Opinion ID: 4542710
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Ethical Violation.

Text: Iowa Rule of Professional Conduct 32:8.4(g) establishes that it is professional misconduct for an attorney to “engage in sexual harassment or other unlawful discrimination in the practice of law.” Iowa R. Prof’l Conduct 32:8.4(g). We define “sexual harassment” broadly, and it “encompasses ‘any physical or verbal act of a sexual nature that has no legitimate place in a legal setting.’ ” Stansberry, 922 N.W.2d at 597 (quoting Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Moothart, 860 N.W.2d 598, 604 (Iowa 2015)). We do not require the sexually harassing conduct to be unwelcome or “more than an occasional stray comment.” Moothart, 860 N.W.2d at 604. An attorney may violate this rule “even if there is no attorney–client relationship between the lawyer and the person subject to sexual harassment, as long as the attorney is engaged in the practice of law.” Id. at 603. This includes the sexual harassment of “witnesses, court personnel, law partners, law-office employees, or other third parties that come into contact with a lawyer engaged in the practice of law.” Id. Our past attorney disciplinary cases regarding sexual harassment have generally involved attorneys who engage in behaviors that could be considered “come-ons”—conduct like making sexual advances, requesting sexual favors, or engaging in other acts of an overtly sexual nature. See, e.g., id. at 602–04. Nevertheless, sexual harassment also encompasses what could be considered “put downs,” in the form of gender harassment that is aimed at degrading or demeaning women, often to maintain gender hierarchy. Louise F. Fitzgerald & Lilia M. Cortina, Sexual Harassment in Work Organizations: A View From the Twenty-First Century, in 1 APA 9 Handbook of Psychology of Women 6–7 (Cheryl B. Travis & Jacquelyn W. White, eds., 2018) [hereinafter Fitzgerald & Cortina]; see Brian Soucek & Vicki Schultz, Sexual Harassment by Any Other Name, 2019 U. Chi. Legal F. 227, 231–33 [hereinafter Soucek & Schultz]. The “ ‘[g]arden variety’ gender harassment . . . includes ‘woman bashing’ jokes, insults about [women’s] incompetence, the irrelevance or sexual unattractiveness of older women, and comments that women have no place in certain kinds of jobs.” Fitzgerald & Cortina at 7. In a “more pernicious form,” it includes “referring to women by degraded names for body parts, pornographic images, [and] crude comments about female sexuality or sexual activity.” Id. This discrimination does not require an individual woman to serve as its target or unwanted sexual overtures, nor does it need to be explicitly linked to any job or consideration. Id. at 7–8, 26. Watkins’s behavior in this case virtually ran the whole gamut of the actions mentioned above. For example, Watkins made a sexually driven “joke” about a floor cleaner called “Bona” in the presence of Doe and the women who were cleaning his office. In reference to a female client, Watkins told Doe, “Man, I wouldn’t want to see her naked.” On another occasion, he told Doe that he needed to see if a certain courthouse employee “wore a padded bra or if her boobs were really that big.” He referred to a local female attorney as “T.Queef,” which is a term that describes the emission of air from the vagina. Moreover, he told Doe that her “boobs [were] distracting him” and that she should wear that same shirt if she “ever went clubbing.” Watkins also asked Doe on multiple occasions if “her vagina was still broke” after she missed work once for a gynecology appointment. Further, Watkins told Doe that “he just wished he had a wife that had sex with him all the 10 time” and that he was glad he collected and kept naked pictures of his former girlfriends. Watkins showed Doe a picture on his cell phone of his wife’s vagina. On another occasion, Watkins showed Doe a video of his wife squirting breast milk in the back seat of Doe’s vehicle. Watkins also kept naked photographs of his wife on his computer, and he showed the ACA one of these photos in which his wife was pregnant, nude, and covered in blue paint. Additionally, Watkins appeared before Doe wearing only his boxer briefs on at least two occasions. Based on these facts, we agree with the commission that Watkins violated rule 32:8.4(g).