Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board vs. David M. Nelsen

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 11–0114
Filed December 9, 2011
IOWA SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY
DISCIPLINARY BOARD,
Complainant,
vs.
DAVID M. NELSEN,
Respondent.
On review of the report of the Grievance Commission of the
Supreme Court of Iowa.
An attorney filed a notice of appeal concerning a recommendation
of the Grievance Commission of the Supreme Court of Iowa. LICENSE
REVOKED.
Charles L. Harrington and Wendell J. Harms, Des Moines, for
complainant.
David M. Nelsen, Marana, AZ, pro se.

-- 1 of 16 --

2
WIGGINS, Justice.
In this attorney disciplinary proceeding, the Iowa Supreme Court
Attorney Disciplinary Board complains David M. Nelsen, an attorney
licensed to practice law in the State of Iowa, violated numerous
provisions of the Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers.1
Nelsen has retired and his license is presently under suspension for his
failure to pay fees and comply with the continuing legal education
requirements.
The charges against Nelsen stem from Nelsen’s representation of
Hebel & Son Greenhouse, Inc. (Greenhouse) in 2004. In early 2004,
Greenhouse went out of business when it owed the bank roughly $3.6
million. At the time, Greenhouse had over $337,000 in accounts
receivable due and owing, and the bank demanded production of
accounts receivable checks allegedly received by the corporation and
deposited into a secret corporate bank account in Nevada.
The Grievance Commission of the Supreme Court of Iowa found
that Nelsen violated numerous provisions of the Iowa Code of
Professional Responsibility for Lawyers. Specifically, it found that Nelsen
assisted Greenhouse’s owners in diverting at least $141,335.34 of
Greenhouse’s accounts receivable from the control of the court-appointed
receiver. The commission recommended that we suspend Nelsen’s
license for two years.
On our review, we find Nelsen aided and abetted his client in
defrauding the bank and the receiver of the accounts receivable.
Accordingly, we revoke Nelsen’s license to practice law in this state.
1The Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct replaced the Iowa Code of Professional
Responsibility for Lawyers on July 1, 2005. All of Nelsen’s alleged violations occurred
prior to July 1, 2005. Therefore, the Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility for
Lawyers governs Nelsen’s conduct.

-- 2 of 16 --

3
I. Scope of Review.
We review attorney disciplinary proceedings de novo. Iowa
Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Templeton, 784 N.W.2d 761, 763
(Iowa 2010). The Board must prove an attorney’s ethical misconduct by
a convincing preponderance of the evidence. Id. A convincing
preponderance of the evidence is more than the preponderance standard
required in the usual civil case, but less than proof beyond a reasonable
doubt. Id. We respectfully consider, but are not bound by, the
commission’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and disciplinary
recommendations. Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Axt, 791
N.W.2d 98, 101 (Iowa 2010). Upon proof of misconduct, we may impose
a greater or lesser sanction than that recommended by the commission.
Id.
II. Background Facts and Proceedings.
On our de novo review, we find the following facts. Robert and
Carole Hebel owned Greenhouse, a corporation with facilities in Nora
Springs and Mason City. Greenhouse primarily wholesaled flowers and
plants to various retail stores, such as Walmart, Sam’s Club, and Hy-
Vee. Greenhouse obtained construction loans, real estate loans, and
operating loans from First Citizens National Bank. To secure payment of
these loans, Greenhouse, Robert, and Carole signed and delivered
security agreements covering all rights in the future to the payment of
money, including payments arising out of accounts receivable.
After Robert was diagnosed with lung cancer, Robert and Carole
moved to Nevada in 2001, leaving their son and daughter-in-law, Michael
and Kristi Hebel, to run the business. Even though Robert lived in
Nevada, both Kristi and Michael considered Robert to be the major day-
to-day decision maker on all decisions involving accounts, contracts, and

