The Iowa Judicial Branch’s mission is to provide independent and accessible forums for fair and prompt resolution of disputes, administering justice equally to all persons. (Gavel photo by Getty Images; seal courtesy the State of Iowa)
The Iowa Supreme Court has suspended the license of a lawyer for negligent handling of legal matters in cases where he worked as a court-appointed attorney.
The 90-day suspension stems from charges the Iowa Attorney Disciplinary Board filed last year against attorney Joel E. Fenton of Des Moines. The board accused Fenton of violating rules of professional conduct through “recurring misconduct” that included missed court appearances and filing deadlines and a failure to communicate with clients.
Fenton was accused of similar misconduct in the past.
In 2002, six years after receiving his Iowa law license, the Iowa Supreme Court placed Fenton’s license on a disability suspension. Ten years later, after his license was reinstated, he opened a solo practice in Des Moines and began accepting court-appointed cases through the State Public Defender’s Office, court records show.
In 2017, Fenton received a private admonishment from the board based on his failure to communicate with a client over several months, his failure to attend a court hearing, and his failure to ensure his client appeared in court.
In 2020, Fenton consented to a 60-day disciplinary suspension of his license due to his representation of several clients that resulted in allegations of failing to communicate with the clients, missing filing deadlines and missing court hearings.
Court records show that in three of the cases, judges imposed financial penalties against Fenton which he paid only after a contempt hearing was scheduled. Fenton also failed to file appellate documents for other clients, allegedly resulting in 30 separate default penalties being imposed against him, according to the Iowa Supreme Court.
The court alleges that after serving the 60-day suspension, Fenton agreed to represent a woman in a federal workers’ compensation case, but took no action in her case and withdrew from the matter only after she filed an ethics complaint against him.
Court records show he later agreed to represent an Iowa man in a workers’ compensation case but took no action in the matter and failed to communicate with the client for more than four months before withdrawing from the case amidst another ethics complaint.
As a result of those two complaints, the Attorney Disciplinary Board agreed in 2021 to defer any further proceedings against Fenton if he complied with certain board-imposed conditions related to the supervision of his practice.
The 2023 charges against Fenton are tied to the board’s claim that Fenton violated the terms of the deferral agreement by repeatedly missing court-imposed deadlines, failing to conduct discovery, failing to appear in court and failing to communicate with clients.
At his subsequent disciplinary hearing before the Grievance Commission of the Iowa Supreme Court, Fenton was asked whether he had any impairments that prevented him from properly representing his clients.
Court records indicate Fenton testified to a “procrastination-type problem” related to his court-appointed work and admitted that “it was easy” to neglect his marginalized clients because of their status.
“It’s not because I don’t feel like these clients deserved quality, adequate representation even though they’re pro bono cases or they’re incarcerated people or whatever,” Fenton testified, according to court records. “I wouldn’t have taken these cases if I didn’t think I was going to be able to make a difference and do the right thing.”
At the hearing, Fenton also testified that he was one of the few attorneys in the federal southern district of Iowa willing to take prisoner-rights cases and that any actual harm his clients suffered as a result of his misconduct was minimal.
Citing his prior discipline for similar misconduct and his violation of his deferral agreement, the Grievance Commission recommended a 90-day suspension of Fenton’s law license. Fenton argued for a public reprimand, but the Iowa Supreme Court recently concluded a reprimand “would be inadequate” and that the repeated nature of the misconduct warranted a 90-day suspension.
The court stipulated that Fenton can apply for reinstatement of his law license after the suspension is served and after a licensed mental health professional has verified his fitness to practice law.
Reinstatement is also contingent on Fenton’s compliance with all court-imposed requirements in a separate matter that dates back to September when the court indefinitely suspended Fenton’s law license for failure to file annual reports and pay court-imposed fees.