933 N.W.2d 190
Iowa2019Background
- Matthew L. Noel, admitted 2008, left a prior firm in April 2017 and previously was disciplined in Noel I for unethical billing (suspended at least one year in Feb. 2019).
- In late 2015–2017 Noel agreed to represent client Janelle Huffman on claims against JT Home Improvement and Rainbow; Huffman paid retainers and asked Noel to sue both.
- Noel drafted a petition in Jan. 2016 but never filed suit against JT Home Improvement; he did file an answer and counterclaim to Rainbow later.
- Noel repeatedly failed to timely comply with discovery, missed required initial disclosures and jury instructions, produced unsigned interrogatory answers, and responded late to opposing counsel, prompting a motion to compel and motion for sanctions.
- Communication breakdowns: Huffman frequently requested status updates that went unanswered; Noel’s office had oral and some written communications but the client often did not understand expectations.
- Grievance Commission found multiple rule violations and recommended a 30-day suspension; the Iowa Supreme Court reviewed de novo and imposed a public reprimand instead of suspension.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Noel violated Rule 32:1.2(a) (failed to abide by client’s objectives / consult) | Board: Noel agreed to sue JT and Rainbow but never filed; also failed to consult re: means. | Noel: He and staff reasonably consulted with Huffman; communication efforts were adequate. | Court: Violation as to failing to file suit (did not abide by client objective). No violation as to failure to reasonably consult about means. |
| Whether Noel violated Rule 32:1.3 (diligence) | Board: Repeated delays, missed filings, discovery failures show lack of reasonable diligence. | Noel: Isolated mistakes; staff attempted communications; not severe neglect warranting suspension. | Court: Violation — consistent failures to timely advance the case (never filed petition; discovery and scheduling lapses). |
| Whether Noel violated Rule 32:1.4(a)(2),(a)(3),(a)(4) and (b) (communication / explaining) | Board: He failed to keep client informed, respond to requests, and adequately explain consequences (e.g., discovery deadlines, sanctions). | Noel: Office communicated verbally and by email; client sometimes didn’t understand despite efforts. | Court: Violation of 32:1.4(a)(3), (a)(4), and (b) (failed to keep client informed, respond promptly, and explain sufficiently). No violation of 32:1.4(a)(2). |
| Whether Noel violated Rule 32:3.4(d) and Rule 32:8.4(c),(d) (discovery fairness; dishonesty; prejudicial conduct) | Board: Discovery evasion and misrepresentations prejudiced the administration of justice and involved deceit. | Noel: Discovery issues were due to client cooperation and illness; he denied misrepresenting judge’s statements. | Court: Violated 32:3.4(d) and 32:8.4(d) (discovery failures caused extra proceedings and delays). Failed to prove 32:8.4(c) (no convincing evidence of intentional dishonesty). |
Key Cases Cited
- Iowa Supreme Court Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Noel, 923 N.W.2d 575 (Iowa 2019) (prior disciplinary opinion addressing Noel’s unethical billing)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Netti, 797 N.W.2d 591 (Iowa 2011) (standard for reasonable timeliness/diligence)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Hedgecoth, 862 N.W.2d 354 (Iowa 2015) (discovery noncompliance and sanctions as grounds for rule 32:3.4(d) violation)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Barnhill, 885 N.W.2d 408 (Iowa 2016) (failure to make initial disclosures and follow discovery schedule supports discipline)
- Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Kennedy, 837 N.W.2d 659 (Iowa 2013) (persistent noncompliance with discovery can violate 32:3.4(d) even with a single motion to compel)