Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Kathryn S. Barnhill , 2014 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 61 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •               IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
    No. 13–1966
    Filed May 30, 2014
    IOWA SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD,
    Complainant,
    vs.
    KATHRYN S. BARNHILL,
    Respondent.
    On review of the report of the Grievance Commission of the
    Supreme Court of Iowa.
    The grievance commission reports respondent committed ethical
    violations and recommends a six-month suspension of the attorney’s
    license. LICENSE SUSPENDED.
    Charles L. Harrington, Wendell J. Harms, and David J. Grace,
    Des Moines, for complainant.
    Sharon L. Soorholtz Greer and Thomas L. Hillers of Cartwright,
    Druker & Ryden, Marshalltown, for respondent.
    2
    WIGGINS, Justice.
    This matter comes before us on a report of a division of the
    Grievance Commission of the Supreme Court of Iowa. The Iowa Supreme
    Court Attorney Disciplinary Board brought a complaint against the
    respondent, Kathryn Barnhill, alleging multiple violations of our ethics
    rules based on her actions in four separate legal matters.             The
    commission found multiple violations occurred and recommended a six-
    month suspension of Barnhill’s license to practice law. We are required
    to review the commission’s report. See Iowa Ct. R. 35.11(1). Based on
    our de novo review, we agree with the commission that the Board
    established by a convincing preponderance of the evidence Barnhill
    violated our rules.    However, we disagree with the recommended
    suspension and find a sixty-day suspension is the appropriate sanction.
    I. Scope of Review.
    We review attorney disciplinary proceedings de novo.            Iowa
    Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Stowe, 
    830 N.W.2d 737
    , 739 (Iowa
    2013).    The Board must prove the attorney’s ethical misconduct by a
    convincing   preponderance   of   the   evidence.     
    Id. “A convincing
    preponderance of the evidence is more than a preponderance of the
    evidence, but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” Iowa Supreme
    Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. McCarthy, 
    814 N.W.2d 596
    , 601 (Iowa 2012).
    This places a burden on the Board that is higher than the burden in civil
    cases but lower than the burden in criminal matters. 
    Stowe, 830 N.W.2d at 739
    .    We respectfully consider the commission’s recommendations;
    however, they are not binding upon us. 
    Id. When the
    parties enter into a stipulation in a disciplinary case, we
    rely on the stipulation to determine facts.         Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y
    Disciplinary Bd. v. Gailey, 
    790 N.W.2d 801
    , 804 (Iowa 2010). “Nowhere
    3
    in our rules have we given the parties the authority to determine what
    conduct constitutes a violation of our ethical rules or what sanction an
    attorney should receive for such a violation.”      
    Id. Thus, we
    use the
    stipulation to determine the facts and then we determine whether the
    facts establish a violation of our rules. 
    Id. II. Findings
    of Fact.
    Using the stipulation of the parties with our review of the record,
    we make the following findings of fact. We admitted Barnhill to practice
    law in Iowa in 1989. The ethical complaints against her arise out of four
    separate factual matters.
    A.    The Jerry’s Homes Matter.           The Jerry’s Homes matter
    involves claims Barnhill violated conflict of interest rules, made
    misrepresentations, and improperly included a defendant in the action to
    harass the defendant, among other allegations. In March 2001, Barnhill
    filed a class action lawsuit against a roofing company that manufactured
    shingles and an individual who served as the company’s president and
    chief executive officer.     The lawsuit class included a construction
    company, Jerry’s Homes, as well as homeowners who lived in houses
    built by Jerry’s Homes, among other plaintiffs. Barnhill had represented
    Jerry’s Homes in prior small claims cases brought by other homeowners.
    Barnhill alleged she met with the homeowners in the class action
    lawsuit, explained the potential conflict of interest, and the homeowners
    signed written waivers of the potential conflict.         The district court
    certified the class but certified a subclass of members, stating Barnhill
    could only represent class members who did not have shingles installed
    by Jerry’s Homes.
    Barnhill made statements to the district court and in her appeal
    brief that all members of the class actually reviewed the roofing
    4
    company’s promotional materials and acted in reliance on these
    materials   when    purchasing    shingles.     These   statements    were
    subsequently determined to be false.
    Barnhill included the corporate officer as a defendant in the action.
    Barnhill pleaded causes of action sounding in breach of express
    warranty, breach of implied warranty, fraudulent misrepresentation,
    negligent misrepresentation, and rescission.       The court of appeals
    ultimately granted summary judgment to the corporate officer on all
    claims. The corporate officer filed a motion for sanctions against Barnhill
    and the named plaintiffs. The district court awarded sanctions against
    Barnhill. See Barnhill v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 
    765 N.W.2d 267
    , 279–80 (Iowa
    2009) (affirming the award of sanctions against Barnhill for $25,000).
    B. The Williams Matter. The Williams matter involves a claim of
    fraudulent misrepresentation and assorted trust account violation
    claims. Barnhill’s law office manager worked for Barnhill for more than
    sixteen years. This employee had authority to sign Barnhill’s name to
    the trust account checks and the business account checks. Prior to the
    Williams matter, the employee charged approximately $55,000 of
    personal expenses to the law firm’s American Express account without
    authorization. Barnhill discovered the embezzlement in 2005 and agreed
    to settle the embezzlement debt.        Barnhill was aware the employee
    continued to sign trust account checks, but believed the employee would
    never take client funds.
    In the fall of 2005, the employee began a new embezzlement
    scheme. At around the same time, Barnhill took on a new client, Denise
    Williams.   Barnhill began using the trust account to collect Williams’s
    income and to pay Williams’s bills.       Williams delivered her financial
    records, unpaid business and personal bills, business income, and some
    5
    child support payments to Barnhill. Barnhill authorized the employee to
    pay Williams’s business and personal bills from the money deposited in
    the trust account.        Barnhill did not provide written receipts for these
    transactions      prior      to     February     2007     and   did   not     provide
    contemporaneous written notice or an account of disbursements.
    The employee wrote at least one check payable to herself from the
    trust account during this time.              Throughout the time Williams was
    Barnhill’s client, there were discrepancies in the trust account regarding
    Williams’s funds. Barnhill determined the employee had stolen money
    from Barnhill by forging checks and making unauthorized online
    transfers. Barnhill eventually informed Williams the employee had been
    stealing money, and Barnhill gave Williams the trust account records so
    that Williams could determine whether the employee took any of
    Williams’s money from the trust account. Barnhill refunded $1363.50 to
    Williams when Williams terminated Barnhill as her attorney.
    Williams filed a lawsuit against Barnhill, Barnhill’s law firm, and
    the employee. Following trial, the jury determined Williams proved by a
    preponderance of clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence that
    Williams proved her claim of fraud against Barnhill. The district court
    awarded a monetary loss to Williams against Barnhill for $53,895 in
    actual damages and $10,000 in punitive damages.
    C.    The Public Safety Group, Inc. Matter.              The Public Safety
    Group, Inc. (PSG) matter involves claims of knowingly disobeying the
    order    of   a   tribunal        and   professional    misconduct,   among    other
    allegations. In August 2005, Barnhill represented PSG as a defendant in
    a lawsuit. PSG filed a counterclaim in the action. PSG was successful in
    defending the suit and recovered a substantial sum on its counterclaim.
    6
    The district court entered judgment in favor of PSG. PSG assigned its
    interest in the judgment to another person.
    The plaintiffs in the original action alleged the IRS filed an action
    to levy upon the judgment, and the IRS levy motivated PSG to assign its
    interest in the judgment. The plaintiffs alleged Barnhill did not notify the
    district court of the IRS levy or the assignment of interest, and that
    neither the IRS nor the assignee had the opportunity to intervene in the
    appeal.
    We issued an order on May 2, 2007, requiring Barnhill, counsel for
    PSG, to serve a copy of the order containing notification of the
    assignment on the assignee and the IRS and to provide proof of service to
    our clerk and opposing counsel. Barnhill did not comply with this order.
    Subsequently, Barnhill filed a motion to intervene in the appeal on behalf
    of another entity and claimed opposing counsel had not complied with
    the May 2, 2007 order to serve the assignee or the IRS.           Opposing
    counsel filed a response, pointing out Barnhill’s failure to comply with
    our court order.
    We issued a second order in January 2008, ordering Barnhill to
    serve both the second order and the previous order on the assignee and
    the IRS. Barnhill did not comply with the second order. On June 30, we
    then authorized opposing counsel to serve the orders on the assignee
    and the IRS because Barnhill failed to do so. Barnhill served the orders
    on the assignee on July 2 and on the IRS on July 8.
    D.   The Everly Matter.      The Everly matter involves claims of
    failure to provide competent representation and alleges Barnhill brought
    a frivolous claim, among other allegations. On May 26, 2006, Barnhill
    filed a petition and application for writ of certiorari on behalf of Steve
    Everly, a resident and taxpayer of a school district, against Musco Sports
    7
    Lighting, Inc. (Musco), a school district, and the superintendent of the
    school district. Musco was a product supplier for the successful bidder
    in a construction project involving the school district. After numerous
    filings, Barnhill filed an amended petition. She did not name the school
    district or the superintendent of the school district as defendants in the
    amended petition, leaving Musco as the only defendant.         The district
    court ultimately dismissed the petition, finding the taxpayer could not
    maintain suit against Musco alone and imposed sanctions against
    Barnhill. Barnhill appealed the ruling. Barnhill argued her client had
    standing, Musco was the proper party, and the district court erred in
    sanctioning her.    The court of appeals affirmed the dismissal and
    sanctions, but disagreed the taxpayer did not have standing.
    We granted further review and affirmed the dismissal of the
    petition. We determined the district court should not have sanctioned
    Barnhill for originally including Musco in the petition because a
    reasonably competent attorney could make a good faith argument Musco
    was a proper party to the original suit provided the school district and
    the superintendent were parties to the suit.    However, we decided the
    district court did not abuse its discretion in sanctioning Barnhill for her
    actions in maintaining the suit against Musco after she dismissed the
    school district and the superintendent from the suit.       See Everly v.
    Knoxville Cmty. Sch. Dist., 
    774 N.W.2d 488
    , 495 (Iowa 2009) (remanding
    the case to the district court to assess sanctions based upon the fact
    Barnhill continued the lawsuit after she dismissed the school district and
