Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Attorney Doe No. 792
878 N.W.2d 189
Iowa
2016

Background

  • Attorney Doe (bar 1997) had a fee dispute with former counsel Steve Eckley after reactivating his Iowa license; fee arbitration awarded Doe $3,050 but Doe claimed much larger overbilling and appealed to district court.
  • While Judge Robert Hutchison presided over Doe’s application to vacate the arbitration award, Doe sent a private, late-night email to the judge accusing him of unethical behavior, a "shameless cover up," and abuse of power.
  • Judge Hutchison reported the email to the Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board (Board); Doe later apologized.
  • The Board charged Doe with violating Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct 32:3.5(b) (prohibition on ex parte communications) and 32:8.2(a) (false statements about a judge).
  • The Grievance Commission recommended a public reprimand but split 3–2 on the 32:8.2(a) claim; the commission found violations of various civility standards but those were not charged by the Board.
  • The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed de novo, holding Doe did not violate 32:8.2(a) but did violate 32:3.5(b); the Court imposed a private admonition.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument (Board) Defendant's Argument (Doe) Held
Whether Doe's private email alleging unethical conduct, cover-up, and abuse of power violated Rule 32:8.2(a) (false statements about a judge) The email contained provably false factual accusations about the judge’s integrity and lacked an objectively reasonable basis; thus it violated 32:8.2(a). The email was a private communication (not public), reflected understandable misunderstanding by a non‑local litigant, and constituted protected opinion or rhetorical hyperbole. No — Court found the statements were provable false but, given the private one‑to‑one context and lack of demonstrated disruption, Board failed to prove a 32:8.2(a) violation.
Whether Doe’s email constituted an improper ex parte communication in violation of Rule 32:3.5(b) The email was sent during the pending proceeding, to the judge acting in his official capacity, and Doe expressly acknowledged it as an ex parte communication. Doe contested the characterization and argued context/First Amendment concerns; also emphasized the email was private and not disruptive. Yes — Court held Board proved by a convincing preponderance that Doe violated 32:3.5(b).

Key Cases Cited

  • Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Kennedy, 837 N.W.2d 659 (Iowa 2013) (attorney’s false allegations to public official prompted investigation; 32:8.2(a) violation)
  • Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Weaver, 750 N.W.2d 71 (Iowa 2008) (First Amendment framework for disciplining attorneys’ statements about judges)
  • Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Ronwin, 557 N.W.2d 515 (Iowa 1996) (false conspiracy and criminality allegations in pleadings; discipline)
  • Comm. on Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Horak, 292 N.W.2d 129 (Iowa 1980) (false judicial-conspiracy allegation in pleadings; reprimand)
  • In re Frerichs, 238 N.W.2d 764 (Iowa 1976) (false allegations against the court in pleadings; admonition)
  • Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Cross, 861 N.W.2d 211 (Iowa 2015) (de novo review standard in disciplinary proceedings)
  • Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Blessum, 861 N.W.2d 575 (Iowa 2015) (burden of proof: convincing preponderance)
  • Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Ricklefs, 844 N.W.2d 689 (Iowa 2014) (respectful consideration of commission findings; possible to find different violations)
  • Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Boles, 808 N.W.2d 431 (Iowa 2012) (court may find violations even if commission did not)
  • Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Dunahoo, 799 N.W.2d 524 (Iowa 2011) (consideration of charged rules on de novo review)
  • Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Johnson, 792 N.W.2d 674 (Iowa 2010) (ex parte misconduct among sanctions cases)
  • Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Ackerman, 611 N.W.2d 473 (Iowa 2000) (ex parte order presented without notice; suspension)
  • Comm. on Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Postma, 430 N.W.2d 387 (Iowa 1988) (ex parte order with false info; suspension)
  • Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Qualley, 828 N.W.2d 282 (Iowa 2013) (mitigating effect of no prior discipline)
  • Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Said, 869 N.W.2d 185 (Iowa 2015) (private reprimand purpose and effect)
  • Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Morris, 847 N.W.2d 428 (Iowa 2014) (factors for imposing sanctions)
  • Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Earley, 729 N.W.2d 437 (Iowa 2007) (sanctioning considerations)
  • Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Clarity, 838 N.W.2d 648 (Iowa 2013) (sanction factors)
  • Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Nelissen, 871 N.W.2d 694 (Iowa 2015) (mitigating/aggravating factors)
  • Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Zenor, 707 N.W.2d 176 (Iowa 2005) (procedural posture for Board charging and review)
Read the full case