Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. Widdison

960 N.W.2d 79

IOWA SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD, Complainant,

v.Harold K. WIDDISON, Respondent.

No. 21-0148

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Submitted April 15, 2021

Filed May 28, 2021

Tara van Brederode and Crystal Rink, Des Moines, for complainant.

John C. Gray, Sioux City, for respondent.

Appel, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which all justices joined.

APPEL, Justice.

The Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board charged Iowa attorney Harold K. Widdison with a series of ethical violations related to his conduct during his postdivorce litigation and trust account management. After a hearing, the Iowa Supreme Court Grievance Commission determined that Widdison violated Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct 32:3.1 (frivolous defenses or proceedings), 32:3.3(a)(1) (false statements of law or fact before a tribunal), 32:8.2(a) (false statement regarding the integrity of a judge), and 32:8.4(c) (dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation). The commission recommended Widdison's license be suspended for one hundred twenty days. Upon our de novo review, we find that Widdison violated multiple disciplinary rules and impose a ninety-day suspension of Widdison's license to practice law.

I. Background Facts and Procedural History.

A. Overview. Harold Widdison has been an Iowa attorney since June 16, 1995. Widdison maintains a solo private practice law firm in Sioux City. He is an experienced and respected attorney. Widdison has not had a prior disciplinary history.

Widdison and his former spouse, Amy Dendy, were divorced in 2015. In the divorce proceedings, the parties entered into a settlement agreement filed on January 20, 2015. The district court entered a divorce decree that same day. As part of the settlement agreement, Dendy became the sole owner of a 50% interest in an apartment complex that had previously been owned jointly by Widdison and Dendy. Widdison and Dendy entered into a settlement agreement which mutually released all claims they might have against each other. Joint child custody was awarded.

B. Allegations of Disciplinary Board.

1. Introduction. On April 21, 2020, the Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board filed a two-count complaint against Widdison. In count I, the Board alleged a series of ethics violations in connection with his conduct during postdivorce litigation. In count II, the Board alleged Widdison engaged in various trust account violations.

2. Ethical violations related to postdivorce litigation. In count I, the Board alleged ethical violations arising from four separate events. First, according to the Board, Widdison prosecuted a frivolous claim for past attorney fees against his former spouse and Northpark, a limited liability company wholly owned by his former spouse. Second, the Board asserted that Widdison sought to recuse the magistrate hearing his attorney fees claim by making a false allegation that she had a conflict of interest which disqualified her from hearing the case. Third, the Board claimed that in a modification proceeding, Widdison threatened potential witnesses by sending a letter to several witnesses, purportedly addressed to the judge in the case that claimed negative information would be revealed against the witnesses if they were subject to cross-examination. Fourth, the Board alleged that in the modification proceeding, Widdison falsely claimed that the judge handling the matter told the parties that "she was suffering some form of brain cancer and that the Court's decision will take a long time to issue." When the court characterized Widdison's statement as "false" or "not truthful," the Board stated that Widdison sought to strike the court's references. The Board claimed that Widdison repeated his false claims in several other documents filed with the court.

Based on the above conduct, the Board alleged that Widdison violated Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct 32:3.1 (frivolous defenses or proceedings), 32:3.3(a)(1) (false statement of fact or law to a tribunal), 32:8.2(a) (false or reckless statements concerning a judge), and 32:8.4(c) (dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation).

3. Ethical violations related to trust accounts. In count II of the complaint, the Board alleged that on December 18, 2018, an auditor for the Iowa Supreme Court Client Security Commission (Client Security Commission) began an audit of Widdison's client trust account. According to the Board, auditor Tony A. Bennett found six negative client account balances, one due to a timing issue regarding receipt of funds, with the remaining five accounts showing a negative balance of $293.61. The Board further asserted that it found seven stale client accounts without activity in over a year with a combined balance of $2605.94. The Board asserted that Widdison either withdrew the funds to pay outstanding balances or refunded the amounts to the clients.

