2/15/2019 8:10:13 AM

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA

No. 18–1229

Filed February 15, 2019

IOWA SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD,

Complainant,

vs.

MATTHEW L. NOEL,

Respondent.

On review of the report of the Iowa Supreme Court Grievance 

Commission.

The grievance commission recommends we suspend an attorney’s 

license for an indefinite period of at least one year based on the attorney’s

conduct of charging and collecting excessive fees, conduct reflecting 

adversely on his fitness to practice law, and conduct involving deceit.

LICENSE SUSPENDED.

Tara van Brederode and Wendell J. Harms, Des Moines, for 

complainant.

Max E. Kirk, Waterloo, and Dan McClean of McClean & Heavens Law 

Office, Dyersville, for respondent.
2

CHRISTENSEN, Justice.

An audit by the Iowa State Public Defender (SPD) revealed an Iowa 

attorney billed the state for services he did not perform and made excessive 

mileage claims. The attorney pled guilty to two counts of fourth-degree 

theft for billing for family team meetings he did not attend. The Iowa 

Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board (Board) subsequently brought 

a complaint against the attorney alleging he violated numerous Iowa Rules 

of Professional Conduct while performing legal services for the SPD. The

Iowa Supreme Court Grievance Commission (commission) found various 

violations of our ethical rules and recommended suspending the attorney’s 

license to practice law in Iowa indefinitely for a period of at least one year 

from the date of our holding in this matter.

The attorney challenges the commission’s recommended sanction 

and requests a ninety-day suspension instead. Further, he argues the 

commission should not have relied on the doctrine of issue preclusion in

determining he committed a criminal act based on his criminal 

convictions, nor should it have admitted the minutes of testimony from his 

criminal theft case as evidence. The attorney also maintains the 

commission made incorrect factual findings and erroneously concluded he 

violated certain ethical rules. After our de novo review of the record, we 

agree with the recommendation of the commission and suspend the 

attorney’s license to practice law in the State of Iowa indefinitely for a 

period of at least one year.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

Matthew Noel is an attorney admitted to the Iowa bar in 2008. In 

November 2008, Noel and the SPD entered into a contract for Noel to 

provide legal services to indigent adults and juveniles in five judicial 

districts and in appellate matters. At the time of the alleged conduct, Noel 
3

maintained a law office in Dubuque County. He was appointed as a 

magistrate in Dubuque County in August 2013. Noel’s contract with the 

SPD was renewed in 2010, and the renewed contract expired on January 

1, 2014. The terms and conditions of the contract provided that Noel “shall 

claim fees only for actual time and expenses reasonably necessary to 

properly represent the client.” Pursuant to the contract, Noel was required 

to submit a claim form to the SPD to receive payment for his services. The 

contract required him to submit the following or similar language:

I, the undersigned attorney, certify that I have completed my 

services under the appointment; that I have not received nor 

have I entered into any agreement to receive compensation for 

these services, direct or indirect, from any source other than 

the State Public Defender; and that the above information 

summarizes the services and expenses for which I am entitled 

to payment. I further state that an itemized statement of 

services and expenses is attached hereto and a copy has been 

provided to my client.

In a letter dated December 23, 2013, Samuel Langholz of the SPD 

informed Noel the SPD had concerns about Noel’s billing practices related 

to his claims for mileage expenses. Langholz explained Noel had been 

reimbursed nearly $15,000 for traveling more than 40,000 miles in each 

of the past two fiscal years, “[a]nd in each of these years, [Noel] claimed 

and [was] paid more mileage than any other indigent defense contract 

attorney in the state.” Due to billing concerns, Langholz stated the SPD 

was “not comfortable renewing [Noel’s] contract for a full three-year term” 

and would only agree to a renewal of its contract with Noel for one month 

“on the condition that several more distant counties [were] removed from 

[the] contract.”

Noel responded to Langholz and the SPD in a letter dated January 

14, 2014, admitting he billed the SPD full trip mileage for each client, even 

when he made the trip on behalf of multiple clients. Noel claimed he did 
4

not learn he was incorrectly billing the mileage until he attended a SPD 

conference in June 2013. Noel gave two reasons for his incorrect billing. 

First, he told Langholz that he was an electrician prior to becoming a 

lawyer and the industry standard for electricians was “to charge all 

customers mileage for a trip to a single location on one day.” Second, he 

was continuing the billing practice he was taught by his previous law firm’s 

office manager and other attorneys. In a letter dated January 29, Langholz 

told Noel he had considered Noel’s January 14 response and determined 

the SPD would not continue to contract with Noel to provide indigent 

defense services. Langholz explained Noel’s billing for mileage had 

resulted in more than $11,000 of potential overpayments and Noel never 

contacted the SPD to remedy his billing issues after he claimed he learned 

he had been incorrectly billing his mileage.