-- 3 of 16 --

4
operations. Greenhouse began to have financial problems after Robert
and Carole moved to Nevada. Nelsen acted as Greenhouse’s attorney in
connection with its financial problems involving First Citizens.
In late 2002, it became apparent to First Citizens that Greenhouse
would be unable to pay off its 2001 operating note. First Citizens and
Greenhouse entered into a forbearance agreement in March 2003, which
allowed Greenhouse to continue operating. Nelsen took part in the
negotiation of the forbearance agreement. In September or October, First
Citizens realized Greenhouse would not meet its projections. In
November, First Citizens notified Greenhouse that it would not advance
operating capital for 2004.
In January 2004, Greenhouse owed First Citizens principal of
about $3.6 million. On January 7, the bank’s attorney, John Duffy,
advised Nelsen in a letter that Greenhouse was in default on its March
2003 credit agreement with First Citizens. The letter indicated that First
Citizens had made repeated requests for an itemization of Greenhouse’s
existing accounts receivable and that Greenhouse had not deposited
proceeds of its accounts receivable into its account at the bank. Kristi
prepared a summary of the outstanding accounts receivable and
delivered it to Nelsen. Nelsen delivered the summary to First Citizens.
At the time, Greenhouse had outstanding accounts receivable totaling
$337,287.31.
Greenhouse ceased operations on January 9, 2004. That same
day, Duffy wrote another letter to Nelsen requesting that Greenhouse
deliver all existing accounts receivable, vendor agreements, and
documents pertinent to an insurance claim to First Citizens. Shortly
thereafter, First Citizens had Greenhouse’s locks changed.

-- 4 of 16 --

5
On January 12, Nelsen wrote a letter to Duffy listing certain
requests the Hebels were making of First Citizens during the liquidation
of Greenhouse. The letter also listed some of the accounts receivable
owed to Greenhouse. Nelsen delivered the letter to the bank that day.
First Citizens delivered a letter in response on January 13. In the
letter, First Citizens raised numerous questions regarding its collateral
and the conversion of the collateral by Greenhouse.
On January 14, Nelsen responded to First Citizens’ letter. In this
letter, Nelsen acknowledged that First Citizens was not going to comply
with the requests made in his January 12 letter. Because the parties
could not reach a resolution, Nelsen wrote, “In fact, after today the
money [received by Greenhouse] would have to be deposited in my trust
account.” First Citizens relied on Nelsen’s representation that he would
deposit any accounts receivable he received into his trust account until
the parties resolved the dispute.
Prior to this dispute, in late 2003 and early 2004, Kristi knew First
Citizens expected the accounts receivable to be deposited into
Greenhouse’s account at First Citizens. Greenhouse’s customers paid
their invoices by sending checks to a post office box in Nora Springs.
Although Kristi and Michael originally leased the post office box for their
personal use, they later shared it with Greenhouse. Because the Nora
Springs post office did not deliver mail to Greenhouse’s physical address,
all of Greenhouse’s mail had to be retrieved from the post office box.
After Greenhouse closed, its customers continued to mail accounts
receivable payments to the post office box. Kristi and Nelsen
communicated about how to handle the corporate mail. For two to four
weeks after Greenhouse went out of business, Kristi and Michael picked
up the mail at the post office box. Kristi separated her personal mail,

-- 5 of 16 --

6
Michael’s personal mail, and junk mail from the corporate mail. From
her experience sorting the mail, Kristi could distinguish Greenhouse’s
mail from the other mail in the post office box. She did not open
Greenhouse’s mail. After Greenhouse closed, Kristi did not deliver any
corporate mail directly to Robert, Carole, or First Citizens. Instead, Kristi
put a rubber band around Greenhouse’s mail, which included all
accounts receivable payments mailed to the post office box, and delivered
Greenhouse’s mail to Nelsen.
On January 15, Nelsen wrote Duffy a letter stating that he had
personally delivered checks totaling $23,463.77 to First Citizens. Nelsen
delivered the checks in open envelopes.
On February 2, First Citizens filed and served Nelsen with a
petition to foreclose the security interest, an application to take Kristi’s
deposition, a request for the production of documents, an order granting
the application to take Kristi’s deposition and shortening the time period
for the production of documents, a subpoena duces tecum commanding
Kristi to appear for a deposition and produce the requested documents,
and an order appointing the vice president of First Citizens, John
Bleakney, as the receiver.
The district court gave Bleakney the right to take control of all
accounts receivable and company records. Bleakney also had the duty
to see that Greenhouse’s nursery products were maintained and
subsequently sold and liquidated. The court also required Robert and
Carole to furnish Bleakney with documents responsive to the request for
production. Nelsen filed an interlocutory appeal with the supreme court
on February 12 challenging the order appointing Bleakney as the
receiver. First Citizens resisted, and we denied Nelsen’s application.