    the superintendent from the suit).
    III. Disciplinary Proceedings.
    Although Barnhill’s alleged actions in these four legal matters
    occurred between 2001 and 2009, the Board did not file a complaint
    8
    until June 8, 2012. The parties waived a formal hearing and agreed for
    the commission to decide the case based on the parties’ stipulation. The
    parties stipulated to a nonbinding recommendation of a sixty-day
    suspension of Barnhill’s law license.       The commission determined
    Barnhill violated multiple ethics rules and recommended we suspend
    Barnhill’s license with no possibility of reinstatement for six months.
    IV. Ethical Violations.
    The Board alleges Barnhill violated numerous rules under the Iowa
    Rules of Professional Conduct and the Iowa Code of Professional
    Responsibility for Lawyers. The Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct took
    effect on July 1, 2005, replacing the Iowa Code of Professional
    Responsibility for Lawyers. See Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v.
    Curtis, 
    749 N.W.2d 694
    , 696 n.1 (Iowa 2008).           The Iowa Rules of
    Professional Conduct governs all conduct occurring after its effective
    date. The Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers governs
    the allegations regarding the Jerry’s Homes matter because Barnhill’s
    conduct in that matter occurred prior to July 1, 2005. In discussing the
    alleged rule violations, we will take each rule individually and apply it to
    the applicable matters.
    A.     Misrepresentation: DR 1–102(A)(4).       This rule states an
    attorney shall not “[e]ngage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
    deceit, or misrepresentation.” Iowa Code of Prof’l Responsibility DR 1–
    102(A)(4). To prove a violation of this rule, we have held the Board must
    establish “(1) that [the attorney’s] statement was not true, and (2) that
    [the attorney] made the statement with actual knowledge of falsity or in
    reckless disregard for whether the statement was true or not.”         Iowa
    Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Weaver, 
    750 N.W.2d 71
    , 84 (Iowa
    2008).     Negligent misrepresentation does not violate this rule.     Iowa
    9
    Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Grotewold, 
    642 N.W.2d 288
    ,
    293 (Iowa 2002). A lawyer’s honesty regarding purely personal matters
    may remain free from scrutiny. Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics &
    Conduct v. Plumb, 
    546 N.W.2d 215
    , 217 (Iowa 1996).
    We previously distinguished between an attorney’s reckless
    disregard for the truth, which would violate this rule, and an attorney’s
    negligent misrepresentation, which would not violate this rule.         In
    Grotewold, an attorney represented to the district court he had filed tax
    returns on an estate. 
    Grotewold, 642 N.W.2d at 291
    . When the district
    court questioned him on the absence of certain tax documents in the
    court file, the attorney admitted it was likely the IRS had not received
    one of the tax returns and stated that he had filed new tax returns. 
    Id. This information
    was false. 
    Id. We determined
    the attorney violated this
    rule. 
    Id. at 293.
    We recognized “misstatements resulting from oversight
    or haste do not constitute misrepresentations” in violation of this rule,
    however misinformation to the court based on a hope or intention that
    tasks would eventually be completed showed a casual, reckless disregard
    for the truth. 
    Id. We have
    frequently found violations of this rule for an
    attorney’s misrepresentations to clients and the court about the status of
    certain activities the attorney is supposed to complete.        See Iowa
    Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Joy, 
    728 N.W.2d 806
    , 814 (Iowa
    2007) (finding an attorney violated this rule when he misrepresented to
    the court only minimal work needed to be completed on certain estates
    and misinformed his clients about the status of their tax returns); Iowa
    Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Bjorklund, 
    725 N.W.2d 1
    , 8 (Iowa
    2006) (finding an attorney violated this rule when he misrepresented to
    the court that he had ordered a transcript); Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l
    Ethics & Conduct v. Daggett, 
    653 N.W.2d 377
    , 380 (Iowa 2002) (finding
    10
    an attorney violated this rule when he stated he had filed an application
    for reinstatement but had not in fact done so).
    Barnhill repeatedly stated to opposing counsel and the district
    court the plaintiffs in the Jerry’s Homes matter actually reviewed the
    roofing company’s promotional materials and acted in reliance on these
    materials when purchasing shingles. However, the evidence shows the
    majority of class members did not see or rely on these materials. The
    district court noted even when it confronted Barnhill and asked for
    evidence of the class members’ reliance on these representations,
    Barnhill made false statements.     Barnhill’s appeal brief in this matter
    also contained false statements. Barnhill concedes these representations
    were false, but argues she was being a zealous advocate.
    Zealous advocacy does not justify violating our disciplinary rules.
    Rather, an attorney must confine her zeal within the boundaries of our
    disciplinary rules. Comm. on Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Hurd, 
    360 N.W.2d 96
    , 104 (Iowa 1984). Here, the facts do not indicate haste or oversight
    led   to   Barnhill’s   comments   that   would   suggest   mere   negligent
    misrepresentations. Rather, Barnhill’s conduct shows her hope the facts
    would be something other than what they were. Barnhill’s actions show
    a reckless disregard for the truth of the statements she made; thus, we
    find the Board proved Barnhill violated this rule.
    B. Knowingly Making a False Statement: DR 7–102(A)(5). This
    rule states an attorney shall not “[k]nowingly make a false statement of
    law or fact” in the representation of a client.       Iowa Code of Prof’l
    Responsibility DR 7–102(A)(5). We have recognized the word “knowingly”
    in the context of this rule requires actual knowledge, and we may infer
    an attorney’s knowledge from the circumstances. Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y
    Disciplinary Bd. v. Ouderkirk, 
    845 N.W.2d 31
    , 45 (Iowa 2014). We have
    11
    consistently found a violation of this rule when we have determined the
    attorney’s actions could only have been done deliberately.       See Iowa
    Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Nelsen, 
    807 N.W.2d 259
    , 266 (Iowa
    2011) (finding a violation of this rule when an attorney stated he would
    deposit certain funds into his trust account, while knowing that not only
    had he sent these funds to other individuals, but that he would continue
    to do so with future checks); Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics &
    Conduct v. Lesyshen, 
    585 N.W.2d 281
    , 286 (Iowa 1998) (finding a
    violation of this rule when an attorney forged her client’s signature and
    falsely notarized the signature); Comm. on Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v.
    O’Donohoe, 
    426 N.W.2d 166
    , 168–69 (Iowa 1988) (finding a violation of
    this rule when an attorney deliberately backdated a deed).
    We disagree the Board met its burden to prove Barnhill violated
    this rule.    Barnhill’s concession in her brief that she made false
    statements does not show Barnhill had actual knowledge her statements
    were false at the time. Rather, as the district court stated, “[I]t was as
    though Barnhill said whatever needed to be said at each step to just get
    past the moment, whether there was a legitimate basis for saying it or
    not.” 
    Barnhill, 765 N.W.2d at 278
    . This shows a reckless disregard for
    the truth, but does not show Barnhill could only have acted deliberately.
    Thus, we find the Board did not meet its burden to prove Barnhill
    violated this rule.
    C.     Other Conduct Adversely Reflecting on the Fitness to
    Practice Law: DR 1–102(A)(6).      This rule states an attorney shall not
    “[e]ngage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on the fitness to
    practice law.”   Iowa Code of Prof’l Responsibility DR 1–102(A)(6).    We
    have previously recognized “[a]ny violation of the Code of Professional
    Responsibility necessarily reflects adversely on the fitness of an attorney
    12
    to practice law” and have noted our own hesitancy to find a violation of
    this rule depending on the degree of the attorney’s noncompliance with
    the rule. Comm. on Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Durham, 
    279 N.W.2d 280
    ,
    285 (Iowa 1979). We do not look to the attorney’s intent for this rule, but
    rather we look to the attorney’s conduct and the surrounding
    circumstances.    Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Barry, 
    762 N.W.2d 129
    , 138 (Iowa 2009).          Our primary concern is with attorney
    conduct that lessens the public confidence in the legal profession. 
    Id. We have
    previously found an attorney violates this rule when he or she
    acts truly egregiously and those actions negatively affect the public’s
    perception of our profession. See 
    id. (finding an
    attorney violated this
    rule when, as county attorney, his actions in treating certain persons
    favorably caused persons to question his sense of justice and he was
    ultimately removed from office for breaching his duties); 
    Weaver, 750 N.W.2d at 79
    (finding an attorney violated this rule when the attorney
    was arrested for second-offense drunk driving, lied to the police officer,
    and attempted to get out of the arrest).
    The Board alleges Barnhill’s general handling of the Jerry’s Homes
    matter showed her lack of fitness to practice law in violation of this rule.
    We find on our review of the facts Barnhill’s conduct in the Jerry’s
    Homes matter rises to the level of egregious behavior to support this rule
    violation. Her conduct was so egregious the district court sanctioned her
    conduct by imposing a $25,000 sanction. On appeal, we affirmed the
    sanction.   See 
    Barnhill, 765 N.W.2d at 279
    .      Thus, we find the Board
    proved Barnhill violated this rule.
    13
    D. Acceptance of Employment: DR 2–109. This rule states:
    (A) A lawyer shall not accept employment on behalf of
    a person if it is known or it is obvious that such person
    wishes to:
    (1) Bring a legal action, conduct a defense, or assert a
    position in litigation, or otherwise have steps taken merely
    for the purpose of harassing or maliciously injuring any
    person.
    (2) Present a claim or defense in litigation that is not
    warranted under existing law, unless it can be supported by
    good faith argument for an extension, modification, or
    reversal of existing law.
    Iowa Code of Prof’l Responsibility DR 2–109.
    The commission concluded Barnhill did not violate DR 2–109(A)(1)
    or DR 2–109(A)(2) because the record did not show any evidence of the
    motives of Barnhill’s clients in the Jerry’s Homes matter. We agree. The
    facts do not indicate Barnhill knew or it should have been obvious to her
    that her clients were hiring her to bring the claims for the purpose of
    harassing or maliciously injuring someone. Further, it is not clear from
    the facts Barnhill’s clients wanted to bring a claim that was not
    warranted under existing law in the absence of a good faith argument.
    Thus, we find the Board did not meet its burden to prove Barnhill
    violated this rule.
    E. Refusing     to   Accept   or   Continue   Employment     if   the
    Interests of Another Client May Impair the Independent Professional
    Judgment of the Lawyer: DR 5–105(B) and DR 5–105(C). Both DR 5–
    105(B) and DR 5–105(C) are conflict of interest rules. DR 5–105(B) states
    [a] lawyer shall decline proffered employment if the exercise
    of independent professional judgment on behalf of a client
    will be or is likely to be adversely affected by the acceptance
    of the proffered employment, except to the extent permitted
    under DR 5–105(D).
    14
    