In September 2014, the state auditor (auditor) issued her report on 

a special investigation of the SPD’s office that spanned from July 2009 

through August 2013. The auditor’s report found the SPD overpaid Noel 

at least $5070 for legal services, including $2364 for family team meetings 

in juvenile cases Noel did not attend. The auditor’s report also found the 

SPD overpaid Noel at least $12,333.45 in mileage expenses, which 

represented payment for more than 35,328 miles at thirty-five cents per 

mile. The state subsequently filed a trial information against Noel, 

charging him with second-degree theft, a class “D” felony, in violation of 

Iowa Code sections 714.1(3), 714.2(2), and 714.3 (2013). The state later 

amended the trial information to charge Noel instead with two counts of 

fourth-degree theft, serious misdemeanors, in violation of Iowa Code 

sections 714.1(3), 714.2(4), and 714.3. The charges alleged Noel obtained 

“a transfer of possession, control, or ownership of the property of another 

by deception, where the amount of money involved exceeds $200, by billing 
5

the State Public Defender’s Office for work not actually performed” from 

July 2009 through August 2013.

Noel filed a written guilty plea to the two counts of fourth-degree 

theft on June 22, 2017. In this plea, Noel proclaimed, 

In order to establish a factual basis I ask the court to accept 

as true the minutes of testimony, the date[] of the offense is 

July 2009 through August 2013 and I admit that I did the 

following: The Defendant admits that there is a factual basis 

for both Count I and Count II related to billings for Family 

Team Meetings. Defendant does not contest paying 

restitution for allegations of over billing mil[e]age.

The district court accepted Noel’s guilty plea, and he was sentenced to a 

mandatory minimum fine of $315 on each count; a $125 law enforcement 

initiative surcharge on each count; the applicable surcharges and court 

costs on each count; and restitution in the amount of $14,697.45—

$12,333.45 for Noel’s mileage claims and $2364 for his fee claims for 

family team meetings he did not attend. Noel also received a thirty-day 

fully suspended jail sentence on count I and unsupervised probation to be 

served concurrently with a one-year fully suspended jail sentence and 

unsupervised probation on count II. Noel did not appeal this judgment.

On October 30, the Board filed a complaint against Noel, alleging 

numerous violations of the Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct. On 

January 26, 2018, the Board filed a motion for leave to substitute an 

amended complaint, which the commission approved, and the amended 

complaint was filed on March 5, separating the matter into two counts. 

Count I alleged Noel violated Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct 32:1.5(a) 

(unreasonable fees or expenses), 32:8.4(b) (criminal act that reflects 

adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer 

in other respects”), and 32:8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 

deceit, or misrepresentation”) in his billings for family team meetings he 
6

did not attend. Count II alleged Noel violated the same three rules in his 

billings to the SPD for mileage claims. On March 5, the Board filed a notice 

of issue preclusion pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 36.17(4), stating it 

intended to invoke issue preclusion regarding all matters resolved in Noel’s 

criminal proceedings for his fourth-degree theft convictions.

The Board held a hearing to present evidence on March 27 and

March 28. The Board presented nineteen exhibits at the hearing. Noel 

objected to exhibit 2, which contained the confidential minutes of 

testimony in Noel’s criminal theft case, and exhibit 5, which contained 

additional minutes of testimony in Noel’s criminal theft case. The 

commission admitted exhibits 2 and 5 after listening to arguments on the 

objections. Additionally, Noel presented twenty-two exhibits of his own. 

Pursuant to rule 36.17(2), Noel also submitted affidavits from an Iowa

district court judge and an Iowa district associate judge in lieu of character 

testimony.

On July 18, the commission issued its findings and 

recommendation. In its factual findings, the commission declared, 

34. The issue of Noel’s conduct raised in Count I of the 

Board’s Complaint as to the billings for Family Team Meetings 

is identical to the issue raised in his criminal case. The 

mileage reimbursement was not at issue in the criminal 

proceeding, although the Court ordered restitution for the 

mileage reimbursement as part of the criminal proceeding. . . .

35. The issue of Noel’s conduct as to his billings for 

Family Team Meetings was material and relevant to the 

disposition of the criminal case. . . .

36. The determination of the issue of Noel’s conduct in 

the criminal case as to his billings for Family Team Meetings 

was necessary and essential to the resulting judgment. Noel 

accepted responsibility for his actions and admitted he was 

overpaid for billing Family Team Meetings he did not 

attend. . . .
7

37. In the criminal case, Noel was afforded a full and 

fair opportunity to litigate the issue of his conduct as to his 

billings for Family Team Meetings. . . .

38. There is a rational connection between the 

criminality of Noel’s conduct as to his billings for Family Team 

Meetings and his fitness to practice law. . . .

(Emphasis added.) The commission found Noel violated rule 32:1.5(a) by 

claiming duplicate mileage and fees for family team meetings he did not 

attend, rule 32:8.4(b) for billing the SPD for family team meetings he did 

not attend and his criminal convictions for this billing, and rule 32:8.4(c) 

for intentionally making dishonest statements about his mileage and 

billing practices. The commission recommended we suspend Noel’s 

license for an indefinite period with no possibility of reinstatement for at 

least one year from the date of our decision in this matter. 

Upon our review, Noel requests a ninety-day suspension and 

maintains the commission’s recommended one-year suspension is 

inconsistent with the sanctions imposed in similar cases. Additionally, 

Noel contends the commission should not have relied on the doctrine of 

issue preclusion to determine he committed a criminal act based on his 

guilty plea to two counts of fourth-degree theft. He also argues the 

commission should not have admitted the minutes of testimony from his 

criminal theft case as evidence in his disciplinary hearing. Further, Noel 

challenges certain factual findings and the commission’s conclusion that 

he violated certain Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct.

