Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. Janssen

• Decision Date: 14 October 2022
• Docket Number: 22-0965
• Citation: 981 N.W.2d 1
• Parties: IOWA SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD, Complainant, v. Jeffrey Michael JANSSEN, Respondent.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

981 N.W.2d 1

IOWA SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD, Complainant,

v.Jeffrey Michael JANSSEN, Respondent.

No. 22-0965

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Submitted September 14, 2022

Filed October 14, 2022

Tara van Brederode and Allison Anne Schmidt, Des Moines, for complainant.

Jeffrey Michael Janssen, Des Moines, pro se.

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

CHRISTENSEN, Chief Justice.

This attorney disciplinary matter is a lesson in what happens when an attorney abuses the legal system in an effort to resolve his clients’ cases. He made misrepresentations to the court and filed meritless motions to unreasonably delay various hearings. Likewise, he neglected to keep his clients informed and repeatedly disparaged opposing counsel with unsubstantiated claims. In the midst of all this, and before the Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board (Board) filed its complaint in this matter, his license was administratively suspended for failure to file annual reports regarding continuing legal education and client security funds.

Just as he did not show up for trial in one of the matters at issue, the attorney did not participate in these disciplinary proceedings. His decision not to participate left the grievance commission with little choice but to deem the allegations admitted, and the commission recommended an eighteen-month suspension of the attorney's license. On our de novo review, we find the same violations of our ethics rules and impose a twelve-month suspension.

I. Factual and Procedural Background.

Jeffrey Janssen obtained his Iowa law license in 2016 and maintained a private law practice in Des Moines alongside another attorney. This case arises from Janssen's representation of one client in a child support matter and another client in a child custody matter. Neither party contests the commission's factual findings, and we agree with those factual findings below upon our de novo review of the record.

A. Child Support Matter (Count I). Victor Rodriguez hired Janssen around February 24, 2017, to represent him in an administrative child support proceeding in Union County for a child that Rodriguez fathered with Ashley Page. The State represented the Iowa Child Support Recovery Unit to collect child support from Rodriguez. Initially, Page did not have legal representation but soon lawyered up after receiving the following letter from Janssen threatening to seek full custody of her son on his client's behalf if she did not consent to his client's desire to terminate his parental rights over that same child:

I represent Victor Rodriguez in an action against you, as an interested party, to terminate parental rights of W.M.P., a minor child. I hope that you are in agreement to this process. If so, things will go a lot smoother if I can get your cooperation in this matter. If not, Victor will be seeking full custody of your son, W.M.P.

Page retained attorney David Jungmann. The parties participated in a hearing on March 31 that resulted in a district court order establishing Rodriguez's support at $450 per month beginning April 1. The district court reserved the remaining issue of retroactive support for a final hearing on April 21.

The second hearing could not proceed as scheduled because Janssen informed the court at the outset that he would be filing a motion to disqualify Jungmann. His subsequent motion alleged Jungmann should be disqualified because he previously represented Jacqueline Rodriguez—Victor Rodriguez's ex-wife—in the couple's 2008 dissolution proceedings. Janssen's motion also made various unsubstantiated claims that Jungmann had a "personal vendetta" against and "a physical altercation" with Victor Rodriguez. Additionally, Janssen accused Jungmann of "coaching witnesses who were under the influence to testify against [Victor] Rodriguez on the stand." The motion attached Jungmann's appearance as Jacqueline's attorney and Jacqueline's answer in the 2008 dissolution proceedings, but there was no support for Janssen's other allegations in the motion.

Before the hearing on the motion to disqualify could occur, Janssen also filed a motion to quash a subpoena on May 9 that Jungmann had served on Rodriguez's employer in search of wage information from 2014 to the present related to the issue of retroactive child support. In the motion to quash, Janssen characterized Jungmann's subpoena as "another attempt by Attorney Jungmann to take out his personal vendetta against [Rodriguez]" and argued the wage information was "beyond the scope of the issues left to be resolved in this matter." The district court conducted a hearing on May 19, which resulted in the denial of the motion to disqualify as well as the motion to quash the subpoena for Rodriguez's income and employment records. The district court then rescheduled the retroactive support hearing for July 24.

