## Facts

- Carl H. Miller, an Iowa attorney, undertook representation in at least two probate matters despite lacking competence in probate administration.
- In one estate, Miller missed deadlines and failed to resolve problems; the estate remained open for approximately six years and was still incomplete at the disciplinary hearing.
- The executor filed an ethics complaint concerning Miller’s handling of the estate.
- The Committee on Professional Ethics and Conduct sent Miller three written requests for a response to the complaint.
- Miller received the letters but provided no written response and did not cooperate with the investigation.
- At the Grievance Commission hearing, Miller admitted he did not know how to close the estate and admitted ignoring the Committee’s inquiries.
- Miller testified he was an alcoholic and had been sober for about nine months, but asserted alcoholism did not cause his probate failures.
- The Grievance Commission found neglect of two estates and noncooperation with the disciplinary process and recommended suspension for at least three months.

## Issues

1. Whether Miller’s handling of two probate estates constituted neglect and lack of competence warranting attorney discipline.
2. Whether Miller’s failure to respond to the Committee’s letters of inquiry was independent professional misconduct and an aggravating factor.
3. What sanction was appropriate in light of the misconduct and the claimed mitigating circumstance of alcoholism and recent sobriety.

## Decision

- The Iowa Supreme Court found that Miller violated professional duties by undertaking probate matters without competence and neglecting them over an extended period.
- The Court found Miller’s failure to respond to three letters of inquiry from disciplinary authorities was serious misconduct.
- The Court imposed a suspension of Miller’s license to practice law, consistent in substance with the Commission’s recommendation of a minimum three-month suspension.

## Legal Principles

- A lawyer may not accept legal matters the lawyer is not competent to handle without adequate preparation or appropriate association with competent counsel; prolonged inaction in client matters constitutes neglect.
- Failure to respond to, or cooperate with, disciplinary authorities’ inquiries is professional misconduct separate from the underlying client-related violations and may aggravate sanction.
- Personal conditions such as alcoholism may be considered in mitigation when supported by rehabilitation evidence, but they do not excuse neglect or noncooperation, particularly where the lawyer denies causation.

## Conclusion

The Iowa Supreme Court suspended Miller for at least three months for prolonged neglect in two probate estates and for refusing to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation by ignoring repeated written inquiries.


Comm. on Pro. Ethics & Conduct of the Iowa State Bar Ass’n v. Miller, 412 N.W.2d 622 (Iowa 1987)