II. Standard of Review.

Our court reviews attorney disciplinary proceedings de novo. Iowa 

Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Nine, 920 N.W.2d 825, 827 (Iowa 

2018). The Board must prove the alleged attorney misconduct by a 

convincing preponderance of the evidence, which “is more demanding than 

proof by [a] preponderance of the evidence, but less demanding than proof 
8

beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 827–28 (alteration in original) (quoting 

Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Johnson, 884 N.W.2d 772, 777 

(Iowa 2016)). Though we are not bound by the commission’s factual 

findings and recommendations, we respectfully consider them. Id. at 827. 

Ultimately, we have the discretion to “impose a greater or lesser sanction 

than what the commission has recommended upon proof of an ethical 

violation.” Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Mathahs, 918 N.W.2d

487, 489 (Iowa 2018).

III. Analysis.

A. Issue Preclusion. Noel contends the commission erred in 

relying upon the doctrine of issue preclusion in count I regarding Noel’s 

alleged violation of Iowa Rule of Professional Conduct 32:1.5(a) in his 

billings for family team meetings he did not attend. Noel claims he pled 

guilty to the fourth-degree theft charges in order to avoid facing “a felony 

count with a factual basis that his inadequate records could not rebut.” 

However, he maintains his convictions of fourth-degree theft in violation 

of Iowa Code section 714.1(3) do not constitute proof of his criminal intent, 

and “at best the actions in inaccurate billing of family team meetings 

constitute sloppiness and negligence and is not evidence of a crime of 

intent.” 

Iowa’s grievance commission rules of procedure allow either party in

an attorney disciplinary proceeding to invoke principles of issue preclusion 

if the following three conditions are met:

a. The issue has been resolved in a civil proceeding that 

resulted in a final judgment or in a criminal proceeding that 

resulted in a finding of guilt, even if the disciplinary board was 

not a party to the prior proceeding.

b. The burden of proof in the prior proceeding was 

greater than a preponderance of the evidence.
9

c. The party seeking preclusive effect has given written 

notice to the opposing party, not less than 10 days prior to the 

hearing, of the party’s intention to invoke issue preclusion.

Iowa Ct. R. 36.17(4); see also Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. 

Rhinehart, 827 N.W.2d 169, 177 (Iowa 2013). Additionally, we recognize 

the following additional requirements when the Board invokes issue 

preclusion offensively: 

(1) the issues . . . sought to be precluded in the . . . 

disciplinary [proceeding] are identical to the issues . . . in the 

prior . . . action;

(2) the issues . . . were raised and litigated in the prior 

. . . action;

(3) the issues . . . were material and relevant to the 

disposition of the prior . . . action; and

(4) the . . . determination of the . . . issues [in the prior 

action] [was] necessary and essential to the resulting 

judgment. . . .

Rhinehart, 827 N.W.2d at 178 (alterations in original) (quoting Iowa 

Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. D.J.I., 545 N.W.2d 866, 875 

(Iowa 1996)). Upon our review of the issue preclusion requirements, we 

hold the commission correctly applied the doctrine of issue preclusion.

All three conditions of rule 36.17(4) governing the application of 

issue preclusion are satisfied here. First, Noel pled guilty to two charges 

of fourth-degree theft, serious misdemeanors, in connection with his 

practice of billing the SPD for family team meetings in juvenile cases he 

did not attend. See Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Iversen, 723 

N.W.2d 806, 809 (Iowa 2006) (holding first condition of issue preclusion

met because the attorney pled guilty to the crimes at issue in his 

disciplinary case). In his guilty plea, Noel admitted “that there is a factual 

basis for both Count I and Count II related to billings for Family Team 

Meetings.” Second, the burden of proof for fourth-degree theft—beyond a 
10

reasonable doubt—is greater than a mere preponderance of the evidence. 

Third, the Board provided written notice of its intent to invoke issue 

preclusion more than twenty days prior to the hearing. 

Moreover, the Board satisfied all four requirements to invoke issue 

preclusion offensively. The issue of Noel’s conduct as to his billings for 

family team meetings in his disciplinary proceeding is identical to his 

criminal proceeding, which provided Noel with a full and fair opportunity 

to litigate the issue in his criminal case. See Emp’rs Mut. Cas. Co. v. Van 

Haaften, 815 N.W.2d 17, 23–24 (Iowa 2012) (finding that in the context of 

an Alford plea, the factual basis determination meets the requirement that 

the issues have been litigated). This family team meeting billing issue was 

material and essential to the resulting judgment in Noel’s criminal case 

since it served as the factual basis of his guilty plea. We see no additional 

circumstances that would justify relitigating Noel’s practice of billing for 

family team meetings he did not attend. Noel acknowledged as much in 

his answer to the amended and substituted grievance complaint, where he 

admitted that no circumstances existed to relitigate this issue as a 

criminal proceeding. Consequently, we give preclusive effect to Noel’s 

convictions for fourth-degree theft regarding his billings for family team 

meetings he did not attend. Noel “is not entitled to another bite at the 

apple through relitigation of the same issue in this disciplinary 

proceeding.” Rhinehart, 827 N.W.2d at 179.

