Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Richard R. Schmidt
2011 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 19
Iowa2011Background
- Iowa Supreme Court Disciplinary Board filed a complaint alleging Schmidt violated ethical rules relating to communication with a represented party and domestic abuse.
- Counts alleged: violations of 32:8.4(b) (conduct reflecting on fitness) and 32:8.4(d) (prejudicial to administration of justice) tied to domestic abuse, and 32:4.2(a) (communication with represented party) tied to consent decree actions.
- Grievance Commission found violations and recommended a six-month license suspension.
- The court conducted a de novo review, weighing credibility and circumstances.
- The Court suspended Schmidt’s license for 30 days, applying mitigating factors and noting domestic abuse was an aberration and did not affect client relations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Schmidt violated 32:4.2(a) by communicating with a represented party without consent | Board argued prohibited communication occurred | Schmidt contends consent was implied or not required | Schmidt violated 32:4.2(a) |
| Whether Schmidt’s conduct violated 32:8.4(b) based on domestic abuse | Abuse reflects adversely on fitness to practice | Abuse was an isolated, personal matter not affecting practice | Schmidt violated 32:8.4(b) |
| Whether Schmidt’s domestic abuse conviction violated 32:8.4(d) | Abuse conduct prejudicial to justice | Domestic abuse rooted in personal life, not practice | Schmidt did not violate 32:8.4(d) on the basis of domestic abuse alone |
| Whether the sanction of suspension was appropriate given mitigating factors | Six-month suspension warranted | Mitigating factors warrant lesser discipline | Thirty-day suspension appropriate in light of mitigating factors |
| Whether prior disciplinary record or pattern of conduct affected sanctioning | Past discipline considered | No prior discipline, isolated incident | Mitigating factors supported shorter sanction |
Key Cases Cited
- Gailey, in re Gailey, 790 N.W.2d 801 (Iowa 2010) (interpreting 32:4.2(a) like DR 7–104(A)(1) and prohibiting communications with represented parties without consent)
- Templeton, Iowa Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Templeton, 784 N.W.2d 761 (Iowa 2010) (applies Templeton considerations to rule 32:8.4(b) and evaluating fitness to practice)
- Box, Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Box, 715 N.W.2d 758 (Iowa 2006) (public reprimand for prohibited communication with represented party; no prior record)
- Sullins, Comm. on Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Sullins, 556 N.W.2d 456 (Iowa 1996) (public reprimand for contact with child witness in certain contexts)
- Polson, Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Polson, 569 N.W.2d 612 (Iowa 1997) (two-year suspension for domestic abuse and protective order violations)