    Id. DR–105(B). DR
    5–105(C) states
    [a] lawyer shall not continue multiple employment if the
    exercise of independent professional judgment on behalf of a
    client will be or is likely to be adversely affected by the
    representation of another client, except to the extent
    permitted under DR 5–105(D).
    
    Id. DR 5–105(C).
        DR 5–105(D) provides an attorney may represent
    clients that would ordinarily fit under these rules if each client “consents
    to the representation after full disclosure of the possible effect of such
    representation on the exercise of the lawyer’s independent professional
    judgment on behalf of each” and it is clear the lawyer can adequately
    represent each client’s interest. 
    Id. DR 5–105(D).
    The attorney must make “a full disclosure of the possible
    consequences    of   dual   representation.”    Iowa   Supreme    Ct.   Att’y
    Disciplinary Bd. v. Clauss, 
    711 N.W.2d 1
    , 3 (Iowa 2006).          We have
    recognized any person is entitled to complete loyalty from his or her legal
    counsel. Comm. on Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Oehler, 
    350 N.W.2d 195
    ,
    199 (Iowa 1984). The burden falls on the attorney to establish he or she
    discharged his or her duties by ensuring the client either received
    independent advice or received advice from the attorney such as the
    client could have expected from an independent attorney. 
    Id. The commission
    determined Barnhill violated this rule because the
    class she represented in the Jerry’s Homes matter included both Jerry’s
    Homes and homeowners with potential claims against Jerry’s Homes.
    The commission further determined Barnhill did not receive proper
    conflict waivers from the class members.
    We agree Barnhill violated this rule. First, we recognize a potential
    conflict existed between the class members.            Barnhill previously
    represented Jerry’s Homes against lawsuits from homeowners for
    15
    negligent shingle installment.     Barnhill’s representation of both Jerry’s
    Homes and homeowners who had shingles installed by Jerry’s Homes
    with this potential claim created a conflict.
    Further, the record does not show either Barnhill’s clients received
    independent advice or Barnhill provided the same sort of advice an
    independent attorney would have given.          The evidence before us is
    insufficient to conclude Barnhill received waivers from all class members.
    Although Barnhill claims she met with the individual homeowners and
    received written waivers, Barnhill no longer had copies of these
    documents.      The stipulation on this issue only agrees Barnhill alleged
    the homeowners signed waivers. It does not stipulate the homeowners
    actually signed the waivers. Further, although this rule does not require
    a written waiver, a valid waiver must show the client received a full
    explanation of the effect of the representation. See Iowa Code of Prof’l
    Responsibility DR 7–105(D).       The most the record shows is affidavits
    from the named plaintiffs that each named plaintiff signed a conflict
    waiver. This does not show all class members signed a waiver. Finally,
    even if we assumed all class members signed a waiver, the record does
    not establish Barnhill made a full disclosure of possible issues with dual
    representation because we do not know what information the waiver
    contained. Thus, we conclude the Board proved Barnhill violated these
    rules.
    F. Actions that Serve Merely to Harass or Maliciously Injure
    Another: DR 7–102(A)(1). This rule states an attorney shall not
    [f]ile a suit, assert a position, conduct a defense, delay a
    trial, or take other action on behalf of a client when the
    lawyer knows or when it is obvious that such action would
    serve merely to harass or maliciously injure another.
    16
    
