not yet earned in a client trust account reflected adversely on his fitness to practice law. It likewise concluded his failure to act in response to a court order until confronted with a citation for contempt violated DR 7-106(A). The Commission expressed its belief that none of D’Angelo’s misconduct involved moral turpitude.

III. Scope of Review.

Our review of lawyer disciplinary cases is de novo. Ct. R. 118.10; Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Leon, 602 N.W.2d 336, 336 (Iowa 1999); Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Gordon Winkel, 542 N.W.2d 252, 254 (Iowa 1996). We are grateful for the work performed by the lawyers and laypersons who serve on the Grievance Commission. We give respectful consideration to their findings and recommendations but, under well-established rules, we are not bound by them. Gordon Winkel, 542 N.W.2d at 254. We are obliged to make an independent determination of the appropriate sanction based on the unique facts of each case. Leon, 602 N.W.2d at 336.

The burden rests upon the Board to prove the unethical conduct alleged in its complaint by a convincing preponderance of the evidence. Gordon Winkel, 542 N.W.2d at 254. This does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt but does require more than the preponderance standard applied in an ordinary civil case. Id. Here the Board was entitled to rely on matters urged in requests for admissions because D’Angelo failed to deny or otherwise object to them. See id.

IV. Ethical Violations at Issue.

Probate fees and costs. Iowa law prohibits an attorney from accepting fees for probate work prior to obtaining a court order authorizing such fees. See Iowa Code §§ 633.197, .198 (1997) (authorizing payment of “reasonable fees as may be determined by the court”). Iowa Rule of Probate Procedure 2(d) permits payment of one-half of the authorized fees when federal and Iowa estate tax returns are prepared or an inheritance tax clearance is filed, with the remainder payable upon filing of the final report and payment of costs. We have repeatedly held that taking unauthorized fees and taking fees in advance of earning them is illegal and violates DR 2-106(A). Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Fleming, 602 N.W.2d 340, 342 (Iowa 1999); Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Smith, 569 N.W.2d 499, 500 (Iowa 1997). Moreover, all client funds (including costs) paid to an attorney must be deposited into an interest-bearing trust account, rather than the firm’s operating account, until they are earned. Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Herrera, 560 N.W.2d 592, 594 (Iowa 1997). Failure to do so violates DR 9-102(A). Id.

D’Angelo admitted, both through his failure to deny the Board’s request for admissions as well as by his testimony before the Commission, that he accepted fees prior to court authorization in the Ford, Green, Smith and Mohn estates. He also admitted that he took fees in advance of earning them when he deposited executors’ checks in his operating account immediately upon receiving them. He failed to deposit checks advanced for costs into an interest-bearing trust account. D’Angelo’s violations of DR 2-106(A) and DR 9-102(A) are clearly established by this record.

Neglect and dishonesty concerning client matters. Abundant evidence in the record establishes that D’Angelo negligently handled the estates for which he was the attorney. He failed to timely file the estate tax return in the Ford estate and repeatedly failed to furnish the IRS information necessary to conclude its audit. His inaction prompted the eo-execu-tors to seek alternate counsel to close the estate. D’Angelo’s general neglect and lack of communication with the co-executors is also demonstrated in the Calmer Estate. His inaction led to repeated delinquency notices and failure to file the probate inventory and other required reports. He advised a co-executor that these matters were concluded when, in fact, the estate remained open and D’Angelo sought court approval of his fees without notice to the executor. These events plainly establish that D’Angelo engaged in a pattern of neglect and dishonesty in dealing with his clients in violation of DR 6-101(A)(3) and DR 1-102(A)(4).

Disregarding a court order. Judge Gordon Abel ordered D’Angelo to pay the Ford Estate’s new attorney, Frank Pecha-cek, $4043.87 out of the $8590 paid to D’Angelo by the co-executors. Although the order directed that reimbursement be made within fifteen days, D’Angelo did not satisfy his obligation for a month — from a check drawn on his operating account rather than his trust account. Some months later, Judge Abel ordered D’Angelo to reimburse the Green Estate $5647 plus interest for fees prematurely taken and $1075 for court costs advanced but never paid to the clerk of court. Although the order called for payment within ten days, payment was made only upon threat of contempt some two months later. Plainly D’Angelo violated DR 7-106(A) when he disregarded these court orders.

Fitness to practice law ¡moral turpitude. The Board’s remaining allegations concern DR 1-102(3), (5), and (6), relating to illegal conduct involving moral turpitude, conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, and conduct reflecting adversely on a lawyer’s fitness to practice law. Addressing the latter disciplinary rules first, it is apparent from this record that D’Angelo habitually disregards statutes and court rules designed to protect the public interest. His tendency to procrastinate has resulted in losses to his clients of both time and expense. His utter disregard for rules pertaining to the disciplinary process shows disrespect for his professional colleagues and the administration of justice in this state, in violation of DR 1-102(5) and (6).

Turning to DR 1-102(3), the record plainly reveals conduct by D’Angelo contrary to statutes. The question remains whether his illegal conduct involves moral turpitude. The Commission found that it did not. We are inclined to agree. We have said that moral turpitude in the context of lawyer discipline “connotes behavior involving ‘fraudulent or dishonest intent.’ ” Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Romeo, 554 N.W.2d 552, 554 (Iowa 1996) (citation omitted). It is plainly established when certain violations of the criminal law occur. See, e.g., Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Lyzenga, 619 N.W.2d 327, 330 (Iowa 2000) (lawyer’s conviction for prostitution involves moral turpitude.) Here the record reveals more inattention and disregard for probate statutes and the best interest of his clients than intentionally dishonest behavior. Although D’Angelo’s conduct may not involve moral turpitude, his ethical lapses are serious and subject him to strict sanctions, a matter to which we now turn.

Y. Sanction.

When fixing an appropriate sanction for ethical misconduct, this court considers “the nature of the violations, protection of the public, deterrence of similar misconduct by others, the lawyer’s fitness to practice, and [the court’s] duty to uphold the integrity of the profession in the eyes of the public.” Fleming, 602 N.W.2d at 342. Although the inconvenience suffered by D’Angelo’s clients due to his neglect and delay are important considerations, we are particularly concerned whenever a disciplinary proceeding involves commingling or misappropriation of client funds. A deliberate conversion of client funds ordinarily demands revocation of the lawyer’s license. See, e.g., Leon, 602 N.W.2d at 338 (repeated misappropriation of trust funds to cover-up neglect in several clients’ cases warranted revocation); Committee on Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Ottesen, 525 N.W.2d 865, 866 (Iowa 1994) (revocation imposed where routine audit revealed attorney’s conversion of $7000 in client trust funds to his own use); Committee on Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Tullar, 466 N.W.2d 912, 913-14 (Iowa 1991) (lawyer convicted of first-degree theft for converting over $37,000 in estate funds to his own use). We have on occasion, however, imposed a lesser penalty when the commingling appeared negligent, rather than intentional, the funds were not knowingly converted to the lawyer’s own use, no client suffered financial loss, or other unique facts mitigated in favor of leniency. See, e.g., Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Allen, 586 N.W.2d 383, 390 (Iowa 1998) (although lawyer converted aunt’s conservatorship funds to own use and took fees without prior court approval, lawyer’s candid accounting and unique relationship to ward and only other beneficiary justified one-year suspension rather than revocation); Herrera, 560 N.W.2d at 595 (despite proof of trust account violations, lawyer’s honesty, forthright response, and move to correct mismanaged accounting operation supported Commission’s recommendation of reprimand instead of suspension); Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Gottschalk, 553 N.W.2d 322, 324-25 (Iowa 1996) (one-year recommended suspension for trust account violations upheld where infractions inconsistent with prior history, no client suffered damage, and lawyer cooperated fully in investigation); Committee on Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Harris, 524 N.W.2d 179, 181 (Iowa 1994) (recommended one-month suspension increased to three years, but not revocation, based on serious but isolated incident of trust account violation where client suffered no loss and fees fairly earned).

The Commission recommended a six-month suspension here, fearful that D’Angelo’s sloppy office practices might continue to pose a risk for monetary losses but convinced his conduct was not fundamentally dishonest. The Board urges us to view D’Angelo’s conduct with greater cynicism. Having reviewed the transcript of the hearing, however, we are inclined to concur in the Commission’s belief that D’Angelo’s misconduct stems from inattention and neglect that snowballed and, combined with serious but unspecified health problems, led him to disregard fundamental rules of practice and ethics. This behavior will not be countenanced but we think it may be distinguished from misconduct warranting revocation. It nevertheless demands a lengthy suspension. This is particularly true given D’Angelo’s prior reprimand, the sheer number of ethical breaches identified, and D’Angelo’s failure to cooperate in any measure with disciplinary officials.

We therefore suspend N. Michael D’Angelo’s license to practice law in this state indefinitely with no possibility of reinstatement for three years. This suspension shall apply to all facets of the practice of law. See Ct. R. 118.12. Upon application for reinstatement, D’Angelo shall furnish proof that he has complied with the notification and disengagement requirements of rules 118.13 and 118.18. Costs are assessed to the respondent.

LICENSE SUSPENDED.

McGIVERIN, S.J., participates in place of LARSON, J., who takes no part.