Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. John D. Hedgecoth
862 N.W.2d 354
| Iowa | 2015Background
- John D. Hedgecoth, admitted 1998, practiced intermittently and worked full-time on a political campaign 2014; while practicing he was court‑appointed in three matters (Everett, Sexton, Howard) and failed to meet multiple deadlines and court orders.
- Everett & Sexton (postconviction appeals): Hedgecoth repeatedly failed to file required combined certificates/applications, received multiple default notices and monetary penalties, and was removed as counsel; he initially ignored Board inquiries and was temporarily suspended for nonresponse.
- Howard (civil defense): Hedgecoth repeatedly failed to respond to discovery, ignored motions to compel, missed a deposition, was sanctioned repeatedly (including monetary awards) and had counterclaims dismissed with prejudice; the trial judge reported him to the Board.
- The Board charged violations of Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct: diligence (32:1.3), expedite litigation (32:3.2), obey court orders (32:3.4(c)), comply with discovery (32:3.4(d)), cooperate with disciplinary authorities (32:8.1(b)), and conduct prejudicial to administration of justice (32:8.4(d)).
- At the commission hearing Hedgecoth admitted the misconduct, attributed it to administrative missteps while employed in politics, proposed a short suspension plus conditions; the commission found all violations proven and recommended a minimum six‑month suspension with conditions.
- The Iowa Supreme Court, after de novo review, found all charged violations proven but imposed a three‑month minimum suspension (license suspended for three months with procedures for reinstatement), declining to adopt the commission’s supervision and other reinstatement conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hedgecoth neglected client matters (Rule 32:1.3) | Board: repeated missed deadlines, defaults, discovery delays show neglect across multiple matters | Hedgecoth: administrative missteps due to part‑time practice and campaign employment; not intentional neglect | Court: Proven; repeated missed deadlines and defaults violated 32:1.3 |
| Whether he failed to expedite litigation (Rule 32:3.2) | Board: serial failures to follow appellate and discovery timelines amounted to dilatory practices | Hedgecoth: lack of time/resources from extralegal employment caused delays | Court: Proven; conduct matched prior examples of 32:3.2 violations |
| Whether he disobeyed court orders and failed to comply with discovery (Rules 32:3.4(c), 32:3.4(d)) | Board: court orders to produce discovery went unfulfilled; discovery requests ignored leading to sanctions | Hedgecoth: belated/deficient responses were remedial; no client harm shown | Court: Proven; he disobeyed multiple court orders and failed to reasonably comply with discovery |
| Whether he failed to cooperate with disciplinary authorities and engaged in conduct prejudicial to administration of justice (Rules 32:8.1(b), 32:8.4(d)) | Board: he ignored certified inquiries and failed to respond timely, prompting temporary suspensions and impeding the disciplinary process | Hedgecoth: late responses and eventual admission at hearing showed remedial cooperation | Held: Proven; nonresponse inferred knowing failure, and overall conduct prejudicial to administration of justice |
| Appropriate sanction | Board/commission: suspension of at least six months plus supervised practice limits and mandatory CLE/pro bono/mentor conditions | Hedgecoth: proposed a short (15‑day) suspension with conditions and remedial measures; emphasized lack of client harm and prior teaching of ethics | Court: Imposed three‑month suspension (no practice during suspension) and declined to impose supervisory or other reinstatement conditions; costs taxed to respondent |
Key Cases Cited
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Conroy, 845 N.W.2d 59 (Iowa 2014) (neglect precedent and sanctioning guidance)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Van Ginkel, 809 N.W.2d 96 (Iowa 2012) (application of diligence/neglect standards)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Kieffer-Garrison, 847 N.W.2d 489 (Iowa 2014) (failure to comply with appellate and procedural deadlines violates 32:3.2)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Kennedy, 837 N.W.2d 659 (Iowa 2013) (failure to respond to discovery and appellate filings supporting suspension)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Humphrey, 812 N.W.2d 659 (Iowa 2012) (three‑month suspension where neglect limited and no client harm shown)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Cohrt, 784 N.W.2d 777 (Iowa 2010) (repeated discovery nonresponses and prior discipline supporting suspension)