Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Kathryn S. Barnhill, 885 N.W.2d 408

Background

Kathryn S. Barnhill, admitted 1989, faced disciplinary charges based on two matters: a fee-dispute with former client Don Jayne and litigation she handled for BFC Gas Co. in federal court against Gypsum Supply Co. (GSC).
In the Jayne matter Barnhill billed ~$60,000 on a dispute under $20,000; a Polk County Fee Arbitration Committee ordered a 25% refund (~$14,000+). Barnhill produced intermittent checks and repeatedly represented she had paid, but opposing counsel (Abbott) and client Jayne did not receive the timely payments; Barnhill then filed meritless counterclaims and cross-claims alleging abuse of process.
A district court found Barnhill’s testimony that she had sent an earlier check not credible, entered judgment for Jayne, and awarded attorney fees and a $5,000 sanction against Barnhill for causing unnecessary litigation and filing frivolous claims.
In the BFC matter Barnhill missed discovery deadlines, failed to produce required documents despite two court orders, and made false statements at a sanctions hearing (e.g., misstating when she received documents, when she contacted the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and BFC’s insurance status); the federal court imposed significant sanctions, including attorney fees and a $20,000 sanction finding the suit frivolous.
The Iowa Disciplinary Board charged Barnhill with multiple Rules of Professional Conduct violations (frivolous claims; false statements to tribunals and third persons; discovery-order violations; dishonesty; conduct prejudicial to administration of justice; making false statements in disciplinary proceedings). The Grievance Commission found most violations and recommended a six‑month suspension (no reinstatement for six months) with conditions.
The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed de novo, found numerous rule violations (in both Jayne and BFC matters as to certain counts), and imposed an indefinite suspension with no possibility of reinstatement for six months, taxing costs to Barnhill.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Board)	Defendant's Argument (Barnhill)	Held
Whether Barnhill filed frivolous claims (Rule 32:3.1)	Barnhill asserted abuse of process claims lacking factual basis because she had not paid and could not prove she mailed the check; counterclaims were frivolous.	Barnhill said she sent checks (December alleged) and thus had a factual basis to sue.	Held: Violated rule 32:3.1 in Jayne matter — counterclaims were meritless; insufficient proof of payment.
Whether Barnhill knowingly made false statements to a tribunal (Rule 32:3.3(a)(1))	Board: Barnhill repeatedly told courts she had paid Jayne and misrepresented facts at the BFC sanctions hearing (timing of documents, contact with USAO, insurance).	Barnhill maintained she did not lie, had funds, and had reasons for timing of disclosures.	Held: Violated rule 32:3.3(a)(1) in both Jayne and BFC matters — court relied on false oral/written statements.
Whether Barnhill made false statements to a third person/opposing counsel (Rule 32:4.1(a))	Board: Barnhill told Abbott and others she had sent payment when she had not; opposing counsel is a ‘‘third person’’ under the rule.	Barnhill argued she sent checks and Abbott refused to accept/tender them; contested the characterization.	Held: Violated rule 32:4.1(a) in Jayne matter — opposing counsel qualifies as a third person and Barnhill knowingly misrepresented payment. Not separately found in BFC.
Whether Barnhill violated discovery/court orders (Rules 32:3.4(c),(d)) and engaged in conduct prejudicial to administration of justice (Rule 32:8.4(d))	Board: Barnhill failed to produce documents, disobeyed court orders, prolonged litigation, and hindered court processes.	Barnhill blamed client noncooperation and concerns about document seizure by USAO.	Held: Violated rules 32:3.4(c) and 32:3.4(d) in BFC matter and violated 32:8.4(d) in both matters — her failures and falsehoods caused unnecessary proceedings and delay.

Key Cases Cited

Barnhill v. Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd., 847 N.W.2d 466 (Iowa 2014) (prior disciplinary decision involving Barnhill; standards for sanctions and prior conduct considered)
Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. McGinness, 844 N.W.2d 456 (Iowa 2014) (six‑month suspension comparator for attorney dishonesty in discovery)
Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Cepican, 861 N.W.2d 841 (Iowa 2015) (civil sanctions do not have preclusive effect in disciplinary proceedings due to different burdens)
Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Netti, 797 N.W.2d 591 (Iowa 2011) (relationship among specific dishonesty rules and general rule 32:8.4(c))
Stew‑Mc Dev., Inc. v. Fischer, 770 N.W.2d 839 (Iowa 2009) (elements of abuse of process claim)
Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Hohnbaum, 554 N.W.2d 550 (Iowa 1996) (shorter suspension for a single misleading court statement)
Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Conroy, 845 N.W.2d 59 (Iowa 2014) (prior similar misconduct as an aggravating factor)