On December 13, 2019, the Board stated it received information about Widdison's accounts from the Client Security Commission. The Board asserted it provided Widdison with notice of the complaint on December 17. According to the Board, Widdison denied that he was out of compliance with any trust account rules and denied the summary of the audit results prepared by the Client Security Commission.

Based on the above allegations, the Board charged Widdison with violation of Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct 32:1.15(a) (separate funds for client property), 32:1.15(d) (prompt delivery of client funds), 32:1.15(f) (trust accounts governed by chapter 45 of the Iowa Court Rules), and 32:8.1(a) (lawyer in connection with disciplinary proceeding shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact), and Iowa Court Rule 45.2(2) (prompt delivery of funds client is entitled to receive and provide a full accounting).

C. Hearing Before the Grievance Commission. The Iowa Supreme Court Grievance Commission held a hearing on the Board's complaint on September 14 and 15, 2020. The commission heard testimony from twelve witnesses, including Chief Judge Duane Hoffmeyer, Judge Nancy Whittenburg, and Magistrate Jenny Winterfeld. Both sides introduced exhibits.

D. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommended Sanctions.

1. Overview. The commission filed its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended sanctions in a thorough and detailed forty-five-page document. The commission found multiple violations of our ethical rules related to Widdison's postdivorce litigation activity.

2. Postdivorce litigation activity. On the Board's allegations related to Widdison's conduct during his postdivorce litigation, the commission found that Widdison knew that the facts and law precluded him from making the claim for attorney fees against Dendy and Northpark, that he had no basis in law or fact to bring the action, and that he had an ulterior motive to harm Dendy. The commission concluded that the Board had proved by a convincing preponderance of the evidence that the conduct of Widdison in prosecuting the attorney fees action violated Iowa Rule of Professional Conduct 32:3.1.

The commission also made adverse findings and conclusions in connection with Widdison's effort to disqualify Magistrate Winterfeld in the small claims action. The commission found that Widdison's claim that Northpark "is a client of the Klay Law Firm" was without any factual basis. The commission found that the source of Widdison's information was unknown, and that in any event he did nothing to ascertain the facts supporting the allegations. While Widdison testified that he had a conversation with Klay Law Firm attorney Brad De Jong about the alleged conflict, the commission found the testimony so vague and unsubstantiated that it concluded the conversation never took place. The commission concluded that in Widdison's baseless charge of a conflict, the Board proved by a convincing preponderance of the evidence that Widdison violated rule 32:3.1.

Additionally, the commission made adverse findings and conclusions against Widdison in connection with his repeated claim that Judge Whittenburg had stated that it would take her some time to get out a ruling in the modification action because she had been suffering from brain cancer. At the hearing, the commission found that Judge Whittenburg testified convincingly that she did not make the statement and that her cancer was resolved years before the time Widdison claims she made the statement. While Widdison's wife corroborated Widdison's testimony, the commission found her testimony not believable and rehearsed. Even after being presented with the truth, Widdison repeated his claim in multiple court filings. As to the later statements, the commission had no doubt that the statements were false. As a result, the commission determined that the Board proved by a convincing preponderance of the evidence that Widdison's conduct violated rule 32:3.3(a)(1). The commission also found a violation of rule 32:3.3(a)(1) based on Widdison's assertion that Chief Judge Hoffmeyer misspoke when he stated that Judge Whittenburg returned to the bench in late 2013.

Finally, the commission made adverse findings and conclusions against Widdison in connection with his sending potential witnesses Ploeger and Lammers a letter purportedly addressed to Judge Whittenburg suggesting that if witnesses appeared at the hearing, negative information would come out on cross-examination. The commission found that the letter was never sent to Judge Whittenburg and that Widdison had no explanation for it. According to the commission, Widdison was clearly trying to mislead and intimidate witnesses for the opposing party the week before trial. As a result, the commission found that the Board proved by a convincing preponderance of the evidence that Widdison violated rule 32:8.4(c).

3. Trust fund violations. The commission was not impressed with the Board's evidence regarding the trust fund rule violations. The commission found that Widdison had been sloppy in his...