    Id. DR 7–102(A)(1).
       We have previously found a violation of this rule
    when an attorney’s conduct was a “dogged pursuit of substantial
    judgments in the face of compelling legal and factual evidence dictating a
    contrary course.”     Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v.
    Wanek, 
    589 N.W.2d 265
    , 271 (Iowa 1999).               In Wanek, an attorney
    represented a newspaper business filing for Chapter 13 reorganization.
    
    Id. at 266.
    The attorney sought discovery from three other newspaper
    businesses. 
    Id. These businesses
    did not receive the informal discovery
    requests   because    the   attorney   mailed   the   requests   to   incorrect
    addresses. 
    Id. The attorney
    subsequently mailed a motion and a court’s
    order compelling discovery to incorrect addresses for these businesses.
    
    Id. at 267.
      The attorney then moved for sanctions against all three
    newspapers. 
    Id. Upon learning
    of the informal discovery requests, one of the
    businesses contacted the attorney to ask that, given the mailing error,
    the attorney withdraw the motion for sanctions. 
    Id. at 267.
    The attorney
    declined. 
    Id. It was
    later determined during this time the attorney had
    learned of the incorrect addresses and admitted he had received the
    returned incorrectly addressed mail.        
    Id. at 268–69.
          Further, the
    attorney continued his course of action, even after his clients had settled
    their tax issues with the IRS and the attorney no longer needed the
    requested documentation from the businesses. 
    Id. at 268.
    We found the attorney violated DR 7–102(A)(1) for several reasons.
    While we recognized the attorney was originally justified in relying on
    certain principles of law to support his actions, we also recognized the
    facts subsequently changed. 
    Id. at 270.
    At the point when the attorney
    disregarded mailings returned as undeliverable, ignored the businesses’
    claims the documents were not received, and failed to change his course
    17
    of action, the attorney was not acting as a reasonable attorney. 
    Id. at 270–71.
       His failure to change his pursuit of the materials despite
    compelling legal and factual evidence indicating his position was
    incorrect violated this rule. 
    Id. at 271.
    Here, Barnhill’s action in naming the corporate officer as a
    defendant in the Jerry’s Homes matter was never justified and was
    legally and factually unreasonable. Accordingly, we agree with the Board
    that Barnhill’s continued pursuit of the lawsuit against the corporate
    officer as a defendant in the Jerry’s Homes matter showed Barnhill knew
    or it should have been obvious to her that her actions were merely
    harassing the corporate officer.     Thus, we find the Board has proven
    Barnhill violated this rule.
    G. Advancing an Unwarranted Claim: DR 7–102(A)(2). This rule
    states an attorney shall not
    [k]nowingly advance a claim or defense that is unwarranted
    under existing law, except that a lawyer may advance such
    claim or defense if it can be supported by good faith
    argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of
    existing law.
    Iowa Code of Prof’l Responsibility DR 7–102(A)(2).
    The Board alleged Barnhill advanced several contract claims in the
    Jerry’s Homes matter against the corporate officer in his personal
    capacity and it was clear under existing law Barnhill could not sue this
    person with these claims. Barnhill continued to advance these claims for
    months. The district court found and we affirmed Barnhill’s arguments
    did not support a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or
    reversal of existing law. 
    Barnhill, 765 N.W.2d at 273
    –77. Thus, we find
    the Board has proven Barnhill violated this rule.
    18
    H.   Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice: DR
    1–102(A)(5). This rule states an attorney shall not “[e]ngage in conduct
    that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.” Iowa Code of Prof’l
    Responsibility DR 1–102(A)(5).     “The Board is not required to prove
    intent, knowledge, or motive to establish a violation of this rule,” and we
    recognize there is no ordinary or typical conduct that violates this rule.
    
    Barry, 762 N.W.2d at 137
    . Rather, we recognize the commonality in our
    decisions considering this rule violation is that “ ‘the attorney’s act
    hampered the efficient and proper operation of the courts or of ancillary
    systems upon which the courts rely.’ ” 
    Id. (quoting Iowa
    Supreme Ct. Bd.
    of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Steffes, 
    588 N.W.2d 121
    , 123 (Iowa 1999)).
    Though the Board was not required to prove intent, we previously
    recognized Barnhill’s intent in keeping the corporate officer in the Jerry’s
    Homes matter was to force or coerce a settlement. 
    Barnhill, 765 N.W.2d at 279
    . Her persistence in advancing claims against the corporate officer
    for this purpose required multiple judges to consider these claims and
    ultimately dismiss these claims.        Barnhill’s conduct in continuing to
    pursue these claims against the corporate officer triggered a series of
    unnecessary court proceedings.          Thus, we agree the Board proved
    Barnhill’s conduct violated this rule
    I.   Communicating with One of Adverse Interest: DR 7–
    104(A)(1). This rule states in relevant part:
    (A) During the course of representing a client a lawyer
    shall not:
    (1) Communicate or cause another to communicate on
    the subject of the representation with a party known to be
    represented by a lawyer in that matter except with the prior
    consent of the lawyer representing such other party or as
    authorized by law.
    19
    Iowa Code of Prof’l Responsibility DR 7–104(A)(1). One purpose of this
    rule is to protect the represented person from the presumed imbalance in
    legal skills between the lawyer and the person. Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of
    Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Herrera, 
    626 N.W.2d 107
    , 113 (Iowa 2001). A
    second purpose is to prevent “efforts by lawyers in their representation of
    their clients to drive a wedge between other lawyers and their clients.”
    
