## Facts

- Isadore Nadler, an Iowa lawyer admitted in 1950, practiced in Waterloo and later obtained a real-estate license; his law license had been suspended in August 1989.
- The Committee charged Nadler with three categories of misconduct: (1) neglect of a personal-injury matter, (2) improper real-estate dealings involving a client relationship, and (3) trust-account and client-funds irregularities.
- In the Greer matter, Nadler represented a minor injured in a February 1985 bus accident, obtained records, contacted insurers, and negotiated a $2,000 partial settlement with the school district’s insurer, taking fees and costs and promising to pursue the claim against the other driver and owner.
- Nadler failed to file suit against the driver/owner and did not respond to the liability insurer’s requests; the two-year limitations period expired.
- After acknowledging the lapse, Nadler offered the clients $1,900 in exchange for an agreement not to assert malpractice claims against him, without evidence of independent legal advice for the clients.
- In a separate count, Nadler engaged in a real-estate transaction connected to a client or former client while acting in a dual capacity, without adequate disclosure and without ensuring the client had an opportunity for independent counsel.
- In a third count, Nadler failed to maintain required trust-account records and procedures for safeguarding and accounting for client funds.

## Issues

1. Whether allowing the statute of limitations to run on a client’s personal-injury claim violated the duty of competent representation under DR 6-101.
2. Whether offering money conditioned on a malpractice waiver, without independent representation, violated DR 6-102’s prohibition on limiting liability to a client.
3. Whether Nadler’s real-estate dealings with a client or former client violated conflict-of-interest and business-transaction rules, including DR 5-104(A).
4. Whether deficient trust-account recordkeeping and procedures violated safekeeping and accounting duties (including standards corresponding to DR 9-102).
5. What sanction was warranted given the violations and the purpose of attorney discipline.

## Decision

- On de novo review, the Iowa Supreme Court found the Committee proved the charged violations by a convincing preponderance of the evidence.
- The Court concluded Nadler violated DR 6-101 by failing to act with reasonable diligence and competence, allowing the limitations period to expire.
- The Court concluded Nadler violated DR 6-102 by attempting to obtain a malpractice release from his clients in connection with his own negligence without protection through independent advice.
- The Court concluded Nadler violated conflict/business-transaction rules (including DR 5-104(A)) by entering a client-related real-estate transaction without the required candor, disclosure, and opportunity for independent counsel.
- The Court concluded Nadler violated client-funds and trust-account requirements by failing to maintain proper records and procedures.
- The Court imposed a multi-year suspension consistent with the Grievance Commission’s recommendation, with reinstatement conditioned on demonstrating rehabilitation and compliance with professional and trust-account obligations.

## Legal Principles

- Attorney discipline is reviewed de novo; commission findings receive respectful consideration but are not binding.
- The Committee must prove violations by a convincing preponderance of the evidence.
- A lawyer violates DR 6-101 by neglecting a client matter, including failing to preserve a claim before the statute of limitations expires.
- A lawyer may not attempt to exonerate or limit malpractice liability to a client through a release or similar agreement unless safeguards are met, including independent representation (DR 6-102).
- Business transactions with a client demand heightened disclosure and fairness; the lawyer must fully explain terms, address conflicts, and advise the client to seek independent counsel (including DR 5-104(A)).
- Strict compliance with trust-account and safekeeping rules is required; deficient accounting and recordkeeping concerning client funds is serious misconduct even absent proof of intentional conversion.
- The primary purpose of discipline is protection of the public and the courts, not punishment; cumulative misconduct supports substantial suspension.

## Conclusion

The Iowa Supreme Court suspended Nadler for multiple ethical violations arising from neglect of a client claim, an improper attempt to secure a malpractice waiver, conflicted real-estate dealings with a client relationship, and failures to comply with trust-account and client-funds requirements.


Comm. on Pro. Ethics & Conduct of the Iowa State Bar Ass’n v. Nadler, 467 N.W.2d 250 (Iowa 1991)