B. Evidentiary Issues. Noel argues the commission should not 

have admitted the minutes of testimony from Noel’s criminal case as 

evidence in his disciplinary proceeding. These minutes of testimony were 

contained in two exhibits, both of which Noel objected to at the hearing 

before the commission. In admitting the minutes of testimony into the 

record, the commission president referred to Iowa Rule of Evidence 
11

5.801(b)(2)(b), a rule number that does not exist in the Iowa Rules of 

Evidence. The Board contends this mistake is a scrivener’s error by the 

court reporter in trying to distinguish between the pronunciation of the 

letters “b” and “d,” and the rule actually referenced was Iowa Rule of 

Evidence 5.801(d)(2)(B). Noel claims the challenged exhibits do not come 

within any hearsay exception under the Iowa Rules of Evidence.

Rule 5.801(d)(2)(B) provides a statement is not hearsay if “[t]he 

statement is offered against an opposing party and . . . [i]s one the party 

manifested that it adopted or believed to be true.” Iowa R. Evid. 

5.801(d)(2)(B). The minutes of testimony in both of the challenged exhibits 

meet this definition. Noel manifested his belief that the statements offered 

against him in the minutes of testimony were true in his guilty plea, 

declaring, “I ask the court to accept as true the minutes of testimony . . . .” 

By signing the guilty plea, Noel acknowledged the “statements therein are 

true and correct.” Thus, contrary to Noel’s argument that “[n]othing in the 

minutes of testimony, Exhibit 2 or Exhibit 5, can be seen as a statement 

which [Noel] somehow adopted as his own for purposes of a criminal plea,” 

Noel’s explicit request for the court to accept the minutes is a clear 

statement of assent to the minutes of testimony. See State v. Menke, 227

N.W.2d 184, 188 (Iowa 1975) (“[I]t must be shown a person clearly and 

unambiguously assented to the statements of another before an adoptive 

admission comes into being.”). Further, Noel did not deny the accuracy of 

any portion of the minutes of testimony, nor is there evidence showing the 

facts contained in the minutes of testimony are invalid. See State v. Black, 

324 N.W.2d 313, 316 (Iowa 1982) (“The sentencing court should only

consider those facts contained in the minutes that are admitted to or 

otherwise established as true.”).
12

While Noel correctly points out the minutes contained in exhibit 2 

pertained to the felony charge that the state later dismissed against him, 

this charge was dismissed in exchange for Noel’s guilty plea to the two 

counts of fourth-degree theft. “A court may not consider an unproven or 

prosecuted offense when sentencing a defendant unless (1) the facts before 

the court show the accused committed the offense, or (2) the defendant 

admits it.” State v. Gonzalez, 582 N.W.2d 515, 516 (Iowa 1998). Noel 

admitted to his conduct in billing for family team meetings he did not 

attend and incorrectly billing mileage. The challenged minutes of 

testimony relate to this admitted conduct. Noel also admits in his brief 

that a factual basis existed for the felony count, stating, “Rather than face 

a felony count with a factual basis that his inadequate records could not 

rebut, [Noel] pled guilty to two serious misdemeanors and paid a fine which 

in total is less than $1,000.” 

Finally, we reject Noel’s claim that the admission of the minutes of 

testimony was erroneous due to discrepancies in the filing date of the 

minutes contained in exhibit 5. Noel argues his guilty plea was e-filed 

before the minutes of testimony contained in exhibit 5, so he could not 

have adopted these minutes. The state e-filed exhibit 5 on June 19, 2017, 

at 5:03 p.m. with the clerk of the district court while Noel e-filed his guilty 

plea to the fourth-degree theft charges on June 22, 2017, at 2:00 p.m. 

Though exhibit 5 does have a certificate of authenticity dated November 2, 

2017, the record is clear Noel only filed his guilty plea asking the court to 

accept the minutes of testimony as true after the state had filed the 

minutes of testimony contained in exhibit 5. Therefore, the commission 

properly admitted exhibit 2 and exhibit 5.
13

C. Ethical Violations.

1. Prohibition against unreasonable fees—rule 32:1.5(a). Noel 

contends he did not knowingly violate Iowa Rule of Professional 

Responsibility 32:1.5(a). Rule 32:1.5(a) states, “A lawyer shall not make 

an agreement for, charge, or collect an unreasonable fee or an 

unreasonable amount for expenses, or violate any restrictions imposed by 

law.” Iowa R. Prof’l Conduct 32:1.5(a). The rule provides a nonexclusive 

set of factors to determine whether a fee is reasonable, which includes

(1) the time and labor required, the novelty and 

difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to 

perform the legal service properly;

(2) the likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the 

acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other 

employment by the lawyer;

(3) the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar 

legal services;

(4) the amount involved and the results obtained;

(5) the time limitations imposed by the client or by the 

circumstances;

(6) the nature and length of the professional 

relationship with the client;

(7) the experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer 

or lawyers performing the services; and

(8) whether the fee is fixed or contingent.

Id. Additionally, the fees must be “reasonable under the circumstances.” 