    Id. at 114.
    We have previously found an attorney violates this rule when
    he or she contacts a represented party without prior communication with
    the party’s attorney regarding the subject of the representation.      See
    Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Box, 
    715 N.W.2d 758
    , 765
    (Iowa 2006) (finding an attorney violated this rule when the attorney
    conducted a real estate transaction with a represented party without
    discussing the transaction with the party’s attorney); Comm. on Prof’l
    Ethics & Conduct v. Shepler, 
    519 N.W.2d 92
    , 93 (Iowa 1994) (finding an
    attorney violated this rule when the attorney was aware an elderly
    woman with diminished capacity had a lawyer, had been instructed to
    contact the lawyer or the woman’s daughter about business dealings,
    and subsequently had the woman sign subordination agreements in the
    absence of her attorney).
    The Board alleged Barnhill violated this rule in relation to the
    Jerry’s Homes matter. On our review of the facts, we find there is no
    indication Barnhill communicated with an opposing party in the absence
    or without the knowledge of that party’s attorney.       Thus, we find the
    Board has failed to prove Barnhill violated this rule.
    J. Trial Conduct: DR 7–106(A). This rule states:
    (A) A lawyer shall not disregard or advise a client to
    disregard a standing rule of a tribunal or a ruling of a
    tribunal made in the course of a proceeding, but a lawyer
    20
    may take appropriate steps in good faith to test the validity
    of such rule or ruling.
    Iowa Code of Prof’l Responsibility DR 7–106(A).           We have primarily
    recognized an attorney violates this rule when an attorney fails to obey a
    court order.     Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. D’Angelo, 
    710 N.W.2d 226
    , 234 (Iowa 2006) (finding an attorney violated this rule when
    he intentionally disregarded a court order to provide other parties with
    proper notice of a property sale); Comm. on Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v.
    Zimmermann, 
    522 N.W.2d 619
    , 620–21 (Iowa 1994) (finding an attorney
    violated this rule by failing to seek clarification of a court order).
    The Board alleged Barnhill violated this rule in relation to the
    Jerry’s Homes matter, and in particular that she violated Iowa Rule of
    Civil Procedure 1.413(1).       See Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.413(1) (recognizing
    counsel’s signature to various documents certifies counsel has read the
    document and to the best of counsel’s knowledge, it is well grounded in
    fact).
    The commission concluded Barnhill did not violate this rule
    because the record did not contain sufficient evidence.          We agree the
    Board has failed to prove Barnhill violated this rule.
    K.   Trial Conduct: DR 7–106(C)(1) and DR 7–106(C)(7).               This
    rule states an attorney shall not “[s]tate or allude to any matter that the
    lawyer has no reasonable basis to believe is relevant to the case or that
    will not be supported by admissible evidence” when appearing in a
    professional    capacity   before   the   tribunal.    Iowa   Code       of   Prof’l
    Responsibility DR 7–106(C)(1). DR 7–106(C)(7) states an attorney shall
    not “[i]ntentionally or habitually violate any established rule of procedure
    or of evidence” when appearing in a professional capacity before the
    tribunal. 
    Id. DR 7–106(C)(7).
                                          21
    We find the context of the rule indicates it was not intended to
    apply in the circumstances of the Jerry’s Homes matter. This particular
    subsection of the rule discusses an attorney’s conduct in the course of a
    trial, including conduct such as asking questions intended to degrade a
    witness and asserting personal opinions as to the credibility of a witness.
    See 
    id. DR 7–106(C).
    Thus, it appears the rule is intended to discourage
    certain conduct when the lawyer appears before a tribunal in the course
    of a trial.
    The commission determined Barnhill violated this rule in the
    Jerry’s Homes matter for the same reasons she violated DR 7–102(A)(2).
    We decline to find Barnhill violated this rule.       It does not appear
    Barnhill’s conduct was habitual or an intentional violation during a trial
    proceeding. Thus, we find Barnhill did not violate either subsection of
    this rule.
    L. Safekeeping Property: Rule 32:1.15(a) and 32:1.15(f). This
    rule provides:
    (a) A lawyer shall hold property of clients or third
    persons that is in a lawyer’s possession in connection with a
    representation separate from the lawyer’s own property.
    Funds shall be kept in a separate account. Other property
    shall be identified as such and appropriately safeguarded.
    Complete records of such account funds and other property
    shall be kept by the lawyer and shall be preserved for a
    period of six years after termination of the representation.
    ....
    (f) All client trust accounts shall be governed by
    chapter 45 of the Iowa Court Rules.
    Iowa R. of Prof’l Conduct 32:1.15(a), (f).
    First, we find Barnhill violated rule 32:1.15(a).   Barnhill did not
    safeguard Williams’s money deposited in the trust account as this rule
    requires. She failed to supervise her employee properly in light of the
    22
    prior problems she had with that employee’s handling of firm funds.
    Additionally, Barnhill did not check to see if the expenditures made out
    of the trust account were for legitimate expenses.
    Second, we find Barnhill violated several rules in chapter 45 of the
    Iowa Court Rules. Iowa Court Rule 45.2(2) provides:
    Except as stated in this chapter or otherwise permitted by
    law or by agreement with the client, a lawyer shall promptly
    deliver to the client or third person any funds or other
    property that the client or third person is entitled to receive
    and shall promptly render a full accounting regarding such
    property.
    Iowa Ct. R. 45.2(2). We find Barnhill violated this rule by not being able
    to give Williams a full accounting of her funds. Instead, Williams had to
    bring a lawsuit to determine what she was entitled to from the trust
    account.
    Further, Iowa Court Rule 45.2(3) requires:
    a. A lawyer who practices in this jurisdiction      shall
    maintain current financial records as provided in these   rules
    and required by Iowa R. of Prof’l Conduct 32:1.15 and     shall
    retain the following records for a period of six years     after
    termination of the representation:
    (1) Receipt and disbursement journals containing a
    record of deposits to and withdrawals from client trust
    accounts, specifically identifying the date, source, and
    description of each item deposited, as well as the date, payee
    and purpose of each disbursement
    
    Id. r. 45.2(3)(a)(1).
    Barnhill did not keep complete records of the source,
    date, or amount of Williams’s income deposited into the trust account.
    The only accounting of Williams’s money was the trust account register.
    There were no running balances kept in the trust account register, and
    Barnhill did not reconcile the trust account bank statements. Thus, we
    find the Board proved Barnhill violated this rule.
    23
    M.    Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants: Rule
    32:5.3. This rule provides:
    With respect to a nonlawyer employed or retained by
    or associated with a lawyer:
    (a) a partner, and a lawyer who individually or together
    with other lawyers possesses comparable managerial
    authority in a law firm shall make reasonable efforts to
    ensure that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable
    assurance that the person’s conduct is compatible with the
    professional obligations of the lawyer;
    (b) a lawyer having direct supervisory authority over
    the nonlawyer shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that
    the person’s conduct is compatible with the professional
    obligations of the lawyer; and
    (c) a lawyer shall be responsible for conduct of such a
    person that would be a violation of the Iowa Rules of
    Professional Conduct if engaged in by a lawyer if:
    (1) the lawyer orders or, with the knowledge of the
    specific conduct, ratifies the conduct involved; or
    (2) the lawyer is a partner or has comparable
    managerial authority in the law firm in which the person is
    employed, or has direct supervisory authority over the
    person, and knows of the conduct at a time when its
    consequences can be avoided or mitigated but fails to take
    reasonable remedial action.
    Iowa R. of Prof’l Conduct 32:5.3.    We have previously recognized an
    attorney does not violate this rule when a nonlawyer makes a mistake
    that is not a direct consequence of the attorney’s inattentive supervision
    or instruction. See Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Dunahoo,
    
