IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA No. 22–0376 Submitted September 15, 2022—Filed November 10, 2022 IOWA SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD, Appellee, vs. BONNIE J. HEGGEN, Appellant. On appeal from the report of the Iowa Supreme Court Grievance Commission. In an attorney disciplinary action, the grievance commission recommends a six-month suspension for the attorney’s violation of ethical rules. LICENSE SUSPENDED. McDonald, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which all justices joined. David L. Brown of Hansen, McClintock & Riley, Des Moines, for appellant. Alexis W. Grove, Des Moines, for appellee. 2 McDONALD, Justice. The Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board charged attorney Bonnie Heggen with violating multiple rules of professional conduct related to the management of her client trust account and a retainer paid by a client. A division of the Iowa Supreme Court Grievance Commission found Heggen violated several rules of professional conduct but found the Board failed to prove Heggen violated several others, including Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct 32:1.5(a) (prohibiting an attorney from charging or collecting an unreasonable fee) and 32:8.4(b) (prohibiting an attorney from committing a criminal act “that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects”). The commission recommended suspending Heggen’s license for six months. Heggen filed this appeal. She challenges only the commission’s recommended sanction. The Board cross-appealed the commission’s recommendation. The Board argues Heggen converted client funds, in violation of Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct 32:1.5(a) and 32:8.4(b), and the appropriate sanction should be the revocation of Heggen’s license to practice law. I. This court reviews attorney disciplinary proceedings de novo. Iowa Sup. Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Kozlik, 943 N.W.2d 589, 594 (Iowa 2020). The Board must prove each alleged ethical violation by a convincing preponderance of the evidence. Iowa Sup. Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Rhinehart, 953 N.W.2d 156, 162 (Iowa 2021). “A convincing preponderance of the evidence lies between the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard in a civil case and the 3 reasonable-doubt standard in a criminal case.” Iowa Sup. Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Noyes, 936 N.W.2d 440, 442 (Iowa 2019). II. Heggen was admitted to practice law in 2004. During the period relevant to this matter, Heggen worked as a sole practitioner. A focus of Heggen’s practice was special education law. She assisted families and students in securing special education services as required by federal and state law. The attorney–client relationship at issue in this proceeding involves Heggen’s representation of a family with a student who required special education services. The first set of disciplinary charges at issue relate to Heggen’s management, or more accurately, mismanagement of her client trust account. In 2018, the Iowa Supreme Court Client Security Commission (CSC) audited Heggen’s client trust account. CSC determined that Heggen had failed to maintain a check register for her client trust account. It also determined she had not performed or maintained records of the monthly triple reconciliations of her client trust account. The auditor explained to Heggen the reconciliation process, gave her …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals