Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Dean A. Stowers
2012 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 96
| Iowa | 2012Background
- Board charged Stowers with four rules violations after he emailed individuals following his wife Reis's settlement with Care Initiatives.
- Reis v. Iowa Dist. Court affirmed that Stowers’ emails violated a protective order and were contemptuous in the Reis litigation.
- Protective order restricted confidential documents; settlement required return of documents with limited exceptions.
- Stowers sent emails in Feb 2008 to Care Initiatives personnel and a board member, threatening and pressuring for resignations and charity gifts.
- Board invoked issue preclusion to find Stowers violated the protective order; district court and appellate history culminated in de novo review by the Iowa Supreme Court.
- Court held Stowers’ conduct violated all four rules and imposed a 90-day suspension.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether issue preclusion applies to establish the rule 32:3.4(c) violation | Board contends Reis contempt final judgment supports preclusion. | Stowers argues preclusion improperly used and that defenses negate violation. | Issue preclusion proper; prior contempt final and attributable. |
| Whether Stowers violated rule 32:4.2(a) by ex parte communications with a constituent | Board alleges M.M. and R.T. were constituents, and communications violated the rule. | Stowers contends no attorney–client relation or protective scope with those constituents. | Stowers violated rule 32:4.2(a) as to M.M.; R.T. not a constituent with binding authority lacking. |
| Whether Stowers committed extortion under rule 32:8.4(b) | Board asserts threatening email to R.T. sought a $100,000 donation and harmed reputation. | Stowers claims defense to extortion exists if there was a good faith claim or settlement leverage. | Stowers committed extortion; improper threats to obtain value and to damage reputation. |
| Whether the conduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice under rule 32:8.4(d) | Emails caused contempt proceedings and multiple court actions, hindering justice. | Stowers argues actions were personal, not systemic impediments to justice. | Yes; conduct prejudicial to administration of justice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reis v. Iowa Dist. Court, 787 N.W.2d 61 (Iowa 2010) (affirmed contempt due to use of confidential documents in emails)
- Iowa Ct. R. 35.7(3), Rule (Iowa) (provides rule-based offensive issue preclusion criteria)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Dunahoo, 799 N.W.2d 524 (Iowa 2011) (de novo review; Board must prove misconduct by convincing preponderance)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Iversen, 723 N.W.2d 806 (Iowa 2006) (offensive issue preclusion applied in attorney discipline)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Polsley, 796 N.W.2d 881 (Iowa 2011) (applies offensive issue preclusion in attorney discipline)
- Templeton, 784 N.W.2d 761 (Iowa 2010) (nexus factors for disciplinary sanctions)
- Lett, 674 N.W.2d 139 (Iowa 2004) (burden of proof in disciplinary matters)
- Miller, 568 N.W.2d 665 (Iowa 1997) (sanction for extortion-like misconduct exceeding reprimand)