    799 N.W.2d 524
    , 534 (Iowa 2011).
    The commission found Barnhill violated this rule based on the
    stipulations of fact. We agree Barnhill violated this rule in the Williams
    matter. Barnhill had supervisory authority over her employee and was
    aware her employee had previously embezzled money from the law firm
    when Barnhill entered into the arrangement with Williams.        Barnhill
    24
    specifically authorized and directed the employee to pay Williams’s bills
    and continued to allow the employee to sign Barnhill’s name on trust
    account checks. The employee completed these acts without Barnhill’s
    supervision.    The employee subsequently wrote at least one check
    payable to herself from the trust account, and Barnhill eventually fired
    her for her unauthorized use of the law firm’s line of credit.
    We can hardly characterize the employee’s conduct as a mere
    mistake. It was not accidental that the employee wrote a check to herself
    from the trust account. Nor can we characterize Barnhill’s conduct as
    making reasonable efforts to ensure the employee’s conduct was
    compatible with the professional obligations of a lawyer. Barnhill knew
    her employee had previously embezzled money from the law firm and let
    her continue to handle the funds without reasonable supervision.
    We note it appears Barnhill attempted to supervise her employee.
    Barnhill purportedly limited her employee’s authority to sign Barnhill’s
    name on business checks to only circumstances when no other
    authorized signer was available.          However, these measures were
    inadequate.    Barnhill knew the employee continued to sign Barnhill’s
    name on trust account checks. Barnhill also failed to keep a separate
    client ledger for Williams’s funds, failed to ensure there was a running
    balance of the trust account register, failed to reconcile the bank
    statements, and utterly failed to have any idea what the employee was
    doing with Williams’s funds.     In fact, Barnhill subsequently gave the
    trust account records to Williams so that Williams could attempt to
    figure out whether the employee had taken any of Williams’s money.
    Barnhill failed to reasonably supervise her employee.      Barnhill
    could have prevented the employee’s conduct of stealing money from the
    trust account with reasonable supervision, particularly when she was
    25
    aware of her employee’s prior embezzlement. Thus, we find the Board
    has proven Barnhill violated this rule.
    N. Professional Misconduct: Rule 32:8.4(c). This rule states “[i]t
    is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . engage in conduct
    involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.”       Iowa R. of
    Prof’l    Conduct   32:8.4(c).    Regarding   the   Williams’s   matter,   the
    commission found Barnhill violated this rule because the Board had
    proved issue preclusion under Iowa Court Rule 35.7(3).           Rule 35.7(3)
    states:
    Principles of issue preclusion may be used by either party in
    a lawyer disciplinary case if all of the following conditions
    exist:
    a. The issue has been resolved in a civil proceeding
    that resulted in a final judgment, or in a criminal proceeding
    that resulted in a finding of guilt, even if the Iowa Supreme
    Court Attorney Disciplinary Board was not a party to the
    prior proceeding.
    b. The burden of proof in the prior proceeding was
    greater than a mere preponderance of the evidence.
    c. The party seeking preclusive effect has given written
    notice to the opposing party, not less than ten days prior to
    the hearing, of the party’s intention to invoke issue
    preclusion.
    Iowa Ct. R. 35.7(3).
    The issue of Barnhill’s fraudulent misrepresentation in the
    Williams matter was resolved in a civil trial. A jury determined Williams
    proved Barnhill committed fraud by clear, convincing, and satisfactory
    evidence. These facts meet the first two conditions of issue preclusion.
    See Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. D.J.I., 
    545 N.W.2d 866
    , 877 (Iowa 1996) (barring an attorney from relitigating the issues of
    fraud and misrepresentation, among other issues, in a disciplinary case
    under the doctrine of issue preclusion). We also find the Board properly
    26
    gave Barnhill notice to meet the third condition. Therefore, we find the
    Board met its burden in proving issue preclusion applied to Barnhill’s
    violation of this rule and that Barnhill violated this rule.
    O.   Advance Fee and Expense Payments: Rules 45.7(3) and
    45.7(4). The relevant portions of rule 45.7 state:
    45.7(3) Deposit and withdrawal.        A lawyer must
    deposit advance fee and expense payments from a client into
    the trust account and may withdraw such payments only as
    the fee is earned or the expense is incurred.
    45.7(4) Notification upon withdrawal of fee or expense.
    A lawyer accepting advance fee or expense payments must
    notify the client in writing of the time, amount, and purpose
    of any withdrawal of the fee or expense, together with a
    complete accounting. The attorney must transmit such
    notice no later than the date of the withdrawal.
    Iowa Ct. R. 45.7(3)–(4).    Advance fee payments and advance expense
    payments have specific definitions under this rule.            An advance fee
    payment is payment “for contemplated services that are made to the
    lawyer prior to the lawyer’s having earned the fee.” 
    Id. r. 45.7(1).
    An
    advance expense payment is a payment “for contemplated expenses in
    connection with the lawyer’s services that are made to the lawyer prior to
    the incurrence of the expense.” 
    Id. r. 45.7(2).
    In the Williams matter, the commission concluded Barnhill did not
    violate rule 45.7(3) or rule 45.7(4). We agree. Our review of the facts
    shows the transactions of Williams’s money into and out of the trust
    account related to the payment of Williams’s expenses to third parties.
    These transactions did not relate to Barnhill’s services, and thus do not
    meet the definition of either an advance fee payment or an advance
    expense payment. Thus, these rules do not apply to Barnhill’s conduct.
    We find the Board did not meet its burden to prove Barnhill violated this
    rule.
    27
    P. Diligence: Rule 32:1.3. This rule states “[a] lawyer shall act
    with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.” Iowa
    R. of Prof’l Conduct 32:1.3.    Accordingly, an attorney must handle a
    client matter in a reasonably timely manner.      Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y
    Disciplinary Bd. v. Netti, 
    797 N.W.2d 591
    , 598 (Iowa 2011).       We have
    found a violation of this rule when an attorney was slow to act on
    matters or did not keep clients properly informed on their cases.      See
    Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Ackerman, 
    786 N.W.2d 491
    ,
    495 (Iowa 2010) (holding attorney’s dilatory handling of two estates
    violated this rule); Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Earley, 
    774 N.W.2d 301
    , 307 (Iowa 2009) (finding the attorney violated this rule when
    he failed to provide services and keep his clients informed about their
    cases).
    Our review of the facts shows Barnhill failed to act promptly on our
    orders in the PSG matter concerning her service upon the assignee and
    the IRS. Even if we were to find Barnhill’s failure to serve our May 2,
    2007 order on the assignee and the IRS was due to her mistaken
    understanding of the order, we issued a second order in January 2008
    requiring her to serve the assignee and the IRS. It was not until after we
    issued a third order ordering the opposing counsel to serve the assignee
    and the IRS that Barnhill served the assignee and the IRS. Thus, we find
    the Board met its burden to prove Barnhill violated this rule.
    Q.   Expediting Litigation: Rule 32:3.2.       This rule states “[a]
    lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with
    the interests of the client.” Iowa R. of Prof’l Conduct 32:3.2. An attorney
    violates this rule when he or she fails to appear at hearings and fails to
    participate in discovery.   Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v.
    Cunningham, 
    812 N.W.2d 541
    , 548 (Iowa 2012).         An attorney violates
    28
    this rule when the attorney uses tactics that unreasonably delay the
    litigation. Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Knopf, 
    793 N.W.2d 525
    , 530 (Iowa 2011). The Board is only required to prove the attorney’s
    intent if the sole allegation is an attorney engaged in particular conduct
    for the purpose of frustrating the judicial process. See 
    id. (recognizing the
    Board failed to prove an attorney’s conduct violated this rule when it
    would be speculative to conclude the attorney’s actions were solely for
    his convenience or for an unreasonable purpose).
    In the PSG matter, the commission concluded Barnhill did not
    violate rule 32:3.2 because the evidence did not show Barnhill had the
    intent to slow the proceedings by failing to serve the court order or that
    her failure to serve the order was done for her convenience or for an
    unreasonable purpose. We agree with the commission. Thus, we find
    the Board did not meet its burden to prove Barnhill violated this rule.
    R.   Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel: Rule 32:3.4(c).
