Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Stephen Warren Newport, 955 N.W.2d 176

Stephen W. Newport, longtime Quad Cities attorney, was accused of sexually harassing two female clients (Doe #1 and Doe #2) and of indecent exposure/sexual assault against Doe #1; criminal trials resulted in acquittals or hung verdicts on related charges.
Doe #1: represented by Newport in a 2015 personal-injury matter; she reported an in‑office incident where Newport allegedly discussed an implanted device, exposed himself, guided her hand to his scrotum, and later told her over the phone she could "give me a blow job;" she made recorded calls and meetings and filed a police report; photos later showed no external device.
Doe #2: former custody client recounted multiple inappropriate sexual comments by Newport (suggesting payment by sex, offering her to inspect a groin hernia, etc.).
The Iowa Supreme Court Grievance Commission unanimously found sexual harassment of both clients; a 3–2 majority found indecent exposure and forced touching of Doe #1.
On de novo review the Iowa Supreme Court: (1) affirmed sexual harassment violations under Iowa RPC 32:8.4(g); (2) declined to find indecent exposure/sexual assault or prostitution established under rule 32:8.4(b) by the required convincing preponderance; and (3) suspended Newport’s law license indefinitely with no reinstatement possible for one year.

Issue	Appellee's Argument	Newport's Argument	Held
Did Newport sexually harass clients in violation of Iowa RPC 32:8.4(g)?	Repeated sexual comments, proposals to exchange sex for fees, and in‑office conduct establish harassment.	Comments were not serious or taken as proposals; focused on settlement; some statements ambiguous.	Yes — sexual harassment proved as to both clients.
Did Newport commit indecent exposure and sexual assault (Iowa RPC 32:8.4(b)) against Doe #1?	Doe #1’s testimony and recordings support that Newport exposed himself and forced her hand to his scrotum.	Doe #1’s account contains inaccuracies (no external device), possible motive to exaggerate; Newport denied the physical acts.	No — indecent exposure and sexual assault not proved by convincing preponderance.
Did Newport’s phone statements constitute prostitution (criminal act reflecting on fitness under 32:8.4(b))?	The referenced phone remark constituted an offer to purchase sexual services.	Statements were not sufficiently direct/concrete to constitute prostitution.	No — not proved by convincing preponderance.
Appropriate sanction for proven misconduct?	Commission majority recommended a two‑year suspension; Board urged significant suspension.	Dissenters advocated lesser suspensions; Newport cited mitigation (retirement application, cooperation, health).	Suspension indefinite with no reinstatement for one year (minimum one‑year suspension), balancing precedents, aggravating and mitigating factors.

Turner v. Iowa Sup. Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd., 918 N.W.2d 130 (de novo review standard for disciplinary proceedings)
Lubinus v. Iowa Sup. Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd., 869 N.W.2d 546 (burden: convincing preponderance)
Moothart v. Iowa Sup. Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd., 860 N.W.2d 598 (definition/sanction precedent for sexual harassment)
Steffes v. Iowa Supreme Court Bd. of Pro. Ethics & Conduct, 588 N.W.2d 121 (suspension for photographing client nudity)
Furlong v. Iowa Supreme Court Bd. of Pro. Ethics & Conduct, 625 N.W.2d 711 (18‑month suspension for egregious sexual misconduct)
McGrath v. Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Bd., 713 N.W.2d 682 (multi‑year suspension for sex‑for‑fees conduct)
Watkins v. Iowa Sup. Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd., 944 N.W.2d 881 (6‑month suspension for workplace sexual harassment)
Stansberry v. Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Bd., 922 N.W.2d 591 (1‑year suspension for sexualized misconduct and related crimes)
Goedken v. Iowa Sup. Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd., 939 N.W.2d 97 (retirement/retirement steps as mitigating factor)
Hier v. Iowa Sup. Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd., 937 N.W.2d 309 (sanctioning principles and purposes)