Id. cmt. [1]. Nothing in the rule requires the attorney to “knowingly” violate 

the rule in order for a violation to occur.

Based on the circumstances in this case, we agree with the 

commission’s conclusion that Noel violated rule 32:1.5(a) by seeking fees 

for family team meetings he did not attend. The evidence in the auditor’s 

report found Noel claimed $2364 in fees for family team meetings in 
14

juvenile cases he did not attend. Noel did not dispute his practice of billing 

for family team meetings he did not attend, as he chose to plead guilty to 

two counts of fourth-degree theft based on this conduct. The secretary at 

Noel’s previous law firm planned to testify that “[s]he occasionally deleted 

Family Team meeting that [Noel] had entered onto his bills, because his 

calendar did not show that he attended [them].” When the SPD audit was 

released, Noel told the secretary, “I fucked up.”

The district court ordered Noel to pay restitution fees totaling $2364 

despite Noel’s claim in this matter that his fees were not excessive because 

he only pled guilty to the theft of $400.1 The evidence supports the Board’s 

assertion that Noel claimed more than $400 worth of fees for family team 

meetings he did not attend. Noel’s contract with the SPD informed him 

that he would “be paid for legal services performed . . . and [that he should]

claim fees only for actual time and expenses reasonably necessary to 

properly represent the client,” yet he billed for services he admittedly did 

not perform. A fee charged for services not provided is not reasonable, 

even if Noel charged for these services only due to sloppy billing practices 

as he claims. 

Additionally, we agree with the commission that Noel violated rule 

32:1.5(a) by making false mileage claims. The evidence demonstrates 

Noel’s mileage expense claims far exceed what he could reasonably claim. 

In his December 23, 2013 letter, Langholz wrote, 

You consistently billed multiple clients for the full mileage to 

the same location on the same day. And on some of these 

days you also billed mileage to other locations as well, often 

billing what appears to be full roundtrip travel to each location 

even though it would seem likely that you took a single trip 

 1Although Noel only pled guilty to excessive fees regarding the family team 

meetings, he agreed to pay all restitution. His guilty plea specifically stated, “Defendant 

does not contest paying restitution for allegations for over billing mileage.”
15

with stops in each location. For example, on January 5, 2012, 

you claimed mileage totaling 994 miles and were reimbursed 

a total of $347.90 on seven separate cases, apparently 

claiming five roundtrips from Dubuque to Clinton and two 

roundtrips from Maquoketa to Clinton. You billed more than 

five hundred miles (which would take more than eight hours 

to travel at 60 mph average speed) on nineteen days. You once 

billed the same client twice for mileage on the same day in two 

different claims. And on thirty days, you billed four or more 

roundtrips to the same county on the same day. In total, you 

claimed mileage expense for two or more round-trips to the 

same county on the same day on 145 separate days, resulting 

in more than $11,000 of potential overpayments.

The auditor’s report revealed the SPD overpaid Noel for at least $12,333.45 

in mileage expenses, which represented payment for more than 35,328 

miles at thirty-five cents per mile. Approximately twenty percent of Noel’s 

total payments from the SPD each year of his contract came from his 

mileage claims. 

Despite Noel’s claims that he was mistaken about how to properly 

bill for mileage due to his past billing practices as an electrician and the 

way his previous law firm incorrectly taught him to bill mileage, the 

minutes of testimony contradict his claim. In the minutes of testimony, 

the general manager for Noel’s former employer during his time as an 

electrician planned to testify “that their electricians do not get involved in 

billing mileage for work done.” He further planned to testify that “mileage 

would be divided up among the customers so that each paid their 

proportion of only the actual miles traveled” if an electrician drove to 

another city to do work for multiple customers, and that “he was not aware 

of any industry-wide standard that would allow more miles to be billed 

than were actually traveled.” Another electrician also planned to testify to 

the same information. Moreover, an attorney in Noel’s previous law firm 

planned to testify that Noel called him after the SPD terminated his 
16

contract due to billing problems and told the attorney, “I fucked up,” “I’m 

going to prison,” and “my children are not going to have a father.” 

Noel ultimately admitted to incorrectly billing for his mileage and 

claimed he did not learn he was incorrectly calculating it until June 2013. 

Nevertheless, Noel did not contact the SPD to alert them to the problem or 

attempt to remedy the overpayment until approximately six months later 

when Langholz notified him of the SPD’s concerns regarding his billing. 

While Noel had a reasonable claim to receive compensation for the mileage 

he incurred in his work-related travels, “he did not have a reasonable claim 

to receive compensation multiple times for the expenses incurred for the 

same trip.” Mathahs, 918 N.W.2d at 493. Based on the record, the Board 

proved by a convincing preponderance of the evidence that Noel violated 

rule 32:1.5(a) by claiming family team meeting fees and mileage he did not 

incur.

2. Conduct reflecting adversely on the attorney’s fitness to practice 

law—rule 32:8.4(b). Noel challenges the commission’s finding that his 

actions violated Iowa Rule of Professional Conduct 32:8.4(b). Rule 

32:8.4(b) provides, “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . 

commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, 

trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects[.]” Iowa R. Prof’l 

Conduct 32:8.4(b). “Illegal conduct can reflect adversely on fitness to 

practice law. A pattern of repeated offenses, even ones of minor 

significance when considered separately, can indicate indifference to legal 

obligation.” Id. cmt. [2]. Nevertheless, “[t]he mere commission of a 

criminal act does not necessarily reflect adversely on the fitness of an 

attorney to practice law.” Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. 

