To: Thomas Becker
From: Rachel Debner
Date: 9/024/2024
Re: Case Name: IOWA SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD,
Complainant, v. Jesse Michael MARZEN, Respondent.
Memorandum
Case Name and Citation: Iowa Supreme Court Att'y Disciplinary Bd. v. Marzen, 949 N.W.2d 229
(Iowa 2020)
Procedural History:
The Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board filed a complaint against Jesse Marzen for
his handling of Lloyd and Linda Pierson's estate and tax matters. A hearing investigated Marzen's
actions, presenting testimony from the Piersons and others. The commission found multiple
violations of the Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct, including issues with client
communication, unauthorized billing, and improper case transfers. After reviewing the
commission's recommendations de novo, the Iowa Supreme Court upheld the findings and
imposed a disciplinary sanction on Marzen.
Facts:
Attorney Jesse Marzen, admitted to practice in Iowa in 2005, was previously suspended for six
months in 2010 due to a sexual relationship with a client and disclosing confidential information.
After resuming practice in March 2012, he is currently inactive but holds an active license. The
complaint involves Marzen’s representation of Lloyd and Linda Pierson, who began a classic car
resale business after Lloyd inherited money. In 2014, Marzen established three limited liability
companies for them. In 2015, he was hired to handle Lloyd's biological father Cecil's estate but
failed to file the inventory on time and transferred the case to attorney Roger Sutton without
clear consent. In September 2016, the Piersons asked Marzen to prepare overdue tax returns for
2014 and 2015, but he submitted significantly understated returns in April 2017 and hired an
accountant without informing them. They later discovered their tax returns had not been filed and
filed a complaint after Marzen charged them $32,830, including unauthorized interest.
Issue:
Did attorney Jesse Micheal violate rules of professional conduct when he did the following: hired
an outside accountant without consent, charged 18% interest rate without authorization,
submitted incomplete tax returns to authorities, transferred an estate matter without client
consent while falsely claiming he had client approval, and misrepresenting that he hired a
paralegal for a case?
From: Rachel Debner
Date: 9/024/2024
Re: Case Name: IOWA SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD,
Complainant, v. Jesse Michael MARZEN, Respondent.
Memorandum
Case Name and Citation: Iowa Supreme Court Att'y Disciplinary Bd. v. Marzen, 949 N.W.2d 229
(Iowa 2020)
Procedural History:
The Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board filed a complaint against Jesse Marzen for
his handling of Lloyd and Linda Pierson's estate and tax matters. A hearing investigated Marzen's
actions, presenting testimony from the Piersons and others. The commission found multiple
violations of the Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct, including issues with client
communication, unauthorized billing, and improper case transfers. After reviewing the
commission's recommendations de novo, the Iowa Supreme Court upheld the findings and
imposed a disciplinary sanction on Marzen.
Facts:
Attorney Jesse Marzen, admitted to practice in Iowa in 2005, was previously suspended for six
months in 2010 due to a sexual relationship with a client and disclosing confidential information.
After resuming practice in March 2012, he is currently inactive but holds an active license. The
complaint involves Marzen’s representation of Lloyd and Linda Pierson, who began a classic car
resale business after Lloyd inherited money. In 2014, Marzen established three limited liability
companies for them. In 2015, he was hired to handle Lloyd's biological father Cecil's estate but
failed to file the inventory on time and transferred the case to attorney Roger Sutton without
clear consent. In September 2016, the Piersons asked Marzen to prepare overdue tax returns for
2014 and 2015, but he submitted significantly understated returns in April 2017 and hired an
accountant without informing them. They later discovered their tax returns had not been filed and
filed a complaint after Marzen charged them $32,830, including unauthorized interest.
Issue:
Did attorney Jesse Micheal violate rules of professional conduct when he did the following: hired
an outside accountant without consent, charged 18% interest rate without authorization,
submitted incomplete tax returns to authorities, transferred an estate matter without client
consent while falsely claiming he had client approval, and misrepresenting that he hired a
paralegal for a case?