-- 6 of 16 --

7
The request for production included requests for invoices, vendor
agreements, documents relating to Greenhouse’s right to collect
insurance proceeds, checks and cash collected by Greenhouse that were
not deposited into Greenhouse’s account at First Citizens, keys to the
offices, insurance policies, computer passwords, and the company’s
books and records.
After Kristi did not appear for her February 11 deposition because
of an illness, First Citizens filed a second application to take Kristi’s
deposition. The district court granted the application and, once again,
ordered Kristi to appear for the deposition and bring documents
responsive to the request for production. First Citizens served Nelsen
with the second application to take Kristi’s deposition, the order granting
the second application, and the subpoena demanding that Kristi appear
and produce documents.
On February 13, Kristi appeared for her deposition, but she did not
bring any documents responsive to the request for production. Kristi
testified that she did not have any of the requested documents in her
possession and could not access them. Nelsen did not attend the
deposition. Instead, Nelsen sent Duffy a letter on the day of Kristi’s
deposition indicating that Kristi was no longer an officer or employee of
Greenhouse and, consequently, that he would not attend Kristi’s
deposition because she was no longer associated with the corporation.
Nelsen also wrote,
I am not understanding why there was no negotiation by the
Bank to get this matter settled without further litigation and
expense that will never be recouped by anyone.
On behalf of the Corporation, I believe that Mr. and Mrs.
Hebel are still willing to get the matter settled, but it appears
the Bank is unwilling. If that is incorrect, please do not
hesitate to contact me, but with the realization I will be gone

-- 7 of 16 --

8
until March 1 st. Unfortunately, I have had to delay that trip
for several days but will no longer continue to delay it.
On February 18, First Citizens filed a motion to compel because it
still had not received documents or checks. First Citizens also filed a
petition in replevin to recover and take possession of Greenhouse’s
tangible equipment. Finally, First Citizens filed a petition for foreclosure
against Greenhouse. The district court set a hearing on the motion and
both petitions for March 2. First Citizens served Nelsen with the motion
and both petitions.
On March 2, the day of the hearing, Nelsen filed a resistance to the
motion to compel. Nonetheless, the court granted the motion and
ordered Greenhouse, Robert, and Carole to respond to the document
production request within ten days.
On March 15, Bleakney and Duffy met with Nelsen at Nelsen’s
office to review Greenhouse’s records. Nelsen delivered fourteen
accounts receivable checks, out of their envelopes, roughly totaling
$3,962. Nelsen did not produce accounts receivable or accounts payable
invoices at the meeting. Nelsen told Bleakney and Duffy that Kristi and
Michael brought him the corporate mail, including checks, proofs of
delivery, and other communications relative to the invoices. Nelsen also
informed them that he, in turn, forwarded the mail and checks to Robert
and Carole in Nevada.
After this meeting, Bleakney learned that Robert had opened a
Greenhouse checking account at U.S. Bank in Nevada. Robert
acknowledged he could have opened this account. During late February
2004, Robert and Carole deposited funds received from Nelsen into this
account totaling $143,587.26. They made the deposits as follows:
$28,795.93 on February 17, $49,028.69 on February 18, $62,392.28 on

-- 8 of 16 --

9
February 19, and $3,370.36 on February 20. Robert acknowledged that
an endorsement on one of the accounts receivable checks looked like his
signature. One additional deposit totaling $898.57 was made on
March 1. During the rest of March, fifty-three more checks totaling
$129,025.53 were deposited into Greenhouse’s account at U.S. Bank in
Nevada. First Citizens did not receive any of these funds.
On February 28, Robert wrote a check to Nelsen for $9,505.50 for
his services drawn from the Greenhouse account in Nevada. Neither
Bleakney nor the district court authorized the payment. The check
cleared the Greenhouse account on March 15, the same day Nelsen met
with Bleakney and Duffy.
On March 24, First Citizens filed a motion of receiver in
accordance with Iowa Code section 680.10 (2003) to allow Bleakney to
collect Greenhouse’s assets. First Citizens wanted the district court to
order Robert and Carole to appear for an examination and bring the
missing accounts receivable. The court scheduled a hearing for April 2.
Nelsen filed a motion to continue the hearing because he had been out of
Iowa and did not have time to prepare. The court continued the hearing
to April 16.
At the time, First Citizens was concerned about the discovery
process because it still did not have the accounts receivable or the
invoices and felt it was not getting any response. In spite of those facts,
First Citizens continued to grow plants using Greenhouse’s facilities,
persisted in identifying buyers for Greenhouse’s equipment, and
conducted environmental studies on the real estate.
On April 1, First Citizens filed a motion for sanctions pursuant to
Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.517. Specifically, First Citizens sought
sanctions against Greenhouse, Carole, Robert, and Nelsen. The motion

-- 9 of 16 --

10
stated the documents produced in response to the bank’s request for
production did not include invoices or proceeds, except for checks
roughly totaling $3,962. It further stated a company account was
opened at U.S. Bank in Nevada into which company proceeds were
deposited. It also alleged Nelsen transmitted invoices and proceeds
through his office to Carole and Robert. Finally, the motion stated
Carole, Robert, and Nelsen failed to produce all books and records on a
continuing basis, as required by the district court.
The district court scheduled a hearing on the motion for April 16.
Nelsen appeared at the hearing on behalf of Robert, Carole, and
Greenhouse. The district court ordered Robert, Carole, and Michael to
appear in Iowa and submit to examinations. The order stated the district
court would hold another hearing on April 20 if the parties could not
agree on a time and place for the examinations.
On April 19, Duffy sent Nelsen a letter as “the good faith effort of
First Citizens . . . to resolve the discovery issues raised in the motion for
sanctions.” The letter asked Nelsen to file responsive pleadings in the
three cases pending against Greenhouse and its owners. It also repeated
the request for the production of documents, asked to take depositions,
and stated, “The cooperation of the Defendants will be appreciated.”
Specifically, First Citizens sought responsive pleadings to the petition to
foreclose the security interest, the replevin petition, and the foreclosure
petition. Nelsen did not respond to Duffy’s letter.
On April 20, the district court held a hearing attended by
Bleakney, Duffy, and Nelsen to force the parties to agree on dates for the
depositions of Robert and Carole. The court ordered Robert and Carole
to appear personally at Cerro Gordo County Courthouse on May 7.
Sometime between the hearing and May 7, Nelsen told Duffy that he did

-- 10 of 16 --

11
not think Robert and Carole would appear. Neither Robert nor Carole
appeared on May 7 for their depositions.
In the month of April, five more checks totaling $1,420.46 were
deposited into the Greenhouse bank account in Nevada. First Citizens
did not receive these funds.
After Robert and Carole did not appear on May 7, First Citizens
filed a second motion, requesting that Nelsen submit to a deposition. It
also filed an amendment to the petition to foreclose the security interest
to attach the U.S. Bank account in Nevada. The district court ordered
the attachment of the U.S. Bank account and ordered Nelsen to appear
on May 17.
On May 17, Duffy took Nelsen’s deposition. Nelsen asserted that
the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine prevented him
from disclosing whether he possessed Greenhouse proceeds or whether
he knew of the existence of the Greenhouse invoices. Nelsen refused to
state whether Kristi, Michael, or anyone else had delivered Greenhouse
checks to him. He also asserted that, while he forwarded mail to Robert
and Carole in Nevada, either the work-product doctrine or the attorney-
client privilege prevented him from identifying the contents of the mail.
Nelsen also indicated that he was no longer Greenhouse’s attorney,
which explained why he did not file answers in any of the three litigation
matters proceeding against Greenhouse. However, Nelsen did not file a
motion to withdraw in any of the three lawsuits. The district court
entered default judgments against Greenhouse, Robert, and Carole in all
three lawsuits.
In the month of May, a check in the amount of $13,977.49 cleared
Greenhouse’s U.S. Bank account. First Citizens did not receive these
funds either.

-- 11 of 16 --

12
III. Violations.
We can take disciplinary action against an attorney even if the
attorney is not actively engaged in the practice of law. Templeton, 784
N.W.2d at 767. We can also take action against an attorney whose
license is under suspension for a reason unrelated to the present
disciplinary proceeding. See Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v.
Netti, 797 N.W.2d 591, 595 (Iowa 2011). Thus, even though Nelsen is
now retired and his license is under suspension, we still have the
authority to sanction him upon a finding that he engaged in a separate
violation of the Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers.
We agree with the commission’s finding that Nelsen assisted
Robert and Carole in diverting at least $141,335.34 of Greenhouse’s
accounts receivable from the control of the receiver. We also find that
Nelsen knowingly approved and agreed to Robert and Carole’s conversion
of the bank’s funds by actively participating in the conversion.
We reach this conclusion for a number of reasons. First, Nelsen
knew of First Citizens’ security interest in the accounts receivable and
that Greenhouse normally deposited accounts receivable checks into an
account at First Citizens. After Greenhouse stopped doing business,
Nelsen and Kristi discussed how she should handle Greenhouse’s mail.
They determined that Kristi should pick up the mail and bring it to
Nelsen’s office. Nelsen knew there were checks in the mail because he
delivered open envelopes containing checks and checks without
envelopes to First Citizens.
Second, Nelsen knew that a dispute existed between his clients
and First Citizens. In his letter dated January 14, 2004, Nelsen
acknowledged the dispute and represented to First Citizens that he
would have to deposit any checks he received into his trust account until

-- 12 of 16 --

13
the dispute was resolved. First Citizens relied upon Nelsen’s
representation that he would deposit any checks he received into his
trust account pending a resolution of the dispute. In spite of this
representation, Nelsen delivered some of the checks to the bank while
mailing most of the checks to Robert and Carole in Nevada. When First
Citizens discovered Nelsen was not depositing the disputed accounts
receivable checks into his trust account, it filed three court actions, one
of which was to appoint a receiver to handle the disputed accounts
receivable. Even after the appointment of the receiver, Nelsen continued
to send checks to Robert and Carole in Nevada.
Finally, Nelsen knew Robert and Carole were depositing the money
into a bank account in Nevada, not applying it to the debt at First
Citizens, and converting it to their own use. One indication that Nelsen
had knowledge of the conversion is that he was a beneficiary of the
conversion when he received a check from the Nevada account covering
his attorney fees.
Although an attorney has a duty to represent his or her client
zealously, the attorney must do so within the bounds of the law. Iowa
Code of Prof’l Responsibility Canon 7. In doing so, Nelsen could have
used any legitimate means to protect his clients’ rights. See id. DR 7–
102(A)(2). However, in the representation of a client an attorney cannot
“[k]nowingly make a false statement of . . . fact” or “[c]ounsel or assist a
client in conduct that the lawyer knows to be illegal or fraudulent.” Id.
DR 7–102(A)(5), (7).
Nelsen misrepresented a fact to First Citizens when he said he
would deposit the disputed funds into his trust account, knowing that he
had sent the received checks to Robert and Carole in Nevada and that he
would continue to do so with checks received in the future. Nelsen sent

-- 13 of 16 --

14
the majority of the accounts receivable checks to Nevada. In addition, by
delivering some of the checks to First Citizens, he led the bank to believe
he was safeguarding the bank’s security interest. We find that, through
his conduct, Nelsen knowingly assisted his clients in defrauding the
bank. We also find that this conduct violates DR 7–102(A)(5) and (7).
We also agree with the commission that Nelsen’s acts violated
other provisions of the Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility for
Lawyers. However, we need only to address Nelsen’s role in aiding and
abetting his clients in converting First Citizens’ funds to determine the
appropriate sanction.
IV. Sanction.
It is almost axiomatic that we will revoke the license of an attorney
who converts a client’s funds to his or her own use. Iowa Supreme Ct.
Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Earley, 774 N.W.2d 301, 309 (Iowa 2009); Iowa
Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Anderson, 687 N.W.2d 587,
590 (Iowa 2004); Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v.
Williams, 675 N.W.2d 530, 533 (Iowa 2004). The same is true where an
attorney misappropriates the funds of a non-client for his or her personal
use. Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Polsley, 796 N.W.2d 881,
886 (Iowa 2011); Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Carroll, 721
N.W.2d 788, 792 (Iowa 2006); Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics &
Conduct v. Bell, 650 N.W.2d 648, 655 (Iowa 2002).
We have also held that we can discipline an attorney for aiding and
abetting a client to commit a crime. Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary
Bd. v. Gailey, 790 N.W.2d 801, 807 (Iowa 2010). Further, we have
revoked the license of an attorney who was convicted of aiding and
abetting the conversion of social security benefit payments. Polsley, 796
N.W.2d at 883, 886. We are unable to find an Iowa case that requires us