Templeton, 784 N.W.2d 761, 767 (Iowa 2010). “There must be some 

rational connection other than the criminality of the act between the 
17

conduct and the actor’s fitness to practice law.” Id. (quoting In re Conduct 

of White, 815 P.2d 1257, 1265 (Or. 1991) (en banc)). For example, we 

previously found an attorney violated rule 32:8.4(b) after he pled guilty to 

making a false statement to a financial institution on a mortgage 

application because his dishonest behavior reflected adversely on his 

fitness to practice law. Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Wheeler, 

824 N.W.2d 505, 510–11 (Iowa 2012). In doing so, we stressed an 

attorney’s conduct “that diminishes ‘public confidence in the legal 

profession’ ” is “conduct that reflects adversely on a lawyer’s fitness to 

practice law.” Id. at 510. 

Here, Noel engaged in illegal conduct through a pattern of repeatedly 

billing for services he did not provide during his time representing indigent 

clients on behalf of the SPD. This misconduct is directly connected to his 

fitness to practice law. By charging for services he did not provide, 

especially during his time as a magistrate, Noel diminished public 

confidence in the legal profession and disregarded his responsibility “to 

avoid billing errors in connection with SPD contract work.” Mathahs, 918 

N.W.2d at 495. Upon our de novo review of the record, we find Noel 

violated rule 32:8.4(b).

3. Conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 

misrepresentation—rule 32:8.4(c). Noel contends the commission erred in 

finding he violated Iowa Rule of Professional Conduct 32:8.4(c) because he 

lacked the requisite scienter. Rule 32:8.4(c) states, “It is professional 

misconduct for a lawyer to . . . engage in conduct involving dishonesty, 

fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation[.]” Iowa R. Prof’l Conduct 32:8.4(c). To 

find a violation of this rule, “we also must find ‘a level of scienter that is 

more than negligent behavior or incompetence.’ ” Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y

Disciplinary Bd. v. Suarez-Quilty, 912 N.W.2d 150, 158 (Iowa 2018) 
18

(quoting Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Barry, 908 N.W.2d 217, 

226 (Iowa 2018)). We must find “the attorney acted knowingly, 

intentionally, or with the aim to mislead.” Id. (quoting Iowa Supreme Ct. 

Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Guthrie, 901 N.W.2d 493, 498 (Iowa 2017)). The 

dispositive question “is whether the effect of the lawyer’s conduct is to 

mislead rather than to inform.” Id. (quoting Barry, 908 N.W.2d at 226). 

Noel maintains he never intended to mislead with his improper billing 

practices, as he was merely “negligent and haphazard in his billing 

practices.”

In Wheeler, we found the requisite scienter existed to demonstrate 

an attorney engaged in conduct that violated rule 32:8.4(c) based solely on 

the attorney’s decision to plead guilty to knowingly making a false 

statement to a financial institution. Wheeler, 824 N.W.2d at 511. 

Similarly, Noel exhibited the requisite scienter to demonstrate he violated 

rule 32:8.4(c) through his practice of billing for family team meetings he 

did not attend when he pled guilty to two counts of fourth-degree theft for 

these actions. Noel admitted “that on a handful of occasions he submitted 

bills to the [SPD] for family team meetings with dates or descriptions that 

he later realized were false.” However, he did not take action to remedy 

his errors, nor did he track his time adequately to provide the SPD with 

an appropriate record of the meetings he actually did attend. Therefore, 

we find Noel “acted knowingly, intentionally, or with the aim to mislead” 

through his billing practices regarding family team meetings, and the 

Board proved beyond a convincing preponderance of the evidence that Noel 

violated 32:8.4(c). Suarez-Quilty, 912 N.W.2d at 158 (quoting Guthrie, 901 

N.W.2d at 498).

Likewise, the record demonstrates Noel “acted knowingly, 

intentionally, or with the aim to mislead” in his claims for mileage he did 
19

not incur. Id. After Langholz contacted Noel in January 2014 about the 

SPD’s concerns surrounding Noel’s mileage claims, Noel informed 

Langholz he learned in June 2013 that he had been overbilling the SPD 

for mileage. Noel also attempted to excuse his actions by claiming he was 

simply following the electrician industry standard of billing. This claim 

was rebutted. Despite Noel’s knowledge of his incorrect claims for mileage, 

he never contacted the SPD to remedy this issue and waited until Langholz 

informed him of the investigation into his practices to inform the SPD 

about his problems billing mileage. This level of deceit rises above mere 

negligence or incompetence and speaks to Noel’s intention “to mislead 

rather than to inform.” Id. Consequently, we find Noel violated rule 

32:8.4(c) for claiming excessive mileage, in addition to his violation of rule 

32:8.4(b) for billing for family team meetings he did not attend.

D. Sanction. Noel maintains a ninety-day suspension of his 

license to practice law in Iowa is more appropriate, while the Board 

continues to request a suspension of Noel’s license for at least one year. 

