## Facts

- Edward J. Wintroub, an attorney licensed in Iowa and Nebraska, was previously suspended in Nebraska for misconduct including misappropriation and commingling of client funds; Iowa imposed a reciprocal two-year suspension.
- The Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board later filed a separate three-count complaint based on stipulated facts alleging: (1) improper business dealings with client Ronald S. Bergman, (2) neglect of a client matter, and (3) mishandling and retention of client funds belonging to Mildred Van Winkle.
- Wintroub and Bergman were long-time friends, and Bergman retained Wintroub for litigation matters; Bergman trusted Wintroub to act in his interest.
- While representing Bergman in litigation, Wintroub sold Bergman 22.5 shares of Wintroub’s closely held corporation for $150,000 without advising Bergman to seek independent legal counsel.
- Wintroub later documented loans totaling $275,000 from Bergman to Wintroub personally through a promissory note Wintroub drafted; the loans were unsecured and bore no interest, and Wintroub again did not advise Bergman to obtain independent counsel.
- Another client’s case was dismissed after failure to timely designate an expert witness; the Board attributed the dismissal to Wintroub’s lack of diligence.
- In the Van Winkle matter, Wintroub received client funds and was alleged to have failed to properly safeguard them and to have retained an unearned portion of a fee.
- The complained-of conduct occurred largely between 1999 and 2002, overlapping the time period of the Nebraska misconduct that led to the prior reciprocal Iowa suspension.
- Wintroub denied wrongdoing, asserted defenses including laches and estoppel, and claimed medication side effects impaired his cognition.

## Issues

1. Whether Wintroub violated ethical rules governing business and financial transactions with a client by entering transactions with Bergman without required disclosures, independent-counsel protections, and informed consent.
2. Whether the failure to comply with expert-designation deadlines leading to dismissal constituted neglect of a client matter.
3. Whether Wintroub violated duties to safeguard client property and to refund unearned fees in handling Van Winkle’s funds.
4. What sanction was appropriate given prior reciprocal discipline and the temporal overlap between the misconduct addressed here and the earlier discipline.

## Decision

- The court found the Board proved violations on all three counts by the applicable evidentiary standard.
- The court concluded the Bergman transactions violated rules requiring heightened safeguards for lawyer-client business dealings; friendship and client sophistication did not remove fiduciary duties.
- The court determined the expert-deadline failure resulting in dismissal constituted neglect.
- The court found Wintroub mishandled client funds and improperly retained unearned fees in the Van Winkle matter.
- As discipline, the court imposed a public reprimand and no additional suspension beyond the previously imposed reciprocal two-year suspension.

## Legal Principles

- A lawyer entering a business or financial transaction with a client must ensure the terms are fair and reasonable, make full disclosure understandable to the client, advise and allow an opportunity to seek independent counsel, and obtain informed consent consistent with governing ethics rules.
- Personal friendship and a client’s sophistication do not diminish the lawyer’s fiduciary obligations in transactions with a current client.
- Failure to meet case-dispositive procedural obligations, including expert-designation deadlines, can constitute neglect even absent proof of intentional harm.
- Lawyers must safeguard client funds through proper segregation and trust-account practices and must return any unearned portion of a fee.
- In determining sanctions, the court considers protection of the public and the legal profession, deterrence, and proportionality, including whether misconduct overlaps temporally with conduct already disciplined.

## Conclusion

The court held Wintroub committed multiple ethics violations involving client transactions, neglect, and client funds, but limited discipline to a public reprimand because the misconduct occurred during the same period as earlier misconduct that had already resulted in a reciprocal two-year suspension.


Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Wintroub, 745 N.W.2d 469 (Iowa 2008)