Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Attorney Doe No. 762, 839 N.W.2d 620

Jane Doe filed a complaint with the Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board alleging sexual misconduct by Attorney Doe, initiating disciplinary proceedings before the Grievance Commission.
Roxanne Conlin filed an appearance for Jane and sought a continuance due to Jane’s civil action and Conlin’s illness, stating Jane would be unavailable due to medical treatment.
The commission president ordered that hearings be confidential and quashed Conlin’s appearance for the witness, denying the continuance.
The Board did not object to Conlin’s appearance or request for continuance; it acknowledged scheduling and confidentiality considerations.
Jane sought interlocutory review; the court granted review and undertook a de novo review of the commission’s order.
The Iowa Supreme Court ultimately reversed and remanded, allowing limited counsel participation for a witness during testimony.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May a witness be accompanied by counsel in a disciplinary hearing?	Jane argues for counsel presence to protect privileges and fairness.	Doe argues no express rule authorizes witness counsel and confidentiality guards apply.	Yes, limited participation by a witness’s counsel is allowed.
Do confidentiality rules bar a witness’s counsel from participating?	Jane contends confidentiality is not violated by witness counsel and privileges can be protected.	Doe argues confidentiality safeguards remain intact and reduce risk of disclosure.	Confidentiality rules do not prohibit limited witness counsel participation.
What is the scope of a witness’s counsel’s participation?	Counsel may assist in asserting personal privileges and protecting rights of the witness.	Board counsel cannot act for the witness on privilege issues; objections should be limited.	Counsel may participate only to protect personal privileges; they may not examine the witness or raise routine objections.

State v. Baker, 293 N.W.2d 568 (Iowa 1980) (confidentiality and protection of participants in disciplinary proceedings)
In re Groban, 352 U.S. 330 (U.S. 1957) (grand jury and privilege considerations; witnesses may consult with counsel)
People v. Ianniello, 235 N.E.2d 439 (N.Y. 1968) (privilege handling; complexity of privileges for witnesses)
Soto v. United States, 574 F. Supp. 986 (D. Conn. 1983) (grand jury-like considerations; counsel presence debates)
Griffin v. United States, N/A (N/A) (illustrative discussion on privilege and witness representation (referenced in context))