Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Attorney Doe No. 819, 888 N.W.2d 248

Former client filed ethics complaint against Attorney Doe alleging undisclosed conflicts and investment-related misconduct; Doe initially submitted a lengthy denial and documentary materials to the Board.
Board filed formal charges; Doe’s counsel accepted service but did not file a written answer within the 20-day period and did not timely move for an extension, citing serious health problems and that the FBI had seized relevant documents.
The Grievance Commission invoked Iowa Ct. R. 36.7 and deemed the complaint allegations admitted, limiting the proceedings to sanctions; Doe moved to reconsider and later filed an answer.
The Supreme Court granted interlocutory review to decide the proper interpretation and application of rule 36.7 and related procedural questions.
The Court concluded rule 36.7 imposes a mandatory consequence (allegations deemed admitted) but that the Commission abused its discretion by not allowing a brief extension here given the Board’s conduct and other circumstances; it reversed and remanded for merits and sanctions hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Board)	Defendant's Argument (Doe)	Held
Whether Iowa Ct. R. 36.7 is mandatory or directory	Rule’s consequence (allegations deemed admitted) is mandatory and self-executing	Rule ambiguous but should be enforced to require timely answers	Court: Rule is mandatory (designed to produce consequences for noncompliance)
Whether the Commission may invoke rule 36.7 sua sponte or requires Board motion	Commission may enforce rule without a motion only in absence of respondent’s participation	Commission acted improperly by invoking rule without Board moving to enforce it	Court: Rule is self-executing; no Board motion required to deem allegations admitted
Whether the Board may waive or decline to enforce the mandatory effect of rule 36.7	Board argued it routinely negotiates and may implicitly allow extensions in practice	Doe relied on Board’s course of conduct and apparent acquiescence to delay	Court: Board cannot unilaterally waive the rule’s mandatory effect; only the Commission can excuse enforcement upon respondent’s motion for good cause
Whether the Commission abused discretion by refusing a brief extension/good-cause finding	Board did not press rule 36.7 enforcement earlier and the record did not show prejudice from delay	Doe’s health, ongoing production to Board, and ambiguity about enforcement showed good cause for a short extension	Court: Commission abused discretion — should have allowed a brief extension; remanded for merits and sanctions hearing

State v. Klawonn, 609 N.W.2d 515 (Iowa 2000) (discussion of ambiguity of the word “shall”)
Taylor v. Department of Transportation, 260 N.W.2d 521 (Iowa 1977) (mandatory vs. directory distinction and prejudice requirement)
Committee on Professional Ethics & Conduct v. Michelson, 345 N.W.2d 112 (Iowa 1984) (timing rule treated as directory)
Committee on Professional Ethics & Conduct v. Behnke, 276 N.W.2d 838 (Iowa 1979) (procedural timing rule treated as directory)
Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Attorney Doe No. 639, 748 N.W.2d 208 (Iowa 2008) (timeliness rule held mandatory where consequence specified)
Allied Gas & Chem. Co. v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 332 N.W.2d 877 (Iowa 1983) (requests for admissions deemed admitted; motions to withdraw admissions treated like motions to file late responses)
In re Weston, 442 N.E.2d 236 (Ill. 1982) (refusal to reopen after long delay where respondent had not cooperated)
In re Disciplinary Action Against Larson, 324 N.W.2d 656 (Minn. 1982) (court may excuse late answer but refused where conduct was dilatory)
In re Kern, 345 A.2d 321 (N.J. 1975) (extensions granted for good cause but not automatic)
In re Brown, 939 So. 2d 1241 (La. 2006) (liberal interpretation of deemed-admitted rule to permit merits hearing)