Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. Newport
| Decision Date | 19 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 20-1004,20-1004 |
| Citation | 955 N.W.2d 176 |
| Parties | IOWA SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD, Appellee, v. Stephen Warren NEWPORT, Appellant. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Tara van Brederode and Crystal W. Rink, Des Moines, for appellee.
John O. Moeller, Davenport, for appellant.
Mansfield, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which all participating justices joined. Christensen, C.J., and McDermott, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
This attorney disciplinary case requires us to perform a de novo review of critical facts that divided the grievance commission three-to-two. An attorney was charged with violating Iowa Rule of Professional Conduct 32:8.4(g) for sexually harassing two clients. He was also charged with committing indecent exposure and sexual assault against one of those clients in violation of rule 32:8.4(b). A criminal trial occurred, in which a jury acquitted the attorney of both of those offenses; nonetheless, the grievance commission found three-to-two that the attorney had committed both crimes. All five of the commission members found the attorney had engaged in sexual harassment.
After a careful review of the evidence, we find the sexual harassment proved but the criminal conduct not proved by a convincing preponderance of the evidence. In other words, as to the violations, we agree with the two commission members in dissent rather than the three in the majority. For the sanction, we suspend the attorney's license indefinitely with no possibility of reinstatement for one year based upon the acts of sexual harassment.
The following factual discussion contains considerable detail. We believe it is necessary to explain why we reach our stated conclusions.
Stephen Newport is 69 years old. He has been practicing in the Quad Cities since 1978. At the times relevant to the case, he maintained a law office in Bettendorf.
A. Jane Doe #1. Jane Doe #1 has training as a certified nurse's aide and worked in that field for about ten years. Her first encounter with Newport came when he was appointed to represent her in a child-in-need-of-assistance matter from 2003 to 2005. Later, from 2013 to 2014, Newport handled a child custody matter for her, and she paid him $500. In 2015, Doe #1 hired Newport on a contingent fee basis to represent her in a personal injury case against a self-storage company. Doe #1 maintained she had suffered injuries as a result of a door on a storage unit coming down and hitting her neck and upper shoulder.
The case was scheduled to go to trial on January 28, 2018. On January 3, the defense finished deposing Doe #1's attending physician and showed him records indicating that Doe #1 had been involved in a car accident in 2011 and had been undergoing regular chiropractic treatment for neck and shoulder pain. The physician testified that Doe #1 had not previously disclosed this information, and in light of it, he was no longer able to say that Doe #1's current complaints of pain were attributable to the self-storage accident. In Newport's view, this weakened the case significantly and made settlement a priority.
In the afternoon on the 18th, Doe #1 had a series of calls with Newport. According to Doe #1, she made plans to meet with Newport the next day. Doe #1 recalls that on the morning of the 19th, she went to his office in Bettendorf in the morning after dropping off her children at school. She discussed with Newport whether to settle the case or take it to trial. Doe #1 called her mother in Arizona, who joined the discussion as a third participant on speakerphone. During this meeting, Newport began exchanging settlement figures with defense counsel.
Doe #1 recalls that at some point Newport got up to use the restroom. When he returned, he closed the door to the office and sat down in the chair next to Doe #1. Newport showed Doe #1 family pictures of grandchildren that were on his cellphone and then talked about his "pancreatic cancer ."1 He said that "the doctor put this weird device in me, and it causes me to have erection issues." He said that "his abdomen was really bizarre." He asked Doe #1 if she wanted to see it, got up and pulled up his shirt, and showed Doe #1 a device that was protruding in the area of his abdomen.
In Doe #1's account, she turned back to her phone for a moment, and when she looked again, Newport had undone his pants and dropped his pants and underwear. Newport stated he has a hard time getting an erection. Doe #1 saw him massaging his penis. Newport told Doe #1 she needed to feel "this tubing that goes from the scrotum," which is "really weird." She declined the offer, but Newport then grabbed her hand and placed it on his scrotum area and guided her so she could feel the tubing. Newport told Doe #1 that the device was "like a pump that was to help him get an erection." Doe #1 grabbed her hand away. She later testified, "I'm in shock, I'm in fear, and I feel invaded." She told Newport he needed to pull his pants up or someone was going to come in and catch him. Newport laughed and said, "It's just us, and the door's locked."
