called back and admitted he still had not filed the bankruptcy petition. Johnson never filed the petition and never returned any of Neef s fees. The commission found violations of ethical rules 32:1.1 32:1.3, 32:1.4, 32:1.16(d), and 32:8.4(a) , (c), and (d). Under ethical rules prohibiting neglect, attorneys must advance and protect their clients’ interests and attend to matters entrusted to their care in a reasonably timely manner. See Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Ackerman, 786 N.W.2d 491, 495 (Iowa 2010). Johnson’s neglect and failure to take any action, including failing to file a bankruptcy petition as agreed, violated rule 32:1.3 (failing to act with reasonable diligence). See Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Hauser, 782 N.W.2d 147, 150-53 (Iowa 2010) (<HOLDING>); Ackerman, 786 N.W.2d at 495 (finding
holding that an attorney is not ineffective for failing to make a meritless objection holding that statutory grounds for recusal can be waived both by failing to object and by failing to assert error on appeal holding that an attorney violated mlrpc 11 by failing to take the necessary fundamental steps to further the clients case  holding that a reasonable view of this evidence is that defendant by failing to appear for trial attempted to avoid prosecution for the offenses charged holding attorney violated rule 3213 when he neglected clients dissolution of marriage proceeding by failing to make filings and by failing to appear at the scheduled trial