In the meantime, Janssen's colleague, Dallas Janssen (Dallas), filed a notice with the district court that months earlier he filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy on Rodriguez's behalf. The district court rescheduled the hearing yet again so Page could seek relief in the bankruptcy court for the child support that Rodriguez owed. The retroactive support hearing eventually occurred on January 30, 2018—months after it was initially set for hearing—/and the district court issued a ruling ordering Rodriguez to pay retroactive support on February 28 in the amount of $3,280.68.

Additionally, the district court sanctioned Janssen personally under Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.413(1), reasoning:

[T]he court is ... concerned with the motions to disqualify counsel and to quash the subpoena. They were neither warranted in fact nor law and the court questions whether they were filed in good faith. The motions were filed, and signed, by Victor's counsel.

The motion to disqualify included the allegation that: "It is clear that Attorney Jungmann and Rodriguez have a past together and that Attorney Jungmann has a personal vendetta against Rodriguez." The allegation is unfounded and the motion should not have been filed. The motion to quash was filed raising issues which Rodriguez did not have standing to address and sought to prevent access to Victor's wage information. This is a case about how much child support Victor should pay; that motion should not have been filed.

The court had the opportunity to view counsel in chambers and in the hearing. It appeared to the court that Mr. Janssen desired to try Mr. Jungmann as much as Mr. Janssen sought to present argument and evidence for Victor. The motions to disqualify and quash delayed the proceedings and wrongly increased Ashley's attorney's fees.

The court ordered Janssen to pay Page $1,000 "as a sanction which represents a portion of her unnecessarily incurred attorney's fees" and "ought to quell bogus motions." Janssen took more than a year to pay the sanction and accrued interest.

B. Child Custody Matter (Count II). In September 2017, Chloe Lockhart hired Janssen to represent her in a child custody dispute between Lockhart and Daniel Harden, Jr. in Polk County. Shortly thereafter, Lockhart relocated to Indiana, where she was stationed as a sergeant in the U.S. Army Reserves on active duty. On October 29, the district court granted Lockhart temporary primary physical care of the parties’ child. The district court set the custody trial for June 27, 2018. Prior to the trial, the parties’ attorneys discussed the possibility of continuing the trial but an agreement was never reached.

Janssen went on vacation from approximately June 16 to June 25. Before he left, he failed to comply with the trial scheduling order, which required filing a witness and exhibit list. Furthermore, he did not file a motion to continue the trial, which was set to commence only two days after his return from vacation.

On the eve of trial, Harden's attorney filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude Lockhart from presenting witness testimony or offering exhibits because she failed to file witness and exhibit lists. At 4:13 p.m. that day, the case coordinator emailed the parties to inform them that the district court would hear their case "in Courtroom 310 tomorrow." In what appears to be a response to the motion in limine and the case coordinator's communication, Janssen replied at 4:24 p.m. to inform them that he "just filed a Motion to Stay pursuant to 50 U.S.C. App. § 522 [of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act]" and attached the motion to the email. Janssen's motion declared that his client's "ability to defend is materially affected by her current active military duties," and he attached two letters in support of this claim: one from Lockhart and one purportedly from her commanding officer.

Lockhart's letter explained that her Army position "has kept me in Indiana for training and to serve and has made it so I have not been able to properly prepare for trial. I requested leave in order to prepare for trial but was unable to do so." The letter purportedly from her commanding officer stated that Lockhart's "ACTIVE DUTY status has kept her in Indiana and has made it so she has not been able to properly prepare for trial. Leave was not authorized and at this time, is not available, for her to prepare for trial." The commanding officer's electronic signature on the letter was admittedly typed by Janssen but did not include any indication that he was signing it at the commanding officer's direction.

Janssen emailed Lockhart after filing the documents, instructing her that he "would still like the signed copy [of the letter]" from her commanding officer "when you receive it." He also told her he would "be at the Courthouse tomorrow ... in room 310. Please do not be there but be available in case you need to come quickly." Lockhart inquired, "[W]hat time will you be there so I could be ready if I need to come there," but Janssen did not respond. The district court judge emailed the parties at 5:10 p.m., writing in relevant...