Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. James Stephen Conroy, 795 N.W.2d 502

Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board charged James Conroy with multiple violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct in two counts (Count I and Count II).
The Grievance Commission recommended a six‑month license suspension and a pre reinstatement fitness certification from a physician or mental health professional.
Conroy failed to respond to the board’s complaint and discovery requests, leading to a temporary license suspension in September 2010 that remained in effect.
At sanctions hearing, Conroy claimed personal issues and asserted he would implement safeguards if he returned to practice; he denied alcohol, drug, or depression issues.
The commission found violations and recommended a six‑month suspension plus fitness certification; the board sought de novo review for sanction.
The Supreme Court reviewed the sanctions de novo, considering aggravating and mitigating factors, and ultimately imposed a sixty‑day suspension with a fitness evaluation prerequisite for reinstatement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
What sanction is appropriate for Conroy's misconduct?	Board sought six‑month suspension and fitness certification.	Mitigating factors and lack of prior discipline warrant lesser sanction.	Sixty‑day suspension with fitness evaluation before reinstatement.
Should a fitness‑to‑practice certification be required before reinstatement?	Certification ensures fitness to practice post sanction.	External proof is reasonable to verify fitness under the circumstances.	Yes; prerequisite evaluation by a licensed professional before reinstatement.
Are the allegations deemed admitted due to Respondent's nonresponse?	Nonresponse supports admissions under rule 36.7.	Not stated; Respondent contested issues during sanctions hearing.	Allegations deemed admitted; sanctions addressed on the merits.
What factors should govern the sanction (aggravation/mitigation)?	Disciplinary violations warrant substantial sanction; aggravating factors present.	Mitigating factors, including voluntary cessation and lack of prior discipline, justify leniency.	Mitigating factors (voluntary cessation, no prior discipline) weighed; sanction set at sixty days.
What is the appropriate treatment of costs and overall scope of suspension?	Costs assessed to Conroy; suspension covers all practice activities.	Not explicitly argued beyond standard practice; ongoing temporary suspension acknowledged.	License suspended indefinitely for sixty days from filing; costs assessed to Conroy.

Iowa Supreme Court Board of Professional Ethics & Conduct v. Kennedy, 684 N.W.2d 256 (Iowa 2004) (neglect and failure to cooperate; consumer protection considerations inform sanctions)
Iowa Supreme Court Board of Professional Ethics & Conduct v. Adams, 623 N.W.2d 815 (Iowa 2001) (prior reprimand; deceitful conduct; mitigating cooperation factors)
Iowa Supreme Court Board of Professional Ethics & Conduct v. Kallsen, 670 N.W.2d 161 (Iowa 2003) (negligence and accounting failures; discipline with consideration of status of practice)
Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Lickiss, 786 N.W.2d 860 (Iowa 2010) (mitigation for voluntary cessation; impact on sanctions)
Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Joy, 728 N.W.2d 806 (Iowa 2007) (pre‑reinstatement fitness evaluation procedure)