-- 14 of 16 --

15
to revoke an attorney’s license when the attorney aids and abets a client
in converting the funds of others, but who is not convicted of the
criminal act. However, we have disciplined an attorney where we found
evidence sufficient to establish the commission of a crime even though
the attorney was not charged with or convicted of the crime. Iowa
Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Lustgraaf, 792 N.W.2d 295, 299,
302 (Iowa 2010). Thus, we must decide whether revocation is the proper
sanction when an attorney aids and abets a client in converting funds,
without receiving any personal gain from those funds, and he is not
charged with or convicted of a crime.
We start with the long-standing policy of this state regarding
attorneys who convert the funds of others. We have said,
[W]e have previously indicated conversion of client funds by
lawyers will not be tolerated. We have also emphasized our
obligation to protect the public from theft and deceit. The
public, as well as the bar, needs to know disbarment will
nearly always follow such wrongdoing.
Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Carr, 588 N.W.2d 127,
129 (Iowa 1999) (emphasis added) (citations omitted).
This policy makes it clear that it is almost certain that we will
revoke the license of any attorney involved in the conversion of funds.
Although Nelsen did not receive a personal gain other than his legal fees,
he knowingly and willfully participated in his client’s scheme to defraud
First Citizens when his clients converted the funds owed to the bank.
Nelsen’s clients were able to convert the bank’s funds because Nelsen
knowingly made false representations to First Citizens that he would
protect the accounts receivable by depositing them into his trust account
until the parties resolved the legal dispute. Nelsen strung First Citizens
along by delivering some of the checks to First Citizens, while at the

-- 15 of 16 --

16
same time sending the majority of the checks to his clients in Nevada.
Nelsen allowed the conversion of funds to take place over an extended
period of time by not responding diligently to the legal actions filed by
First Citizens. Finally, when the court appointed a receiver, Nelsen
continued to send checks to his clients in Nevada in contravention of
court orders.
Given Nelsen’s aiding and abetting in the conversion of First
Citizens’ funds, and the seriousness of the ethical violations as
established by the evidence, we can only reach one conclusion—the
appropriate sanction is revocation of Nelsen’s license to practice law.2
V. Disposition.
For all of the reasons stated in this opinion, the license of the
respondent, David M. Nelsen, is revoked effective with the filing of this
opinion. We assess the costs to the respondent as provided in Iowa
Court Rule 35.26(1).
LICENSE REVOKED.
2Other states have not hesitated to revoke the license of an attorney who has
been convicted of aiding and abetting a fraud or theft. See, e.g., In re Smith, 794 P.2d
601 (Ariz. 1990); Cambiano v. Ligon, 44 S.W.3d 719 (Ark. 2001); In re Severo, 714 P.2d
1244 (Cal. 1986); In re DeRose, 55 P.3d 126 (Colo. 2002); People v. Bruun, 764 P.2d
1165 (Colo. 1988); In re Wilson, 740 A.2d 37 (D.C. 1999); In re Moore, 686 So. 2d 816
(La. 1997); In re King, 646 So. 2d 326 (La. 1994); Bar Ass’n of Baltimore City v. Snyder,
331 A.2d 47 (Md. 1975); In re Keller, 135 A.2d 321 (N.J. 1957); In re Young, 866
N.Y.S.2d 350 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008); Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Bertram, 707
N.E.2d 464 (Ohio 1999); State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass’n v. Crabtree, 907 P.2d 1045 (Okla.
1995).

-- 16 of 16 --