In the Matter of Honorable Mary E. Howes, District Court Judge of the Seventh Judicial District

Summary

The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed an application by the Iowa Commission on Judicial Qualifications concerning Judge Mary E. Howes's conduct in presiding over a temporary-injunction matter involving an attorney who represented the judge in a personal dispute. The court found violations of the Iowa Code of Judicial Conduct, including failure to disqualify herself and acceptance of free legal services, but imposed a public admonishment rather than the public reprimand recommended by the Commission.

Holdings

1. A judge who recently received personal legal representation from an attorney appearing before the judge in an unrelated matter must either disqualify herself or disclose all relevant facts and obtain a waiver under rule 51:2.11(C) when the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
2. The rule of necessity does not excuse a judge's disqualification obligation merely because the matter may require immediate action; the judge must establish that she was the only judge available and must make reasonable efforts to transfer the matter to another judge as soon as practicable.
3. A judge does not violate rule 51:3.13 merely by accepting free legal services from an attorney who is representing the judge, but the judge has a continuing obligation to disqualify herself or disclose the acceptance of those services and obtain a waiver before deciding a matter in which that attorney appears.
4. By deciding a matter despite a disqualifying relationship and by failing to disclose her acceptance of free legal services and obtain a waiver, Judge Howes violated rules 51:1.1 and 51:1.2 and canon 1.
5. The Commission failed to prove by a convincing preponderance that Judge Howes intentionally violated the candor and honesty requirements of rule 51:2.16(A) or related provisions by misstating the timing or nature of her communications with Pauly.
6. A public admonishment, rather than a public reprimand, suspension, or removal, was an appropriate sanction for the proven violations.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Judge Howes violated Iowa Code of Judicial Conduct rule 51:2.11(A) and canon 2 by deciding an ex parte temporary-injunction application sought by an attorney who had recently represented her personally without disqualifying herself or disclosing the relationship and obtaining a waiver.
2. Whether the rule of necessity excused Judge Howes's failure to disqualify herself because the temporary-injunction application required immediate action and she was allegedly the only available judge.
3. Whether Judge Howes violated rule 51:3.13(A) and canon 3 by accepting free legal services from attorneys and then failing to disqualify herself or make the disclosures required when one of those attorneys appeared before her.
4. Whether Judge Howes violated rules 51:1.1, 51:1.2, and 51:2.16(A), and canons 1 and 2, by being insufficiently candid or honest with the Commission.
5. What sanction was appropriate for the proven judicial-conduct violations.

Disposition

other