According to Doe #1, Newport (who has gray hair on his head) "had mentioned about how his pubic hairs were red, and that's where his granddaughter had gotten her red hair from." Newport then said, "Look," and tried to show her the red pubic hair he had previously told her about. Doe #1 turned away.
At this point, according to Doe #1, Newport straightened his clothing and told Doe #1 that opposing counsel would probably not be reaching out again soon "because it's around lunchtime." Doe #1 left Newport's office and drove to a close friend's house to babysit her infant. In her hearing testimony, Doe #1 identified a series of phone calls on her phone records as coming from Newport that afternoon and concerning the subject of settlement. A settlement was reached in the afternoon for $25,000, with the understanding that after liens and attorneys fees, Doe #1 would receive $7500. Newport later informed her that she would actually receive $8000 because the defendant agreed to cover a deposition cost.2 Doe #1 also recalls that over the phone that afternoon Newport said, "Deal's done, drop your clothes off, and you can give me a blow job."
Several days later, after her mother arrived in town, Doe #1 went to the Bettendorf police with her mother and reported Newport's conduct. Doe #1 admitted she was unhappy with the terms of the settlement. Given the amount of money she was receiving, she did not believe Newport should get any fee for his work on the case. In her police report, she informed the officer that when Newport lifted the shirt, she could see the device coming out of his abdomen. She informed the officer that Newport had grabbed her left hand and put it on his scrotum.3
With a detective listening in, Doe #1 made a recorded phone call to Newport in February. The call began with issues relating to finalizing the settlement. Newport mentioned that Doe #1 needed to come in and sign a Medicare release to finalize the settlement. After several minutes, Doe #1 raised the subject of "sexual favors":
Doe #1 then moved to the subject of Newport allegedly having exposed himself:
After discussing scheduling some more, Doe #1 turned to Newport's allegedly having forced her to touch his genitals:
More scheduling discussion ensued. After several more minutes, the call ended.
Under the guidance of the same detective, Doe #1 also secretly recorded several personal meetings with Newport in his office. Newport made no incriminating admissions in those meetings.
A search warrant was served, and Newport's genital area was photographed. The photographs confirmed that he had red pubic hair. However, it was clear that Newport had no device protruding out of his abdomen.
At the hearing, Doe #1's close friend testified as a witness for Newport. Doe #1's phone showed two phone calls and a large number of texts to her on January 19, 2018. The friend said that Doe #1 arrived midmorning to babysit on the 19th. Doe #1 made no complaints to her close friend about sexual assault or sexually offensive conduct.
Newport himself testified at the hearing. He explained that he suffers from Parkinson's disease
. Additionally, his wife testified that he suffers from myasthenia gravis, an autoimmune disorder, and that he is going through a cognitive decline.
Newport claimed not to have met with Doe #1 at all on January...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. Willey
..."[w]e seek to ‘achieve consistency with prior cases when determining the proper sanction.’ " Iowa Sup. Ct. Att'y Disciplinary Bd. v. Newport , 955 N.W.2d 176, 184 (Iowa 2021) (alteration in original) (quoting Iowa Sup. Ct. Att'y Disciplinary Bd. v. Crotty , 891 N.W.2d 455, 466 (Iowa 2017) )......
-
Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. Johnson
...the sanction warranted in a particular case must be based on the circumstances of that case." Iowa Sup. Ct. Att'y Disciplinary Bd. v. Newport , 955 N.W.2d 176, 184 (Iowa 2021) (quoting Iowa Sup. Ct. Att'y Disciplinary Bd. v. Hier , 937 N.W.2d 309, 317 (Iowa 2020) ). Despite that, "we try to......
-
Avoiding the Pitfalls: Ethical Interviewing for Lawyers and Law Firms
...Disciplinary Bd. v. Stansberry, 922 N.W2d 591, 601 (Iowa 2019) (suspension); Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. Newport, 955 N.W2d 176 (Iowa 2021)(suspension); In re Garofalo, 229 N.J. 245, 160 A.3d 1291, 1292 (Mem) (N.J. 2017) (suspension); In re Kennedy, 946 N.W.2d 568 (Minn.......