In determining the appropriate sanction for attorney misconduct, we 

examine “the nature of the alleged violations, the need for deterrence, 

protection of the public, maintenance of the reputation of the bar as a 

whole, and [the attorney’s] fitness to continue in the practice of law.” 

Mathahs, 918 N.W.2d at 494 (alteration in original) (quoting Iowa Supreme 

Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Laing, 832 N.W.2d 366, 367–68 (Iowa 2013)). 

We also evaluate any mitigating and aggravating factors, as well as prior 

similar cases while keeping in mind “their limited usefulness due to the 

variations in their facts.” Id. (quoting Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary 

Bd. v. Casey, 761 N.W.2d 53, 62 (Iowa 2009)). 

Generally, our sanctions for attorneys who charge and collect 

unreasonable fees range from sixty days to two years. Id. at 495. In 
20

Mathahs, we recently suspended an attorney’s license for sixty days for 

violating rule 32:1.5(a) (prohibiting unreasonable fees) by billing the SPD 

for excessive hours and mileage and rule 32:5.3(b) (requiring attorney 

reasonably ensure conduct of nonlawyer under attorney’s supervision 

conforms to the professional obligations of a lawyer) by failing to 

adequately supervise his secretary. Mathahs, 918 N.W.2d at 493–94, 496–

97. In reaching this sanction, we noted Mathahs fully cooperated with the 

investigations into his billing practices and the board, acknowledged his 

responsibility for the errors, and had a record of community service and 

pro bono work. He also took corrective action by making voluntary 

restitution and offering to reimburse the SPD for additional funds. Id. at 

497–99. Additionally, we considered the office of the attorney general’s 

(AG) investigation into Mathahs, which was closed without filing any

criminal charges. Id. at 497. The AG found Mathahs’s billable hours “were 

high but believable” and “could not locate any billings for events that did 

not actually occur.” Id. The AG also concluded “the billing errors appeared 

much more like accidental and less like intentional theft” due to secretarial 

issues. Id.

In contrast, in Iowa Supreme Court Board of Professional Ethics & 

Conduct v. Tofflemire, we suspended an attorney’s license indefinitely with 

no possibility of reinstatement for two years because the attorney took sick 

leave from her full-time employment with the Iowa Workforce Development 

while claiming to perform SPD work and billed substantial hours of work 

to the SPD that were sometimes in excess of twenty-four hours for a given 

date. 689 N.W.2d 83, 90–92, 95 (Iowa 2004). In doing so, we considered 

a number of aggravating factors that led to our sanction. While Tofflemire 

admitted to sloppy recordkeeping practices and other issues that 

contributed to her wrongdoing, each of her acknowledgments was 
21

“followed by an excuse, evidencing a lack of an actual appreciation of her 

wrongful conduct.” Id. at 93. We were also troubled by Tofflemire’s pattern 

of deception, as she engaged in the same deceitful conduct multiple times, 

and her evasive conduct before the commission. Id. at 92, 94. Ultimately, 

we decided to increase the commission’s recommended suspension of her 

license for a minimum of thirty days to two years, id. at 85, 94, reiterating 

that “[f]undamental honesty is the base line and mandatory requirement 

to serve the legal profession,” id. at 94 (quoting Comm. on Prof’l Ethics & 

Conduct v. Bauerle, 460 N.W.2d 452, 453 (Iowa 1990)).

We find Noel’s case is somewhere in between Mathahs and 

Tofflemire, though it is more analogous to Tofflemire, and we agree with 

the commission’s recommended sanction of an indefinite suspension of 

Noel’s license to practice law for a period of at least one year from the filing 

date of this opinion. Unlike in Mathahs, the auditor’s investigation into 

Noel’s misconduct resulted in two criminal convictions for fourth-degree 

theft, and Noel both admitted to and was convicted of billing for events 

that he did not actually attend. Despite these convictions, like in

Tofflemire, Noel continues to maintain any misrepresentations he made in 

billing for family team meetings and mileage “were the results of honest 

mistakes.” Id. at 93. While Noel acknowledged his billing problems, he 

follows each of his statements with an excuse, “evidencing a lack of an 

actual appreciation of [his] wrongful conduct.” Id. These excuses range 

from a claim that he is the victim of selective prosecution because the 

commission’s recommended sanction is “inconsistent with sanctions 

imposed upon other individuals who have exhibited similar behavior”2 to 

a claim of mere “sloppiness and negligence” in his billing.

 2Noel does not provide us with any authority to support his argument that the 

Board must take an all or nothing approach to professional regulation by investigating 
22

Further, Noel engaged in repeated deception over a period of years, 

resulting in $14,697.45 of overpayment to him from the SPD, and the SPD 

and Board spent numerous hours analyzing his account for the 

discrepancies. See id. at 94 (“What is troubling here is that instead of an 

isolated instance of misrepresentation, there was repeated deception.”); 

see also Mathahs, 918 N.W.2d at 499 (considering “the nature and extent 

of the amount of funds that Mathahs improperly collected from the SPD” 

and the numerous hours spent analyzing his account as aggravating

factors). “[A]ttorneys who have engaged in misrepresentation and deceit 

have received lengthy suspensions because such conduct ‘constitutes a 

grave and serious breach of professional ethics.’ ” Tofflemire, 689 N.W.2d 

at 93–94 (quoting Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct v. Stein, 

603 N.W.2d 574, 576 (Iowa 1999)). Although Noel claims he found out in 

June 2013 that he had been incorrectly overbilling the SPD for his mileage, 

Noel never contacted the SPD to remedy this problem until after Langholz 

informed him of the SPD’s concerns and its desire to no longer contract 

with him. “The chronology tends to deflate consideration of remorse and 

cooperation as mitigating factors.” Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. 

v. McGinness, 844 N.W.2d 456, 467 (Iowa 2014).