    This rule states “[a] lawyer shall not . . . knowingly disobey an obligation
    under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an
    assertion that no valid obligation exists.”    Iowa R. of Prof’l Conduct
    32:3.4(c). The attorney must have actual knowledge of the court order to
    violate this rule. 
    Cunningham, 812 N.W.2d at 548
    . If an attorney has
    knowledge of the court order, and yet fails to obey the court order, the
    attorney violates this rule. 
    Id. The commission
    found Barnhill violated this rule by failing to serve
    our court orders after we issued numerous court orders in the PSG
    matter.    We agree Barnhill had knowledge of our court orders and
    violated this rule by failing to comply with our May 2, 2007 order and
    subsequent orders. We find the Board proved Barnhill violated this rule.
    29
    S. Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice: Rule
    32:8.4(d). This rule states “[i]t is professional misconduct for a lawyer to
    . . . engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.”
    Iowa R. of Prof’l Conduct 32:8.4(d). Such conduct includes an attorney’s
    actions that hamper “ ‘the efficient and proper operation of the courts or
    of ancillary systems upon which the courts rely.’ ”       Iowa Supreme Ct.
    Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Templeton, 
    784 N.W.2d 761
    , 768 (Iowa 2010)
    (quoting Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Howe, 
    706 N.W.2d 360
    , 373 (Iowa 2005)).       We have previously recognized an attorney
    violates this rule “ ‘when his [or her] misconduct results in additional
    court proceedings or causes court proceedings to be delayed or
    dismissed.’ ”    Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Dolezal, 
    841 N.W.2d 114
    , 124 (Iowa 2013) (quoting Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary
    Bd. v. Rhinehart, 
    827 N.W.2d 169
    , 180 (Iowa 2013)).
    The commission found Barnhill violated this rule in both the PSG
    matter and the Everly matter. On our review of the facts, we conclude
    Barnhill violated this rule when she caused delays in the PSG matter by
    not serving the orders and in the Everly matter by continuing to pursue
    an unwarranted claim. Thus, we find the Board proved Barnhill violated
    this rule.
    T. Competence: Rule 32:1.1. This rule states “[a] lawyer shall
    provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation
    requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation
    reasonably necessary for the representation.” Iowa R. of Prof’l Conduct
    32:1.1.      The Board may prove an attorney violated this rule by the
    attorney’s failure “to make a competent analysis of the factual and legal
    elements of a client’s legal problem.” Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary
    Bd. v. Wright, 
    840 N.W.2d 295
    , 300 (Iowa 2013). We recognized in Everly
    30
    that there was no authority to support Barnhill’s position she could bring
    a certiorari action without naming a government 
    entity. 774 N.W.2d at 495
    . We find Barnhill did not make a competent analysis of the facts
    and law when she continued the lawsuit after dismissing the government
    entity and the superintendent. In fact, we upheld sanctions against her
    for this conduct.   
    Id. at 495–96.
      Therefore, we find the Board proved
    Barnhill violated this rule.
    U.    Declining or Terminating Representation: 32:1.16(a)(1).
    This rule states in relevant part:
    (a) Except as stated in paragraph (c), a lawyer shall not
    represent a client or, where representation has commenced,
    shall withdraw from the representation of a client if:
    (1) the representation will result in violation of the
    Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct or other law.
    Iowa R. of Prof’l Conduct 32:1.16(a)(1).     We have found an attorney
    violates this rule when he or she helps a party with conduct that is a
    fraudulent transaction. See Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v.
    Engelmann, 
    840 N.W.2d 156
    , 162–63 (Iowa 2013) (finding an attorney
    violated this rule when he misrepresented information in property
    transactions and failed to withdraw despite numerous opportunities to
    do so).
    The stipulated facts do not allow us to find Barnhill violated this
    rule in the Everly matter.     While we have found Barnhill’s continued
    pursuit of the case against Musco violates other rules, it is not clear from
    the facts her clients asked her to engage in this conduct.      Further, it
    does not appear Barnhill’s conduct related to whether she could
    represent her clients. Rather, it appears the choices Barnhill made in
    her representation led to her violation of other rules. Thus, we find the
    Board did not meet its burden to prove Barnhill violated this rule.
    31
    V. Meritorious Claims and Contentions: Rule 32:3.1. This rule
    states in relevant part:
    A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or
    assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis
    in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which
    includes a good faith argument for an extension,
    modification, or reversal of existing law.
    Iowa R. of Prof’l Conduct 32:3.1.           In analyzing this rule, we have
    previously identified the alleged offending conduct and analyzed whether
    there was legal authority to support the attorney engaging in this
    conduct.   See Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Daniels, 
    838 N.W.2d 672
    , 678 (Iowa 2013) (determining there was legal support for an
    attorney to file a petition for relief under the circumstances, thus the
    attorney did not violate this rule).
    The conduct at issue here is Barnhill’s continued pursuit of a
    lawsuit against Musco in the Everly matter after dismissing the school
    district and the superintendent from the lawsuit.             In Everly, we
    recognized we knew “of no authority for the proposition that a
    disappointed taxpayer [could] bring a certiorari action solely against a
    supplier to a successful bidder who allegedly improperly procured a
    government contract without naming a government 
    entity.” 774 N.W.2d at 495
    . Thus, we conclude there was no authority to support Barnhill’s
    conduct in pursuing the lawsuit.        Therefore, we find the Board has
    proven Barnhill violated this rule.
    W. Candor Towards the Tribunal: Rule 32:3.3(a)(1). This rule
    states in relevant part, “A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false
    statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of
    material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer.” Iowa
    R. of Prof’l Conduct 32:3.3(a)(1).     The word “knowingly” has a specific
    32
    meaning under our rules.         The Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct
    defines “knowingly” as “actual knowledge of the fact in question.            A
    person’s knowledge may be inferred from circumstances.” 
    Id. r. 32:1.0(f).
    We will not infer an attorney made a misrepresentation knowingly simply
    because the misrepresentation occurred.         
    Netti, 797 N.W.2d at 603
    .
    Further, it is not enough that an attorney admits he or she
    misrepresented facts or that the attorney filed a motion containing false
    information to prove the attorney violated this rule. See 
    id. For the
      Everly   matter,   the   Board   argues   Barnhill   falsely
    represented to the district court that Musco was in a contractual
    relationship with the school district. The commission concluded Barnhill
    did not violate this rule because Barnhill subsequently corrected the
    statement.    Our review of the facts shows the Board has not met its
    burden to prove Barnhill knowingly made this misrepresentation.             At
    most, Barnhill acknowledged her petition contained false information.
    Thus, we find the Board did not meet its burden to prove Barnhill
    violated this rule.
    V. Sanction.
    To determine the appropriate sanction in an attorney disciplinary
    case, we consider
    “the nature of the violations, the attorney’s fitness to
    continue in the practice of law, the protection of society from
    those unfit to practice law, the need to uphold public
    confidence in the justice system, deterrence, maintenance of
    the reputation of the bar as a whole, and any aggravating or
    mitigating circumstances.”
    Iowa Supreme Ct. Disciplinary Bd. v. Marks, 
    814 N.W.2d 532
    , 541 (Iowa
    2012) (quoting Iowa Supreme Ct. Disciplinary Bd. v. Ireland, 
    748 N.W.2d 498
    , 502 (Iowa 2008)).
    33
    In this case, the Board and Barnhill stipulated to a nonbinding
    recommendation         of   a   sixty-day    suspension.     The   commission
    recommended a six-month suspension.
    This case presents both mitigating and aggravating factors.
    Aggravating factors in this case include Barnhill’s extensive legal
    experience, Barnhill’s misconduct causing financial harm to Williams,
    Barnhill’s multiple violations, and Barnhill’s two prior admonitions from
    the Board.
    Mitigating factors include Barnhill’s involvement in pro bono work
    with the Polk County Bar Association Volunteer Lawyers Program,
    Barnhill’s volunteerism at a halfway house and jail, and her activity in
    her community. Barnhill also acknowledged multiple violations through
    her stipulations. See Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Nelson,
    
