A Veterinarian-Lawyer Pursues The White Whale Of Justice

The Iowa Supreme Court ordered a minimum of a six-month suspension with conditions for a pattern of frivolous litigation

In 2013, we publicly reprimanded Iowa lawyer Curt N. Daniels for frivolous filings in protracted litigation against a personal adversary. Iowa Sup. Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Daniels, 838 N.W.2d 672, 673–74 (Iowa 2013). Nevertheless, Daniels, acting as his own attorney against the same adversary, continued to pursue his personal vendetta with numerous additional frivolous court filings resulting in $15,472 in court-ordered sanctions, injunctions against new filings, and more disciplinary charges against him. A panel of the Iowa Supreme Court Grievance Commission conducted an evidentiary hearing and in thorough written findings determined that Daniels had repeatedly violated Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct 32:3.1 (prohibiting frivolous pleadings) and 32:8.4(d) (prohibiting conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). The commission and the Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board both recommend a six-month suspension along with other sanctions

On our de novo review, we find Daniels repeatedly violated both disciplinary rules. We suspend his license to practice for a minimum of six months and condition his reinstatement on payment of the $15,472 in court-ordered sanctions and compliance with the existing district court injunctions against further filing.

Dramatis personae

Daniels, now age 84, obtained his veterinarian’s license in 1965 and his law license in 1973. Daniels farmed and practiced veterinary medicine for decades and did not begin practicing law for clients until 2002, when he first accepted court-appointed criminal defense work. His civil litigation experience primarily involves representing himself and Indian Creek Corporation (ICC), a corporation he wholly owned. The protracted litigation underlying this disciplinary proceeding has its genesis in 1998, when ICC lost title to real estate in Jasper County for failing to pay property taxes. See WSH Properties, L.L.C. v. Daniels, 761 N.W.2d 45, 47 (Iowa 2008). Daniels’s nemesis, John Holtz, and his corporation, WSH Properties, purchased the property at a sheriff’s sale. Id. After the sale, Daniels removed equipment Holtz claims was part of the tax sale, “including pens, gates, crates, waterers, and feeders.” Id. WSH brought a replevin action against ICC and Daniels. Id. WSH prevailed at trial, but the district court found the jury’s award was excessive and ordered a new trial or remittitur. Id. at 47–48. Daniels appealed, and the court of appeals held a new trial was required. Id. at 48. On further review, we affirmed the judgment in favor of WSH conditioned on the filing of the remittitur. Id. at 53

Daniels did not relent…

The court recounts at length the ensuing “tortured history” of proceedings leading to the present charges

At the commission’s two-day evidentiary hearing, Daniels continued to argue the merits of his positions in the underlying litigation. Daniels equated the disciplinary proceeding with his ongoing litigation against Holtz. Indeed, Daniels testified about his longstanding “quest for justice, which continues today in this grievance complaint.”

During the commission hearing, a member of the panel asked whether Daniels would commit to desist from further filings against Holtz given the multiple court orders for him to do just that. Daniels refused, and he instead indicated he would “struggle for some distant island way off in the distance called Justice.” He argued that the courts are enabling Holtz to defraud him while we use the Board’s attorneys as our “attack dogs.” Daniels was undeterred by our prior public reprimand for pursuing “claims not supported by the law or by a good-faith argument for changing or extending the law.” Daniels, 838 N.W.2d at 679 (quoting Iowa R. of Prof’l Conduct 32:3.1).

On sanction, the court noted

we have already disciplined Daniels for essentially the same misconduct. Prior discipline is “an aggravating factor because an attorney did not learn from his or her prior misconduct.”

But

The Board and commission also recommend that Daniels be required to retain an attorney to represent him in any further litigation against Holtz or his entities. We decline to impose that requirement. But we require Daniels to obey the existing injunctions against additional filings against those parties.

(Mike Frisch)