Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Lori Jo Kieffer-Garrison
847 N.W.2d 489
| Iowa | 2014Background
- Kieffer-Garrison was admitted to practice in Iowa in 2002 and had private admonitions in 2009 and 2010 for defaults in court notices.
- The Board alleged a pattern of neglect—receiving more than twenty notices of default in nine criminal appeals and failing to timely pay penalties for defaults over two years.
- The Board also alleged she falsely represented to a client and the clerk that she had timely filed an application for further review in a postconviction appeal (McGee case).
- The Grievance Commission found violations of multiple rules (1.3, 3.2, 3.4(c), 8.4(d), and in McGee 1.2(a), 3.3(a)(1), 8.4(c)) and recommended a one-year suspension.
- On de novo review, the Iowa Supreme Court held the Board proved the alleged violations by clear preponderance.
- The Court suspended Kieffer-Garrison’s license for six months with no possibility of reinstatement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the Board prove neglect under Rule 32:1.3 and related duties? | Board: yes, due to >20 defaults across nine appeals and late payments. | Kieffer-Garrison: disputed extent of neglect; testimony offered but credibility questioned. | Yes; violations proven and sustained. |
| Did the Board prove violations for failing to expedite litigation under Rule 32:3.2? | Board: serial deadline failures show lack of reasonable efforts to expedite appeals. | Kieffer-Garrison: contested characterization of actions, credibility issues raised. | Yes; Rule 3.2 violation established. |
| Did the conduct amount to disobedience under Rule 32:3.4(c) in the context of deadlines? | Board: repeated deadline violations show knowing disobedience. | Kieffer-Garrison: disputed applicability; argues no undermining of fairness. | No violation found for 3.4(c). |
| Did the McGee case involve dishonesty and lack of candor under Rules 32:3.3(a)(1), 32:8.4(c), and 32:1.2(a)? | Board: she falsely claimed timely filing after failing to timely file. | Kieffer-Garrison: claimed filing and routine procedures; credibility contested. | Yes; violations proven regarding misrepresentation and dishonesty. |
| Was there a violation of Rule 32:8.4(d) prejudicial to the administration of justice, and what sanction is appropriate? | Board: conduct wasted judicial resources and undermined proceedings. | Kieffer-Garrison: depression noted as mitigating factor but not exculpatory. | Yes; six-month suspension with no reinstatement appropriate given pattern and aggravating factors. |
Key Cases Cited
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Stein, 586 N.W.2d 523 (Iowa 1998) (neglect plus misrepresentations support suspension)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Walker, 712 N.W.2d 683 (Iowa 2006) (six-month suspension for neglect and concealment)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Earley, 729 N.W.2d 437 (Iowa 2007) (for neglect and related misconduct, sanction varies by circumstances)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Conroy, 845 N.W.2d 59 (Iowa 2014) (six-month suspension for neglect in multiple cases; aggravating factors weighed)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. McGinness, 844 N.W.2d 456 (Iowa 2014) (pattern of misconduct considered for sanction; aggravating factor noted)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Ireland, 748 N.W.2d 498 (Iowa 2008) (mitigating factors may be considered in sanction, including personal health)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Grotewold, 642 N.W.2d 288 (Iowa 2002) (depression as a factor in sanction considerations)