    838 N.W.2d 528
    , 542 (Iowa 2013) (“An attorney’s acknowledgment of
    ethical violations is a mitigating factor.”).
    Barnhill argues we should consider additional mitigating factors.
    She argues that since this conduct last occurred she has instituted
    practices to help manage her trust account.                We agree corrective
    measures to address previous misconduct are a mitigating factor and
    that her effort to correct previous issues with her trust account is a
    mitigating factor. See 
    id. at 543
    (recognizing corrective measures such
    as improving accounting practices and employing additional help are
    mitigating factors).
    Barnhill also requests that we consider the award of punitive
    damages in one of the matters and the previous sanctions imposed by
    the courts under Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.413(1) in two of these
    matters as mitigating factors. In the Williams matter, the jury awarded a
    judgment against Barnhill in the amount of $53,895, as well as punitive
    34
    damages against Barnhill in the amount of $10,000.           In the Jerry’s
    Homes matter, the district court sanctioned Barnhill for $25,000.
    
    Barnhill, 765 N.W.2d at 279
    –80. We affirmed the district court’s decision
    to sanction. 
    Id. at 280.
    In the Everly matter, we affirmed sanctions in
    part. 
    Everly, 774 N.W.2d at 495
    –96.
    We have considered an attorney’s interim suspension when
    determining the proper sanction for an attorney disciplinary matter. See
    Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Powell, 
    830 N.W.2d 355
    , 359–
    60 (Iowa 2013) (recognizing the commission recommended a public
    reprimand because the attorney had previously served a seven-month
    suspension, but ultimately concluding an additional suspension was
    necessary).   A suspension promptly protects the public and upholds
    public confidence in our justice system.       See 
    id. at 360.
        Monetary
    sanctions, such as a requirement of only restitution, may convey
    attorneys have the ability to buy their way out of professional difficulties.
    See 
    D’Angelo, 710 N.W.2d at 235
    (recognizing a concern with allowing
    the public to believe an attorney may use financial means to address
    disciplinary problems).
    Courts do not award punitive damages for restitution purposes.
    See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 
    538 U.S. 408
    , 416, 123 S.
    Ct. 1513, 1519, 
    155 L. Ed. 2d 585
    , 600 (2003) (recognizing a difference
    between compensating a person for a concrete loss and awarding
    punitive damages).    The purpose of punitive damages is to punish a
    person for their civil wrongdoing and to protect the public by deterring
    the defendant and others from engaging in similar future conduct. See
    McClure v. Walgreen Co., 
    613 N.W.2d 225
    , 232 (Iowa 2000).          We have
    previously stated one of the primary goals of rule 1.413 “is to maintain a
    high degree of professionalism in the practice of law.”       Barnhill, 
    765 35 N.W.2d at 273
    . The rule prevents abusive filing by attorneys caused by
    professional incompetence. 
    Id. The primary
    goal of attorney discipline is to protect the public, not
    to punish the attorney.      Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v.
    Hauser, 
    782 N.W.2d 147
    , 154 (Iowa 2010). Although punitive damages
    and attorney discipline have different purposes as to punishment, both
    have an element of protecting the public by deterring future conduct.
    Thus, where a court awarded punitive damages or sanctions against an
    attorney arising out of the same facts and transactions we deem
    unethical, we can consider the award of punitive damages or the levy of
    sanctions as mitigating factors.
    We find all of Barnhill’s violations to be serious.          We have
    previously recognized that “ ‘honesty is the base line and mandatory
    requirement to serve in the legal profession.’ ”        Iowa Supreme Ct.
    Disciplinary Bd. v. McGinness, 
    844 N.W.2d 456
    , 465 (Iowa 2014) (quoting
    Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Kallsen, 
    814 N.W.2d 233
    , 239
    (Iowa 2012)). In our cases involving similar conduct, we have imposed
    sanctions ranging from sixty days to revocation.         
    Cunningham, 812 N.W.2d at 548
    –54 (imposing an eighteen-month suspension when an
    attorney failed to obey a court order, failed to contact his client,
    misrepresented to a client he had filed a petition, neglected clients, failed
    to appear at hearings and participate in discovery, and his conduct
    resulted in the court rescheduling proceedings); Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y
    Disciplinary Bd. v. Van Ginkel, 
    809 N.W.2d 96
    , 102, 105, 111 (Iowa 2012)
    (concluding a sixty-day suspension was appropriate when the attorney
    made false statements to a tribunal, failed to perform necessary work on
    an estate, took early receipt of probate fees, and procrastinated on
    closing an estate for several years); 
    Dunahoo, 799 N.W.2d at 531
    –35
    36
    (suspending an attorney’s license for one year when the attorney
    intentionally disobeyed a court order, failed to take action in a
    foreclosure matter, failed to communicate with his client, failed to
    provide contemporaneous accounting or notice regarding trust account
    withdrawals, intentionally filed a petition in the wrong district, and
    wasted judicial resources); 
    Netti, 797 N.W.2d at 598
    –607 (suspending an
    attorney’s license for two years when the attorney failed to properly
    administer an estate, failed to handle estate proceedings and tax issues
    in a reasonably timely manner, did not keep his client informed or
    respond to client requests, did not give his client contemporaneous
    notice of withdrawals from the client trust account, misrepresented to
    the court he had authority to represent a client, and his conduct resulted
    in   additional   unnecessary   proceedings);   Iowa   Supreme   Ct.   Att’y
    Disciplinary Bd. v. Rickabaugh, 
    728 N.W.2d 375
    , 382 (Iowa 2007)
    (revoking an attorney’s license when, among other ethical infractions, the
    attorney fabricated documents and forged a judge’s signature); Iowa
    Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Isaacson, 
    565 N.W.2d 315
    ,
    318 (Iowa 1997) (imposing a six-month suspension when an attorney
    committed fraud and failed to disclose potential conflicts of interest). We
    recently suspended an attorney’s license for six months for falsifying
    certificates of service attached to discovery requests.   
    McGinness, 844 N.W.2d at 460
    , 467.
    We have considered all the factors in this case. These include the
    aggravating and mitigating factors and the overall nature of the
    violations, which primarily involve overzealousness and sloppy practices.
    We have also taken into account the extent to which courts have already
    punished Barnhill by levying sanctions and imposing punitive damages
    against her.      Weighing all of these considerations, we believe the
    37
    appropriate sanction in this matter is a sixty-day suspension as
    stipulated by Barnhill and the Board.
    VI. Disposition.
    We suspend Barnhill from the practice of law for sixty days. This
    suspension applies to all facets of the practice of law, including but not
    limited to advertising her services. See Iowa Ct. R. 35.13(3). Barnhill
    must also comply with Iowa Court Rule 35.23, addressing the
    notification of clients and counsel.    We tax the costs of this action to
    Barnhill, pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 35.27. Absent an objection by the
    Board, we shall reinstate Barnhill’s license to practice law on the day
    after the sixty-day suspension period expires. See Iowa Ct. R. 35.13(2).
    LICENSE SUSPENDED.
    All justices concur except Appel, J., who takes no part.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13–1966

Citation Numbers: 847 N.W.2d 466, 2014 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 61, 2014 WL 2434600

Judges: Appel, Wiggins

Filed Date: 5/30/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024

Authorities (29)

IA SUP. CT. ATTY. DISCIPLINARY BD. v. Howe , 706 N.W.2d 360 ( 2005 )

Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Barry , 2009 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 17 ( 2009 )

Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Earley , 2009 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 100 ( 2009 )

Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Hauser , 2010 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 41 ( 2010 )

Committee on Professional Ethics & Conduct of the Iowa ... , 1994 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 166 ( 1994 )

Iowa Supreme Court Board of Professional Ethics & Conduct v.... , 1997 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 201 ( 1997 )

Iowa Supreme Court Board of Professional Ethics & Conduct v.... , 2001 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 81 ( 2001 )

Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Joy , 2007 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 24 ( 2007 )

Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Curtis , 2008 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 76 ( 2008 )

Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Weaver , 2008 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 51 ( 2008 )

Committee on Professional Ethics & Conduct v. Oehler , 1984 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 1165 ( 1984 )

Everly v. Knoxville Community School District , 2009 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 103 ( 2009 )

SUPREME CT. BD. OF PROF'L ETH. v. Steffes , 588 N.W.2d 121 ( 1999 )

IA S. CT. ATTY. DISCIPLINARY BD. v. Ireland , 748 N.W.2d 498 ( 2008 )

Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Ackerman , 2010 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 84 ( 2010 )

McClure v. Walgreen Co. , 2000 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 125 ( 2000 )

Iowa Supreme Court Board of Professional Ethics & Conduct v.... , 2002 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 40 ( 2002 )

Iowa Supreme Court Board of Professional Ethics & Conduct v.... , 2002 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 242 ( 2002 )

Iowa Supreme Court Board of Professional Ethics & Conduct v.... , 1998 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 245 ( 1998 )

Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Templeton , 2010 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 65 ( 2010 )

View All Authorities »