When Langholz contacted Noel about the billing issues, Noel had 

only been practicing for approximately five years. While inexperience is 

typically a mitigating factor, see Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. 

Turner, 918 N.W.2d 130, 155 (Iowa 2018) (discussing inexperience as a 

mitigating factor), that is not the case in this situation. Noel repeatedly 

billed for meetings he did not attend and made false mileage claims. 

 

all of the attorneys named in the auditor’s report regarding the SPD. In any event, we 

evaluate each attorney disciplinary case based on the individual circumstances present 

without consideration to whether other attorneys have been disciplined for similar 

behavior.
23

“Lawyers of any level of experience would understand that such actions 

are deplorable.” Id. (finding inexperience not mitigating factor for 

repeatedly missing court hearings and making misrepresentations to the 

court). Additionally, Noel applied for and was appointed as a magistrate 

in 2013, which further undermines the role inexperience plays as a 

mitigating factor. As a magistrate, he was tasked with administering the 

law, yet he violated the law himself and diminished “public confidence in 

the legal profession” in the process. Wheeler, 824 N.W.2d at 510 (quoting 

Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Keele, 795 N.W.2d 507, 512 

(Iowa 2011)).

Nevertheless, there are some mitigating factors in this case that 

warrant a suspension less than Tofflemire’s indefinite two-year 

suspension. Pursuant to his restitution order, Noel has reimbursed the 

SPD for the duplicate mileage expenses and improper billings. See 

Mathahs, 918 N.W.2d at 499. He also has demonstrated respect within 

the legal community by submitting affidavits of his character from local 

judges. See Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Springer, 904 

N.W.2d 589, 597 (Iowa 2017). Additionally, Noel has since taken measures 

to implement better recordkeeping and billing practices. See Iowa 

Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Barnhill, 847 N.W.2d 466, 486 (Iowa 

2014) (holding “corrective measures to address previous misconduct are a 

mitigating factor”). Moreover, Noel has no prior history of disciplinary 

action, though his misconduct did begin shortly after he was admitted to 

the bar. See Tofflemire, 689 N.W.2d at 92.

Upon our de novo review of the record and consideration of the 

mitigating and aggravating factors, we suspend Noel’s license for an 

indefinite period of at least one year from the date of filing this opinion.
24

IV. Conclusion.

We suspend Noel’s license to practice law in Iowa indefinitely for a 

period of at least one year from the date of filing this opinion. This 

suspension applies to all facets of the practice of law. Iowa Ct. R. 34.23(3). 

Noel is required to notify all clients as outlined in Iowa Court Rule 34.24. 

Additionally, to establish his eligibility for reinstatement, Noel must file an 

application for reinstatement pursuant to the requirements of Iowa Court 

Rule 34.25. We tax the costs of this action to Noel in accordance with Iowa 

Court Rule 36.24(1).

LICENSE SUSPENDED.
25

#18–1229, Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Noel

WIGGINS, Justice (dissenting).

I dissent. 

Noel pled guilty to theft in violation of Iowa Code sections 714.1(3), 

714.2(4), and 714.3 (2013). The Code provides,

A person commits theft when the person does any of the 

following:

. . . .

3. Obtains the labor or services of another, or a transfer 

of possession, control, or ownership of the property of 

another, or the beneficial use of property of another, by 

deception.

Id. § 714.1(3).

The applicable definition of “deception” under the Code consists of 

knowingly “[c]reating or confirming another’s belief or impression as to the 

existence or nonexistence of a fact or condition which is false and which 

the actor does not believe to be true.” Id. § 702.9(1). This definition makes 

fraud an element of theft by deception. See State v. Wilson, 573 N.W.2d 

248, 252 (Iowa 1998). By pleading guilty, Noel acknowledged that at the 

time he submitted his claims with the Iowa State Public Defender, he 

knowingly committed fraud in violation of the law.

As I have previously said,

We, as a court and as the regulatory body for our 

profession, have an obligation to protect the public from 

dishonest attorneys. I echo the beginning of this dissent—

dishonesty is a trait that disqualifies a person from the practice 

of law. A person who uses his law license to steal money or 

aids another to do so is per se unfit to practice law. Cases like 

this give the public the perception that a license to practice 

law is a license to steal.
26

Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Bieber, 824 N.W.2d 514, 534 

(Iowa 2012) (Wiggins, J., dissenting). 

For the reasons stated in my dissent in Bieber, I would revoke Noel’s 

license to practice law. See id. at 530–34. A revocation allows him the 

opportunity to reapply for his license after at least five years under our 

recently amended Iowa Court Rule 34.25(7)–(9) (2018).