Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Gerald Anthony Lyman Moothart
860 N.W.2d 598
Iowa2015Background
- Board charged Moothart with multiple disciplinary violations including sexual harassment of five women, sexual relations with clients, and a concurrent-conflict of interest between attorney and client relationships.
- Grievance Commission found violations, recommended a thirty-month suspension and pre-reinstatement psychological evaluation and counseling.
- Court conducted de novo review, upheld all violations and the thirty-month suspension.
- Court construed sexual harassment broadly as ‘in the practice of law,’ including non-attorney-client contexts.
- Findings included an attorney–client relationship with Jane Doe #2 (and others) and a conflict of interest with Jane Doe #2; evidence supported the Board’s assertions.
- Sanction imposed: indefinite suspension with no reinstatement for thirty months, plus mandated health evaluation and sexual-harassment counseling prior to reinstatement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of sexual harassment in the practice of law | Board argues broad scope includes non-clients | Moothart contends narrower scope | Rule 8.4(g) applied; broad interpretation sustained |
| Burden of proof in attorney disciplinary cases | Board bears convincing preponderance of evidence | Moothart argues against liability under high standard | Board proved violations by convincing preponderance of the evidence |
| Existence of attorney–client relationship under 32:1.8(j) | Jane Doe #2 had a lawyer-client relationship; consent documents reinforce | Moothart contends no relationship existed | Court found an attorney–client relationship existed at relevant times; violation established |
| Concurrent conflicts of interest under 32:1.7(a)(2) | Personal relationships with victims created significant risk to clients | No meaningful conflicts argued | Violations established due to personal relationship with a client (and harm to client interests) |
Key Cases Cited
- Steffes v. Iowa State Bar Ass’n, 588 N.W.2d 121 (Iowa 1999) (scope of sexual harassment in the practice of law; breadth of rule 8.4(g))
- Hill II v. Iowa Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct, 540 N.W.2d 43 (Iowa 1995) (consent and vulnerability in attorney–client sexual conduct context)
- Netti v. Iowa Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct, 797 N.W.2d 591 (Iowa 2011) (three-part test for existence of attorney–client relationship)
- Templeton v. Iowa Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct, 784 N.W.2d 761 (Iowa 2010) (disciplinary sanction framework and aggravating factors)
- McGrath v. Iowa Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct, 713 N.W.2d 682 (Iowa 2006) (sanctions range for sexual misconduct with clients)