Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Paul Kevin Waterman
890 N.W.2d 327
Iowa2017Background
- Paul K. Waterman, an Iowa family-law attorney admitted in 2006, represented a client (Jane Doe) in a dissolution proceeding involving child custody.
- During representation, Waterman and Doe developed a personal relationship that became sexual shortly after a mediation, while he remained her attorney of record.
- Waterman recognized the boundary breach, discussed withdrawal, ultimately filed to withdraw in February 2015, and Doe retained new counsel; the case later settled.
- Waterman self-reported the sexual relationship to the Iowa Attorney Disciplinary Board, admitted violating Iowa Rule of Professional Conduct 32:1.8(j), and began therapy; he had no prior disciplinary history.
- The Board charged him; the parties stipulated to the facts and violation and jointly recommended a 30-day suspension. The Grievance Commission recommended 45 days plus two years of therapy.
- The Iowa Supreme Court found a violation of rule 32:1.8(j) and imposed a 30-day suspension, declining to require the two-year therapy condition.
Issues
| Issue | Board's Argument | Waterman’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Waterman violated Iowa R. Prof. Conduct 32:1.8(j) (sexual relations with client) | Waterman engaged in a sexual relationship with a current client, violating the per se prohibition | Admitted the conduct but emphasized mitigation (no client harm, self-reporting, therapy) | Violation proven; sexual relationship began while Waterman represented Doe — rule breached |
| Appropriate sanction and ancillary conditions (length of suspension; therapy requirement) | 30-day suspension sufficient given mitigation; therapy not required by court | Agreed with 30-day suspension and relied on mitigating factors; opposed mandatory 2-year therapy requirement | Court imposed a 30-day suspension; declined to impose two-year therapy condition due to supervision/implementation concerns |
Key Cases Cited
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Johnson, 884 N.W.2d 772 (Iowa 2016) (recent precedent imposing 30-day suspension for attorney-client sexual relationship with mitigating factors)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Monroe, 784 N.W.2d 784 (Iowa 2010) (30-day suspension where sexual relationship with client in dissolution matter did not demonstrably affect proceedings)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Blessum, 861 N.W.2d 575 (Iowa 2015) (standard of review and burden in disciplinary proceedings)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Moothart, 860 N.W.2d 598 (Iowa 2015) (per se rule recognition for sexual relations with clients)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Marzen, 779 N.W.2d 757 (Iowa 2010) (range of sanctions for sexual relationships with clients)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Hedgecoth, 862 N.W.2d 354 (Iowa 2015) (declining to impose certain post-discipline conditions where supervision mechanisms lacking)